World Development 114 (2019) 314–325

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Barriers to skill acquisition: Evidence from English training in India

Tarun Jain a, Pushkar Maitra b,⇑, Subha Mani c
a
Indian School of Business, India
b
Monash University, Australia
c
Fordham University and IZA, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Skill development is viewed as an escape from the low education – high unemployment trap in develop-
Accepted 25 October 2018 ing countries. Despite investments in skill development programs, participation and completion rates in
Available online 9 November 2018 many programs remain low. We investigate factors that prevent individuals from acquiring spoken
English, a skill with potentially high returns in the labour market. Using data from a field experiment
JEL Codes: in India, we find that offering subsidies increases the probability of participating in a spoken English
I25 training program. Simultaneously, distance to the training center, pre-existing knowledge of spoken
J24
English, and past enrolment in a similar course act as significant barriers to take-up. These findings sug-
J44
gest that multidimensional policy solutions are required to overcome barriers to skill development in
Keywords: developing countries.
Skill development Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Vocational training
Spoken English
Field experiment
India

1. Introduction higher than the average return to an additional year of schooling.1

The rapid transition from primary to secondary and tertiary sec-
tor employment has increased the demand for skilled workers in
many developing countries. As a result, policy attention has moved
beyond the school, to investments in short-term skill development
programs (World Bank, 2008). While the returns from focused skill
development programs are potentially high, factors that facilitate
the success of such programs, including program take-up are
poorly understood.
Drawing on the case of spoken English training for students
about to enter the job market in India, this paper investigates the
multi-dimensional constraints that act as a barrier to participation
in these programs, even when the economic returns are potentially
considerable. In the Indian context, the value of improved spoken
English skills in terms of labor market outcomes is substantial.
Azam, Chin, and Prakash (2013) estimate that speaking fluently in
English is associated with 32% higher earnings, i.e., four times
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tj9d@virginia.edu (T. Jain), pushkar.maitra@monash.edu
(P. Maitra), smani@fordham.edu (S. Mani).
However, despite the high returns, very few adults engaged in wage
employment in India report speaking English fluently or moderately.2
Why is investment in acquiring spoken English language skills
in India so low? Very few studies investigate this question, with
the costs associated with acquiring spoken English fluency unex-
plored in the literature. The potential costs include resource con-
straints (students might not be able to invest in vocational
training courses that yield benefits many years in the future), dis-
tance, time, and effort costs as well as soft (psychological) barriers
(for instance, individuals who overestimate their English language
1
Levinsohn (2007) and Lang and Siniver (2009) examine the returns to spoken
English skills in South Africa and Israel respectively where English is not the
dominant language. A related literature investigates the economic and non-economic
impacts of spoken English language skills among individuals who immigrated to the
United States as children, Bleakley and Chin (2004) show that a person who speaks
English very well earns 67% more, and a person who speaks English well earns 33%
more compared to a person who speaks English poorly. Much of the returns is
mediated through improved years of schooling among the immigrant children.
Bleakley and Chin (2010) also report that English language proficiency among
immigrants in the U.S. significantly increases the probability of marrying a U.S. native,
having a more educated and higher-earning spouse, and having fewer children.
2
Specifically. 4% of men and 2% of women engaged in wage employment in India
report speaking English fluently. At best, these proportions rise to 16% and 6%
respectively when we consider speaking some English.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.10.011
0305-750X/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325
ability are unlikely to enrol in programs that improve fluency).3
This paper adds to the literature on skill development in developing
countries, by examining the barriers to acquiring economically valu-
able skills.
Using data from a field experiment conducted among urban col-
lege students in India, this paper examines barriers that prevent
acquisition of spoken English language skills. In the experiment,
college students in Hyderabad in India are randomly offered
vouchers that offer full (100%), partial (50%), or no (0%) subsidy
towards the cost of a spoken English language program. We use
a mix of baseline and follow up data to understand the determi-
nants of enrolment in the program. Exogenously varying the sub-
sidy for the program allows us to estimate the causal effect, free
of selection bias, of the price of the program on take-up.
English has a unique role in the skills spectrum. English is the
third most spoken language in the world and in the past decade,
the importance of English in developing countries has increased
as millions of jobs that require fluency in spoken English have been
off-shored from the developed world (Mankiw & Swagel, 2006).4
English is the most prominent language of instruction in universities
around the world and used widely for broadcasting international
news. In many work environments, English fluency is increasingly
viewed as a key skill for success and mobility. In the context of policy
in India, the country’s New Education Policy draft emphasized the
importance of teaching English as part of the three-language formula
in schools (Subramanian, 2016).
A number of interesting findings emerge from our analysis.
First, we find economic resources to be a significant barrier to
take-up even among college graduates in urban Hyderabad in
India. Participants who receive the full subsidy are 23% more likely
to take-up the program compared to participants who receive no
subsidy, corresponding to an own price elasticity of
2.3. The
take-up rate is 10% greater in the partial subsidy group compared
to no subsidy, which implies a similar elasticity of
1.8. Second, we
find that local access is important and that the distance to the
training center is a significant barrier to take-up. Third, we find
that pre-existing knowledge of spoken English and past enrolment
in a similar course are both negatively associated with take-up.
Fourth, individuals who speak Urdu at home are less likely to
take-up the program. Finally, family background characteristics
such as religion, gender, caste, household size, and household
assets have no influence on take-up. Except the subsidy, other con-
straints to participation are not varied experimentally and there-
fore their influence on take-up does not have a causal
interpretation. Overall, our findings indicate the need for multi-
faceted policy solutions that integrate language proficiency courses
into mainstream schooling and college education.
2. Experimental design
2.1. Program description
We examine the impact of subsidies on participating in a speci-
fic spoken English program offered by a private firm, Veta.5 Veta
was established in 1981 and has national presence with over 250
centers across 140 cities in India. The spoken English course offered
by Veta provides 80 h of instruction over eight weeks. Each session
lasts for two hours, and students are assessed at the end of the
3
Shastry (2012) argues that within India, residents of regions with greater
linguistic distance from Hindi (the dominant vernacular) were more likely to learn
English.
4
Importantly, these new service sector jobs in the developing world are often
associated with higher economic and social returns (Chamarbagwala & Sharma,
2011).
5 6
See http://www.veta.in.
315
course. The program is bilingual in English and the dominant local
language in order to make communication between teachers and
students easier. The full price of the course is Rs. 2000 (US $40 at
the exchange rate at the time of the intervention). The program
structure mirrors that of many other commercial providers that we
surveyed as part of formative research for this study. At the time
of the study, eight Veta centers operated in Hyderabad, located in
different parts of the city. During a pilot survey conducted among
college students, respondents reported being aware of Veta’s pres-
ence and the location of their centres in Hyderabad. The same survey
indicated that Veta’s quality was not perceived any differently from
that of competing firms.
The course focuses on aspects of spoken English that are rele-
vant in a white-collar professional environment such as interview-
ing and interacting with customers and colleagues. Sample topics
include introducing oneself, greeting others, discussing job, busi-
ness and places (including ‘‘small talk”), giving instructions, asking
questions, inviting, reporting, thanking, and apologizing. The
course uses classroom instruction, peer discussions, and electronic
media to build vocabulary and improve phonetics (initials and
finals, English phonetic alphabet, tones, neutral tone, change in
intonation etc.). At the end of the course, Veta issues a certificate
of completion to each participant. As noted earlier, the average
returns to both fluent as well as moderate spoken English remains
high in India, and this is likely to be even more for students inter-
ested in joining the service sector industry where these skills are a
potentially important component of productivity.
2.2. Target population and sample selection
The program described above was implemented in Hyderabad,
a metropolitan city in south India. Hyderabad has a large tradi-
tional sector where Urdu and Telugu are widely used. In addition,
Hyderabad has a large modern sector with information technology,
business process outsourcing and biotechnology firms where Eng-
lish is the dominant medium of communication. Hence, a worker
who learns English can potentially transition from traditional to
modern sector employment with considerably higher earnings.
Using the Azam et al. (2013) methodology with India Human
Development Survey (2005) data, we estimate that in Hyderabad,
speaking fluent English is associated with 44.2% higher earnings
and speaking a little English is associated with 36.2% higher earn-
ings, both compared to not speaking any English; both estimates
are higher than the corresponding national average.6
The primary (intended) beneficiaries of this intervention are
20–24 year old college students in the final year of an undergrad-
uate program. Students could benefit from the English course for
a number of reasons. First, students are likely to enter the formal
labour market after completing their undergraduate degree. Some
of these jobs may be more directly tied to fluency in spoken English
compared to blue collar jobs attained after completing high school.
Since many college graduates from the city might seek employ-
ment in the modern service sector, we expect a considerable return
to investing in spoken English skills. Conversely, a number of stu-
dents might continue education to the postgraduate stage, where
the medium of instruction is almost uniformly English. Many stu-
dents might also marry at this stage, and better spoken English
skills could affect who they are matched with in the marriage
market.
We started with a list of all colleges affiliated to Osmania
University, a large undergraduate university located in Hyderabad.
From this list, we randomly selected a set of 16 colleges to target.
In the last quarter of 2011, we conducted a complete census of
The results are available upon request.
316 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325

third year students enrolled in these colleges.7 The census collected
information on individual’s age, gender, permanent residence, self-
reported measure of spoken English, and perceptions about benefits
from improving spoken English skills. Based on this census, we
excluded all students who resided in a hostel since temporary
migrants to the city are more difficult to track. We also exclude all
individuals who self-report their ability to speak in English as ‘‘very
fluent”, because those that report being able to speak English very
fluently would be uninterested in a spoken English training course.8
We randomly selected 755 college students from the Census
(this is our target sample) to participate in a longer survey.9 Each
individual who completed the baseline survey, at the end of the sur-
vey was randomly assigned to receive a voucher of one of the follow-
ing amounts: Rs. 2000 ( US $40 (Gold)), Rs. 1000 ( US $20
(Silver)), and Rs. 0 (Bronze). Of these 755 students in our target sam-
ple, 444 (approximately 60%) completed the baseline survey (this is
our full sample). The vouchers were offered after the survey was
completed in order to prevent differential survey responses (and
associated selection concerns) by treatment status.
Column 1 of Table 1 uses the census data to present summary
statistics on our target sample. A little over half the respondents
(51.3%) in the census reported that they spoke English fluently. Of
the remaining, 45.4% answered that they knew a ‘‘little English”,
which is consistent with many students without English medium
education enrolling in a university where they are taught primarily
in English. Nonetheless, more than 90% of the respondents expressed
a desire to improve their spoken English skills, citing improved job
prospects (12.2%), communications skills (35.2%), confidence
(49.0%), and marriage market outcomes (1.1%) as motivations for
doing so. A majority (56.5%) reported that they planned to enrol in
a spoken English language program to improve their skills, although
few (13.5%) knew about the cost of such a program. A comparison of
observable characteristics between participants and non-
participants of the baseline survey are reported in Table 1, which
shows that individuals that participated in the baseline survey are
not systematically different from those who chose not to participate
in the survey (see Column 4 of Table 1). Our full sample (that is, base-
line survey respondents) is thus representative of the target sample.
Our treatment entails randomly allocating vouchers in varying
amounts that subsidizes the cost of obtaining the spoken English
language course to our baseline survey respondents in the study.
Students were randomly allocated vouchers that covered 100% (Gold
voucher), 50% (Silver voucher) or 0% (Bronze voucher) of the program
price, which also represents the different treatments. Students could
enrol in any Veta center in Hyderabad. The information about the
Veta course was given to all participants including the control group,
that is, Bronze group and hence, the treatment is a pure subsidy
effect. The provision of vouchers of different amounts plays several
important roles. First, analysis of the take-up rate based on random
assignment to the different treatment groups (defined by the three
different subsidy amounts) allows us to estimate the effect of subsi-
dies on participation in a spoken English course that is free of selec-
tion bias. Second, the provision of vouchers allows us to inform
policy makers about the role of subsidies in improving skill accumu-
lation in India. Finally, variation in take-up by voucher amount can
inform policy makers about the magnitude of the subsidy that is
required to maximize take-up (and consequently, returns).
To minimize risks from possible contamination bias, vouchers
were designed to be tamper proof, non-transferable, and expire
7
An enumerator conducted the census at each college on a single day. Students
who were absent from college on that day are not part of our census. Hence,
chronically absent students are disproportionately missing from the census.
8
Approximately 4% of the students reported being able to speak in English ‘‘very
fluently”.
9
The size of our target sample was driven by budget constraints.
within 12 weeks of issue. During the baseline survey, enumerators
took pictures of the respondents. These pictures along with the
voucher’s unique id and amount were given to Veta to ensure that
the vouchers are used only by the study participants to whom they
were assigned and not traded to anyone else. See Fig. 1 for a sample
voucher.
3. Data
The baseline survey was conducted between December 2011
and March 2012, and collected data on household demographic
characteristics (age, gender, education, etc. of all members in the
household), household assets, educational loans, and detailed indi-
vidual level information on labour market outcomes (casual wage
employment, permanent wage employment, self-employment,
earnings, job interview performance, job search, duration of
employment, hours worked), life satisfaction measures (happiness
at work, happiness at home), preference parameters (present
biased, expected returns from English language skill accumulation
measured using Likert scales), bargaining power (questions on
household decision making, participation in rotating savings and
credit associations), mode of transportation to college, distance
to college, and measures on the quality of English language skill
already accumulated.
Column 1 of Table 2 presents the averages for the full sample.
The sample is balanced by gender (49% of the sample are male),
with an average age of 20 years with little variation in age. The
majority of the sample are Hindus, belonging to upper (general)
caste (35% belong to Other Backward Classes or OBC, 9% belong
to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or SC-ST),10 and belong
to households with 4.5 members on average. The majority (80%) of
the sample are enrolled in Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) and Bachelor
or Commerce (B.Com.) degree programs. Sixty-three percent speak
Telugu which is the state language of Telangana (where Hyderabad
is located), 11% speak Hindi which is spoken by the largest fraction
of the Indian population, and 9% speak Urdu which is spoken by
many Muslim residents of Hyderabad.
3.1. Measuring spoken English skills
The baseline survey asks participants for subjective (self-
reported and self-assessed) measures of spoken English skills by
ranking their ability to speak fluently in English on a scale of 1
(‘‘Excellent”) to 5 (‘‘cannot speak English”), which are re-coded to
a scale of 1–3 (1: good; 2: average; 3: poor). However, this subjec-
tive measure is likely to suffer from systematic measurement error.
To mitigate this problem, we devise an additional measure of spo-
ken English skills that is less susceptible to measurement error.
Enumerators asked respondents to translate a passage from their
mother tongue (Telugu, Urdu, or Hindi) into English. Two indepen-
dent graders assessed each voice recording. These were again
coded on a scale of 1 to 5 (From ‘‘excellent” to ‘‘cannot speak Eng-
lish”) and re-coded on a 3-point scale (1: good; 2: average; 3:
poor). The final grade allocated to each participant was the average
of the grades assigned by the two graders. Fig. A.1 in the Appendix
shows the original Telegu version of the passage to be translated as
well as the English version.
Our survey design enables us to estimate the deviation between
an individual’s self-reported ability to speak in English and their
objectively measured ability to speak in English. Fig. 2 shows that
on average, individuals have an inflated view of their spoken
English skills. Less than 6% of individuals report having poor or
10
Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs)
are historically marginalized groups of India.
 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325 317

Table 1
Summary Statistics on Survey Participants and Non-participants.

Mean
Target sample Not surveyed Surveyedy Difference
(1) (2) (3) (4 = 2–3)
Fluent English 0.513 0.540 0.493 0.047
(0.500) (0.499) (0.501) (0.037)
Little English 0.454 0.434 0.468
0.034
(0.498) (0.496) (0.500) (0.037)
No English 0.033 0.026 0.038
0.012
(0.179) (0.159) (0.192) (0.013)
Want to learn how to speak English better 0.903 0.920 0.892 0.028
(0.296) (0.272) (0.311) (0.022)
Value of able to speak English better: Jobs 0.122 0.113 0.128
0.016
(0.327) (0.317) (0.335) (0.024)
Value of able to speak English better: Communicate 0.352 0.341 0.360
0.020
(0.478) (0.475) (0.481) (0.035)
Value of able to speak English better: Confidence 0.490 0.527 0.464 0.063
(0.500) (0.500) (0.499) (0.037)
Value of able to speak English better: Marriage 0.011 0.009 0.011
0.002
(0.102) (0.098) (0.106) (0.007)
Planning to enrol in an English language course 0.566 0.572 0.561 0.011
(0.496) (0.496) (0.497) (0.037)
Know cost of such a course 0.135 0.154 0.121 0.033
(0.342) (0.362) (0.327) (0.025)
Degree: B.Sc. 0.287 0.280 0.293
0.013
(0.453) (0.450) (0.456) (0.033)
Degree: B.Com. 0.509 0.511 0.507 0.004
(0.500) (0.501) (0.501) (0.037)
Other degree 0.192 0.206 0.182 0.023
(0.394) (0.405) (0.387) (0.029)
Sample size 755 311 444

Notes:  p < 0:01;  p < 0:05;  p < 0:10. In Columns 1–3, standard deviations reported in parentheses. In Column 4, standard errors reported in parentheses.
y
Full sample.

no spoken English skills, whereas the objective measure shows

almost 40% have poor or no spoken English skills. While 55% of
the participants self-report good spoken English skills, the objec-
tive measure reports that only 20% actually have good spoken Eng-
lish skills. There is little discrepancy among those who think their
spoken English skills are average – about 39% of the sample reports
average skills, a fraction that is similar to that reported by objective
measures. About 27% of individuals correctly evaluate their spoken
English ability (i.e., their self-reported and actual abilities match).
Fig. 3 summarizes these findings, with the size of the circles being
representative of the frequency associated with that combination
of objective and subjective measures of spoken English skills. In
summary, 61% of the participants have an inflated view of their
ability to speak in English. Even in the presence of full information
on the returns to spoken English skills, this asymmetric informa-
tion in knowledge about spoken English ability can result in low
take-up rates.11

11
If the difference between objective (true measure) and subjective (measured with
error) measures of spoken English were purely random, then the coefficient estimate
on self-reported spoken English in Azam et al. (2013) would be biased downwards
causing attenuation bias coming from classical measurement error in the indepen-
dent variable. However, if the difference between objective and subjective measures
of spoken English were systematically related to observables (and potentially
unobservables) then the coefficient estimate on self-reported spoken English in
Azam et al. (2013) could be biased in either (upwards or downwards) direction. We
conduct an additional regression analyszing the socio-economic determinants of
measurement error in spoken English and find that inconsistency between self-
reported and objective measure of spoken English is positively correlated to
household assets and age, while negatively related to caste (disadvantaged caste)
and mother tongue being Urdu. These inconsistencies suggest the presence of
systematic measurement error in self-reported spoken English. The corresponding
regression results are available on request. We investigate this issue further in
Fig. 1. Silver Voucher. Section 4.2 (below).
318 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325

Table 2
Randomization.

Full sample Bronze Silver Gold Equality

(p-v alue)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Objective measure of spoken English: Poor 0.40 0.338 0.389 0.440 0.053⁄
(0.49) (0.476) (0.489) (0.498)
Objective measure of spoken English: Average 0.396 0.481 0.400 0.357 0.05⁄
(0.49) (0.503) (0.491) (0.480)
Objective measure of spoken English: Good 0.202 0.182 0.211 0.203 0.729
(0.402) (0.388) (0.409) (0.404)
Self-reported measure of spoken English: Poor 0.056 0.065 0.049 0.060 0.97
(0.23) (0.248) (0.216) (0.239)
Self-reported measure of spoken English: Average 0.392 0.377 0.378 0.412 0.42
(0.488) (0.488) (0.486) (0.494)
Self-reported measure of spoken English: Good 0.552 0.558 0.573 0.527 0.52
(0.49) (0.500) (0.496) (0.501)
Enrolled in spoken English school before 0.10 0.104 0.097 0.099 0.94
(0.30) (0.307) (0.297) (0.299)
Inconsistency between self-reported and objective 0.727 0.103 0.702 0.747 0.55
measures of spoken English (0.445) (0.307) (0.458) (0.435)
Mother tongue: Hindi 0.112 0.130 0.124 0.093 0.13
(0.316) (0.338) (0.331) (0.292)
Mother tongue: Telugu 0.628 0.597 0.638 0.632 0.68
(0.483) (0.494) (0.482) (0.484)
Mother tongue: Urdu 0.092 0.078 0.108 0.082 0.84
(0.289) (0.270) (0.311) (0.276)
Distance from college to nearest Veta center in km 4.861 4.416 4.559 5.357 0.010⁄
(4.42) (4.411) (3.972) (4.815)
Distance from home to nearest Veta center in km 4.932 5.486 4.474 5.163 0.97
(3.946) (3.904) (3.274) (4.518)
Male 0.488 0.442 0.481 0.516 0.22
(0.50) (0.50) (0.501) (0.501)
Age 20.34 20.25 20.23 20.50 0.25
(2.15) (0.845) (1.269) (3.055)
SC-ST 0.09 0.078 0.081 0.104 0.29
(0.286) (0.270) (0.274) (0.307)
OBC 0.349 0.403 0.341 0.335 0.44
(0.477) (0.494) (0.475) (0.473)
Hindu 0.844 0.857 0.816 0.868 0.51
(0.362) (0.352) (0.388) (0.339)
Household size 4.542 4.506 4.476 4.626 0.27
(1.34) (1.096) (1.471) (1.306)
Asset index
0.010 0.204
0.040
0.071 0.40
(1.98) (2.55) (1.89) (1.78)
Degree: B.Sc. 0.292 0.260 0.357 0.242 0.23
(0.455) (0.441) (0.480) (0.429)
Degree: B.Com. 0.506 0.519 0.503 0.505 0.88
(0.50) (0.503) (0.501) (0.501)
Sample size 444 77 185 182

Notes: Columns 1–4 present means for the pooled sample and the three treatment arms (Gold, Silver, and Bronze). In Columns 1–4, standard deviations reported in
parentheses. In Column 5, we report p
v alues from an ordered probit regression of subsidy (=2 if Gold, =1 if Silver, =0 if Bronze) on each covariate separately.

p < 0:01;  p < 0:05;  p < 0:10. Standard errors in the ordered probit regressions are clustered at the college level.

We conducted a follow up telephone survey in May 2013 (one

year after the distribution of vouchers), where we successfully con-
tacted 384 of the original 444 participants.12 This survey collected
data on academic outcomes, objective data on participation rates
from Veta, reasons for non-participation in Veta, employment out-
comes (job characteristics, industry, wages, benefits etc.), and possi-
ble marital outcomes. This survey was designed to investigate the
reasons for low program take-up. Individuals who did not enrol were
asked why they did so, with Panel A in Fig. 4 summarizing the rea-
sons for non-participation. Almost 48% reported they were inter-
ested in improving their English skills, but could not enrol in the

Fig. 2. Objective vs. Subjective Measures of Spoken English.
12
Despite every effort to re-survey all 444 individuals in the full sample, 60 were
untraceable in person or by phone. Overall, only 13.5% of the sample is lost between
rounds. However, the attrition rate is almost identical across the three treatment
arms: 12% in Gold, 14.6% in Silver, and 14.3% in Bronze. We also ran a regression of
whether or not the individual could be re-surveyed on treatment status and neither
receiving a Gold or receiving a Silver voucher has a significant effect on the likelihood
of re-survey. Re-survey is also not statistically significantly related to voucher take-up
(p-v alue ¼ 0:6). The corresponding regression results are available on request.
 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325 319

the treatment arms (Gold, Silver, and Bronze). Table 2 presents

the baseline mean and standard deviation of all key variables used
in the analysis, for the full sample and also by treatment arms. Col-
umn 5 presents p-v alues from an ordered probit regression model,
where the dependent variable, subsidy (=2 if full subsidy, =1 if par-
tial subsidy, =0 if no subsidy) is individually regressed on each of
the covariates, showing that the baseline characteristics are not
different across the three treatment arms, except for performance
on the objective measure of spoken English (Average and Poor) and
distance from college to the nearest Veta center and even here the
magnitude of the differences are small. Additionally, Table 2 table
shows no significant differences in age and gender by treatment
status (see Column 5). All of this implies that there is baseline bal-
ance in covariates across treatments.

4. Empirical analysis

The overall take-up rate defined as the proportion of students

who join the Veta course is 10 percent. However, Fig. 5 shows that

Fig. 3. Under and Over Estimation of Spoken English.

program due to time and distance constraints. Another 20% were

either interested but could not commit because of personal reasons
or provided some other reason for not being interested. Approxi-
mately 32% of those who did not use the offer cited no interest in
either improving their skills or the program as the main reason for
non-participation.
Panel B of Fig. 4 presents reasons for non-participation by vou-
cher type. Larger subsidies increase the likelihood that participants
report distance and time commitments as more important barriers
to adoption, and decreases the likelihood of ‘‘not interested”. What
is notable is that distance continues to be a significant barrier to
program take-up that cannot be closed by subsidizing the cost of
the program.

3.2. Randomization and sample balance

Notes: Height of each bar represents average take-up rate for each voucher type.
An implication of our experimental design is that none of the
baseline characteristics should be significantly different across Fig. 5. Take-up Rate by Treatment Status.

Panel A: Full sample Panel B: By assigned voucher

Notes: Data collected using telephone survey conducted in May 2013, one year after baseline survey. Sample consists of 384 (out of 444) participants in full sample.

Fig. 4. Reasons for Non Take-up.

320 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325
the take-up rate varies considerably by treatment arms: only 1.3%
in the group that receives the Bronze voucher (no subsidy), 5.4% in
the group that receives the Silver voucher (partial subsidy) and
18.1% in the group that receives the Gold voucher (full subsidy).
Table 2 shows no significant differences in gender by treatment
status (see Column 5): the overall take-up rate in the sample is
10%, take-up rate among males is 11% and among females is 8%,
and the gender difference in take-up rates is not statistically signif-
icant (p-v alue ¼ 0:26). We also cannot reject the null of no gender
difference in take-up rates for each of the three treatment arms:
p-v alue ¼ 0:25 for Gold, p-v alue ¼ 0:90 for Silver, and
p-v alue ¼ 0:37 for Bronze.
Given substantial returns to spoken English in India and abroad,
why is enrolment in the course so low? The rest of this section
focusses on identifying the factors that influence program
participation.
4.1. Specification
To determine the factors that affect enrolment in Veta’s pro-
gram, we estimate the following regression.
X
K trolling for individual (demographic and socio-economic) controls
Take upi ¼ a0 þ a1 Goldi þ a2 Silveri þ cj Zij þ i ð1Þ
j¼1
where the dependent variable, Take upi ¼ 1 if individual i enrols in
the spoken English language course offered by Veta, and 0 other-
wise.13 We examine the impact of following observable factors on
Veta enrolment: (i) subsidies (Gold and Silver dummy variables,
where Bronze is the omitted category), (ii) distance to Veta training
center from both home and college (in km), (iii) knowledge of spoken
English skills (self-reported and objective), (iv) mother tongue
(Hindi, Telugu, and Urdu), and (v) socio-economic and demographic
characteristics (male, age, SC-ST, OBC, Hindu, household size, house-
hold assets, and degree enrolled in).14
We start with the most parsimonious specification in Column 1
of Table 3, which examines the effect of subsidies by including only
the two treatment dummies, Gold and Silver in the set of explana-
tory variables. Gold and Silver are indicator variables that are 1 if
the individual was given a Gold or Silver voucher, respectively,
and 0 otherwise. The reference category is the individual is
assigned a bronze voucher (i.e., 0 subsidy). Columns 2–5 estimate
a number of different specifications, with each successive column
sequentially and incrementally adding controls. Column 2 includes
a vector of demographic and socio-economic controls (age, gender,
caste, religion, household size, household assets, and the degree
enrolled in) that are also included in all the following
specifications.
In Column 3, we control for access to Veta center using distance
between the participant’s college and the nearest Veta center as
well as the distance from the participant’s home to the nearest
Veta center.15 The distance measures capture additional costs of
attending the program such as time costs and transportation costs.
Next in Column 4 we include objective (dummies for good and
average ability, poor ability is the reference category) and subjec-
tive (dummies for good and average ability, poor ability is the ref-
erence category) measures of spoken English ability (as discussed
13
This data is obtained from Veta’s administrative records.
14
SC
ST ¼ 1 if the student belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
group, and 0 otherwise. OBC ¼ 1 if the subject belongs to the Other Backward Classes.
The reference category is that the student belongs to an upper (general) caste. See
foonote #10 for a description of SC, ST, and OBC.
15
This distance is computed using Google Maps and does not take into account
time-varying traffic conditions or other factors that effect actual transportation costs.
in Section 3.1). The specification in Column 4 also controls for past
enrolment in a spoken English course. Finally, in Column 5 we also
control for the influence of mother tongue, i.e., the role of the dom-
inant language spoken at home, on acquiring spoken English skills.
4.2. Results
Table 3 presents the regression results as marginal effects from
a probit regression with robust standard errors, clustered at the
college level, in parentheses. The regression results for the most
parsimonious are presented in Column 1. Participants who receive
the Gold voucher are 23 percentage points more likely to enrol in
the program (p < 0:01) compared to individuals who receive no
subsidy. Receiving the Silver voucher increases the probability of
enrolling in the program by almost 10 percentage points (com-
pared to receiving the Bronze voucher/no subsidy); the effect is
statistically significant at the 10% level in several specifications.
The effect of receiving the Gold voucher is significantly different
from the effect of the Silver voucher (the null hypothesis,
Gold ¼ Silv er is consistently rejected at the 1% level). The magni-
tude of the type of voucher effects remain similar even when con-
in Column 2. We can interpret the estimated coefficients as elastic-
ities. Since a 100% reduction in price increases take up for the Gold
voucher by 23 percentage points (on a base of 10%), the corre-
sponding elasticity is
2.3. Similarly, the elasticity for the Silver
voucher which reduces prices by 50% is
1.8. These findings are
consistent with previous experimental research conducted in
developing countries that shows both that demand for a number
of high return investments in health and education are sensitive
to prices, and that the relationship between product price and
adoption is negative. For instance, Cohen and Dupas (2010)’s study
of demand for insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) in Kenya finds an
average price elasticity of
0.37 (at the mean price and purchase
probability).
Column 3 in Table 3 finds that local access is a significant driver
of program participation. Every additional kilometer from the col-
lege to the training center decreases the probability of enrolling in
the program by 0.7 percentage points (p < 0:10). The variable
becomes significant at the 5% level in Column 4. This result is fur-
ther corroborated by the non-parametric Lowess plot (see Fig. 6) of
take-up rate on the distance from college to the nearest Veta cen-
ter.16 To put this finding in perspective, note that an auto-rickshaw,
a popular mode of travel among youth, costs Rs. 9 per kilometer in
Hyderabad. The negative relationship between distance and program
take-up is well founded in the literature. Thornton (2008) finds a
negative relationship between distance to voluntary counseling
and testing center and learning HIV status in Malawi, Devoto,
Duflo, Dupas, Parienté, and Pons (2012) report that distance to the
closest public tap is positively related to adopting a piped water con-
nection in Morocco, and Suri (2011) records that the distance to fer-
tilizer provider is negatively related to fertilizer adoption even
among farmers who had the highest returns from using the fertilizer.
In our context, these findings are not surprising, since students
reported attending classes after college ends for the day. One policy
implication of this result therefore is that skill training centers
should be located near colleges to reduce transportation and time
costs associated with attendance.
The program is unlikely to benefit individuals with relatively
better spoken English skills. Consistent with this hypothesis, Col-
umn 4 in Table 3 finds that participants with good (self-
reported) spoken English skills are almost 6 percentage points less
16
The distance from home to nearest Veta center and take-up are uncorrelated.
 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325 321

Table 3
Determinants of Voucher Take-up.

Take-up Take-up Take-up Take-up Take-up

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Gold 0.233⁄⁄⁄ 0.222⁄⁄⁄ 0.230⁄⁄⁄ 0.215⁄⁄⁄ 0.221⁄⁄⁄
(0.074) (0.074) (0.074) (0.072) (0.070)
Silver 0.097⁄ 0.082 0.091⁄ 0.082⁄ 0.085⁄
(0.060) (0.059) (0.059) (0.055) (0.052)
Distance from college to nearest Veta center in km
0.007⁄
0.007⁄⁄
0.006⁄
(0.004) (0.003) (0.003)
Distance from home to nearest Veta center in km 0.003 0.002 0.002
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
Objective measure of spoken English: Good
0.060⁄⁄⁄
0.056⁄⁄⁄
(0.019) (0.018)
Objective measure of spoken English: Average
0.027
0.026
(0.030) (0.029)
Self-reported measure of spoken English: Good 0.042 0.040
(0.056) (0.052)
Self-reported measure of spoken English: Average 0.038 0.044
(0.065) (0.065)
Inconsistency between self-reported and objective
0.025
0.027
measures of spoken English (0.036) (0.035)
Enrolled in spoken English school before
0.034
0.037⁄⁄
(0.022) (0.018)
Mother tongue: Telugu
0.028
(0.028)
Mother tongue: Hindi 0.006
(0.034)
Mother tongue: Urdu
0.050⁄⁄
(0.023)
Degree: B.Sc. 0.146⁄⁄ 0.081 0.058 0.057
(0.070) (0.063) (0.059) (0.060)
Degree: B.Com. 0.075⁄ 0.026 0.015 0.018
(0.044) (0.042) (0.038) (0.039)
Male dummy 0.027 0.021 0.012 0.015
(0.022) (0.021) (0.019) (0.018)
Age in years 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004
(0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
SC-ST
0.017
0.018
0.012
0.008
(0.027) (0.025) (0.026) (0.028)
OBC 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.010
(0.023) (0.023) (0.021) (0.021)
Hindu
0.001 0.004 0.003
0.019
(0.032) (0.030) (0.026) (0.044)
Household size 0.009 0.007 0.005 0.005
(0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.006)
Asset index
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.005
(0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005)
Null: Gold = Silvery 13.93⁄⁄⁄ 16.81⁄⁄⁄ 17.83⁄⁄⁄ 19.68⁄⁄⁄ 21.98⁄⁄⁄
(p-value) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Sample size 444 444 444 444 444

Notes: Marginal effects from probit regressions presented. Robust standard errors in parentheses clustered at the college level. p < 0:01;  p < 0:05;  p < 0:10.
y
vð 2Þ test results testing equality between Gold and Silver coefficients.

likely to enrol in the program (p < 0:01). This result is qualitatively
consistent in Column 5 when additional factors that might impact
program participation are added to the specification. Similarly, Col-
umns 4 and 5 report that prior enrolment in a spoken English
course reduces program participation by 3.4 and 3.7 percentage
points, respectively, though statistically significant only in Column
5. This suggests that policy makers interested in efficient targeting
of language or skill training subsidies should incorporate screens to
exclude participants with pre-existing high quality skills or prior
experience in training programs.
Finally, the last specification also controls for mother tongue/-
dominant language spoken at home. Column 5 reports a 5 percent-
age point decline in program take-up rates if Urdu is the mother
tongue (p < 0:05). While most Urdu speakers in Hyderabad are
Muslims, this result most probably captures linguistic or cultural
factors rather than religious ones since the specification controls
for the participant’s religion. Results in Table 3 also do not show
significant influence of other socio-economic and demographic
characteristics on program take-up, a result that is consistent
across different specifications.17
Our findings should be placed in the context of other studies
that have also found significant barriers to take-up, completion,
and effectiveness of skill development programs. Field,
Jayachandran, and Pande (2010) report that traditional religious
and caste institutions in India restrict women’s ability to partici-
pate in a business training program in rural India. In contrast,
Dasgupta, Gangadharan, Maitra, Mani, and Subramanian (2015)
find that behavioural factors such as preferences for risk and com-
petition influence the decision to apply for a vocational training
17
Additional specifications explore the impact of the expected returns to learning
spoken English. We include measures on perceptions on whether spoken English
skills have a large impact on labour and marriage market outcomes. None of these
additional variables have a statistically significant effect on take-up rate and the
inclusion of these variables does not change the magnitude of the main coefficients of
interest. These results are available upon request from the authors.
322
Notes: Lowess plots presented. Where distance captures the distance from College to nearest Veta center and is
computed using Google Maps and does not take into account time-varying traffic conditions or other factors affecting
actual transportation costs.
Fig. 6. Distance and Take-up.
program in urban India. Maitra and Mani (2017) find that distance
to the training centre and lack of childcare facilities are significant
barriers to women completing and thereby maximizing value of a
subsidized training program. Jensen (2010) finds that in the
Dominican Republic, lack of information about returns to educa-
tion have significant impact on boys’ continuation to secondary
school.
4.3. Heterogeneity
We separately estimate the determinants of take-up by gender.
The associated results are reported in Panel A of Table A.1 in the
Appendix. Overall, our main findings related to treatment status
reported in Table 3 hold in the gender specific variants. For both
males and females, the take-up rate is significantly higher for Gold
voucher recipients, compared to Silver and Bronze voucher recipi-
ents. Additionally, for men, but not for women, Silver voucher
recipients have a greater likelihood of take-up compared to Bronze
voucher recipients.18
Panel B of Table A.1 presents the results for take-up based on
(self-reported) fluency in spoken English skills at the baseline,
i.e., separately for those that report being fluent and those that
have little or no spoken English skills. Irrespective of spoken Eng-
lish ability at the baseline, allocated a Gold voucher (relative to
being allocated a Bronze voucher) is associated with a significant
increase in the likelihood of take-up. For those fluent in spoken
English skills, the likelihood of take-up for Gold voucher recipients
is greater than that for Silver voucher recipients. Panel C of
Table A.1 presents the results on take-up by the educational attain-
ment of the household head (higher secondary schooling or higher
and secondary schooling or lower). Irrespective of the educational
attainment of the household head, Gold voucher recipients have a
significantly higher likelihood of take-up compared to both the Sil-
ver and Bronze voucher recipients. Finally, Panel D of Table A.1
presents the results on take-up by household assets (above median
and below median assets). Consistent with the results in Panels B
and C, irrespective of household assets, Gold voucher recipients
18
All results by sub-samples (Table A.1) use OLS regressions as small cell sizes in
the sub-sample result in convergence issues when we attempt to compute the probit
estimates. Additionally, we highlight that given the small sample size, these estimates
might be under-powered.
T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325
have a significantly higher likelihood of take-up compared to both
Silver and Bronze voucher recipients.
We also examine whether distance to the nearest Veta centre
(from college or home) has a differential impact on take-up
depending on the treatment. So we estimate an extended version
of Eq. (1) where we include interactions of the distance from col-
lege to the nearest Veta center and the distance from home to
the nearest Veta center with the randomly allocated voucher. The
regression results presented in Table A.2 show evidence of local
access differentially affecting take-up. For those randomly allo-
cated a Bronze voucher, a 1 km increase in the distance from col-
lege to the nearest Veta centre is associated with a 1.4–1.7
percentage point decrease in the likelihood of take-up. Surprisingly
for Bronze voucher recipients, a 1 km increase in the distance from
home to the nearest Veta centre is associated with a 1.5–1.6 per-
centage point increase in the likelihood of take-up. For Silver vou-
cher recipients, distance, either from home or from college, to the
nearest Veta centre is not associated with any effect on take-up.
Finally, for Gold voucher recipients, a 1 km increase in the distance
from college to the nearest Veta centre is associated with a 6.4–7.3
percentage point decrease in the likelihood of take-up. These find-
ings point to a distance penalty for the Gold and Bronze voucher
recipients, with much stronger penalty for Gold voucher recipients.
5. Discussion
Despite potentially high returns to English language fluency
documented by popular and scientific literature, few students
and workers invest in spoken English fluency. This paper illustrates
that a range of constraints bind when considering why enrolment
in spoken English courses is so low. Using a randomized field
experiment that subsidized the cost of learning spoken English
among college students in Hyderabad, we show that only a full
subsidy has a positive and significant impact on program enrol-
ment. Our results also show that distance, pre-existing ability
and experience significantly affect the likelihood of enrolling in
the program. Thus, consistent with the larger literature on factors
that influence participation in vocational training programs, we
find removing constraints associated with resources and other fac-
tors, especially distance and time costs, are important to increase
program enrolment.
These results should be read with a number of caveats. First,
just because we identify a set of barriers to English language acqui-
sition in this situation does not imply that our findings will readily
generalize to all settings. For example, we assume the availability
of service sector jobs with labour market returns to English skills
in urban Hyderabad. However, in areas with fewer opportunities
for service sector employment, lower returns to spoken English
might be an important barrier to investment in skill acquisition.
Our results are also perhaps specific to Veta’s program, and the
take-up rates might be significantly different for a program that
teaches different material, or teaches in a different way.
A related issue is that our experiment was conducted with a
specific population of final year undergraduate students. This
group might be particularly time constrained, for instance with
job search, and so experience relatively higher costs of program
attendance. An experiment with college students might also be
cognitively too late, since prior research has shown greater facility
for learning new languages early in life (Johnson & Newport, 1989;
Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999). Future research could examine
English language training earlier in life, for instance through
school-based programs that target younger populations and are
integrated into the curriculum to facilitate participation.
Finally, we do not explore the effects of peers and the broader
social environment in acquiring spoken English skills, which are
 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325 323

potentially important since learning new languages is inherently a important lesson for policy-makers investing in skill acquisition
social activity. Prior literature shows the influence of peer ability across the developing world.
on academic learning (Jain & Kapoor, 2015) and other outcomes
(Dasgupta et al., 2017) in college. Similarly, neighborhood effects
Acknowledgements
are also potentially influential in language acquisition. Future
research could illustrate the degree of these peer and neighbor-
Urvashi Jain, Benston John, Nikita Modi, and Priyanka Sarda
hood effects in English language acquisition. Given significant
provided excellent outstanding research assistance. We thank
inconsistencies in self-perception of ability and actual ability
two anonymous referees and participants at the NBER Neemrana
uncovered by this paper, future research could examine the role
Conference, the Australasian Development Economics Workshop
of social factors in perception formation, especially related to lan-
and the ISI Annual Conference on Growth and Development for
guage ability. If these social influences are large, then group subsi-
useful comments. IRB approval obtained from the Indian School
dies to learn English might be more effective than individually
of Business.
targeted ones.
Nonetheless, this paper emphasizes the importance of a multi-
dimensional approach to removing barriers to skill acquisition, an Appendix A

Fig. A.1. Test of Proficiency in Spoken English.

324 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325

Table A.1
Heterogeneity in Voucher Take-up.

Take-up Take-up Take-up Take-up Take-up Take-up Take-up Take-up Take-up Take-up
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Panel A: Heterogeneity by gender
Males Females
Gold 0.213⁄⁄⁄ 0.192⁄⁄⁄ 0.203⁄⁄⁄ 0.221⁄⁄⁄ 0.224⁄⁄⁄ 0.124⁄⁄⁄ 0.127⁄⁄⁄ 0.129⁄⁄⁄ 0.130⁄⁄⁄ 0.129⁄⁄⁄
(0.061) (0.057) (0.056) (0.060) (0.062) (0.042) (0.041) (0.042) (0.041) (0.041)
Silver 0.056⁄⁄ 0.032 0.048 0.064⁄ 0.071⁄⁄ 0.029 0.023 0.025 0.025 0.028
(0.022) (0.031) (0.032) (0.033) (0.033) (0.031) (0.038) (0.036) (0.038) (0.036)
Null: Gold = Silvery 5.72⁄⁄ 5.58⁄⁄ 5.63⁄⁄ 5.73⁄⁄ 5.61⁄⁄ 9.14⁄⁄⁄ 7.83⁄⁄⁄ 8.37⁄⁄⁄ 7.04⁄⁄ 8.43⁄⁄⁄
(p-value) (0.025) (0.026) (0.026) (0.024) (0.026) (0.0049) (0.0086) (0.0068) (0.0123) (0.006)
Sample size 217 227
Panel B: Heterogeneity by spoken English fluency
Fluent Little or no fluency
Gold 0.185⁄⁄⁄ 0.177⁄⁄⁄ 0.189⁄⁄⁄ 0.188⁄⁄⁄ 0.184⁄⁄⁄ 0.151⁄⁄⁄ 0.147⁄⁄⁄ 0.149⁄⁄⁄ 0.148⁄⁄⁄ 0.147⁄⁄⁄⁄
(0.044) (0.047) (0.049) (0.049) (0.050) (0.043) (0.041) (0.039) (0.039) (0.045)
Silver 0.005
0.005 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.089⁄⁄ 0.061 0.077⁄ 0.075⁄ 0.075⁄
(0.018) (0.022) (0.022) (0.021) (0.020) (0.034) (0.039) (0.038) (0.038) (0.042)
Null: Gold = Silvery 16.17⁄⁄⁄ 13.78⁄⁄⁄ 14.57⁄⁄⁄ 13.81⁄⁄⁄ 13.41⁄⁄⁄ 1.93 3.39⁄ 2.78 2.88 2.82
(p-value) (0.0003) (0.0007) (0.0005) (0.0007) (0.0008) (0.17) (0.07) (0.104) (0.098) (0.102)
Sample size 245 199
Panel C: Heterogeneity by household head’s education
Secondary or higher Less than secondary
Gold 0.137⁄⁄⁄ 0.132⁄⁄⁄ 0.136⁄⁄⁄ 0.128⁄⁄⁄ 0.128⁄⁄⁄ 0.297⁄⁄⁄ 0.313⁄⁄⁄ 0.330⁄⁄⁄ 0.344⁄⁄⁄ 0.350⁄⁄⁄
(0.034) (0.034) (0.032) (0.032) (0.031) (0.068) (0.089) (0.092) (0.096) (0.110)
Silver 0.030 0.021 0.027 0.023 0.023 0.078⁄ 0.082 0.106⁄ 0.100 0.104
(0.019) (0.023) (0.022) (0.023) (0.020) (0.040) (0.050) (0.056) (0.068) (0.077)
Null: Gold = Silvery 7.92⁄⁄⁄ 9.41 ⁄⁄⁄
9.30 ⁄⁄⁄
8.14⁄⁄⁄ 8.18⁄⁄⁄ 9.91⁄⁄⁄ 8.18 ⁄⁄⁄
6.91 ⁄⁄
6.71⁄⁄⁄ 5.66⁄⁄
(p-value) (0.007) (0.004) (0.0042) (0.007) (0.007) (0.003) (0.007) (0.0125) (0.014) (0.023)
Sample size 345 99
Panel D: Heterogeneity by household assets
Median or higher Less than median
Gold 0.169⁄⁄⁄ 0.168⁄⁄⁄ 0.180⁄⁄⁄ 0.168⁄⁄⁄ 0.175⁄⁄⁄ 0.166⁄⁄⁄ 0.162⁄⁄⁄ 0.161⁄⁄⁄ 0.151⁄⁄⁄ 0.153⁄⁄⁄
(0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.044) (0.048) (0.047) (0.049) (0.050) (0.049) (0.048)
Silver 0.066⁄⁄ 0.050 0.068⁄ 0.065⁄ 0.073⁄ 0.017 0.006 0.003
0.008 0.005
(0.027) (0.036) (0.038) (0.036) (0.037) (0.025) (0.024) (0.025) (0.027) (0.023)
Null: Gold = Silvery 4.55⁄⁄ 5.91⁄⁄ 6.07⁄⁄ 4.88⁄⁄ 5.13⁄⁄ 9.96⁄⁄⁄ 11.13⁄⁄⁄ 11.23⁄⁄⁄ 13.06⁄⁄⁄ 10.83⁄⁄⁄
(p-value) (0.04) (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.003) (0.002) (0.002) (0.0009) (0.0023)
Sample size 212 232
Socio-economic characteristics No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Distance to center No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Spoken English skills No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes
Mother tongue No No No No Yes No No No No Yes

Notes: OLS regression results presented.

Robust standard errors in parentheses clustered at the college level.  p < 0:01;  p < 0:05;  p < 0:10.
y
F test results testing equality between coefficients of receiving Gold and Silver vouchers.

Table A.2
Local Access and Take-up.

Take-up Take-up Take-up

(1) (2) (3)
Gold 0.388⁄⁄⁄ 0.369⁄⁄⁄ 0.384⁄⁄⁄
(0.080) (0.097) (0.104)
Silver 0.189⁄⁄⁄ 0.164⁄⁄ 0.163⁄⁄
(0.073) (0.068) (0.075)
Distance from college to nearest Veta center in km
0.018⁄⁄
0.018⁄
0.016⁄
(0.007) (0.009) (0.009)
Distance from college to nearest Veta center  Gold 0.011 0.011 0.009
(0.008) (0.010) (0.010)
Distance from college to nearest Veta center  Silver 0.014 0.015 0.015
(0.009) (0.010) (0.010)
Distance from home to nearest Veta center in km 0.016⁄⁄ 0.014⁄⁄ 0.013⁄⁄
(0.006) (0.006) (0.005)
Distance from home to nearest Veta center  Gold
0.014⁄⁄
0.013⁄⁄
0.012⁄⁄
(0.007) (0.007) (0.006)
Distance from home to nearest Veta center  Silver
0.013
0.012
0.011
(0.009) (0.008) (0.007)
Objective measure of spoken English: Good
0.051⁄⁄⁄
0.048⁄⁄⁄
(0.015) (0.014)
Objective measure of spoken English: Average
0.025
0.024
 T. Jain et al. / World Development 114 (2019) 314–325 325

Table A.2 (continued)

Take-up Take-up Take-up

(1) (2) (3)
(0.025) (0.024)
Self-reported measure of spoken English: Good 0.035 0.033
(0.048) (0.044)
Self-reported measure of spoken English: Average 0.034 0.039
(0.056) (0.056)
Inconsistency between self-reported and objective
0.024
0.025
measures of spoken English (0.031) (0.030)
Enrolled in spoken English school before
0.030⁄
0.033⁄⁄
(0.018) (0.015)
Mother tongue: Telugu
0.023
(0.024)
Mother tongue: Hindi 0.008
(0.030)
Mother tongue: Urdu
0.041⁄⁄
(0.018)
Distance effect: Distance from college to nearest Veta center
Gold
0.064⁄⁄
0.074⁄⁄
0.073⁄⁄
(0.032) (0.032) (0.032)
Silver
0.033
0.022
0.013
(0.050) (0.043) (0.043)
Bronze
0.017⁄⁄
0.016⁄⁄
0.014⁄
(0.007) (0.008) (0.008)
Distance effect: Distance from home to nearest Veta center
Gold 0.017 0.011 0.008
(0.022) (0.023) (0.022)
Silver 0.026 0.019 0.020
(0.043) (0.041) (0.039)
Bronze 0.016⁄⁄ 0.015⁄⁄ 0.014⁄⁄
(0.006) (0.006) (0.005)
Sample size 444 444 444

Notes: Marginal effects from probit regressions presented. Robust standard errors in parentheses clustered at the college level.  p < 0:01;  p < 0:05;  p < 0:10. Distance
from nearest Veta centre computed using Google Maps and does not take into account time-varying traffic conditions or other factors that effect actual transportation costs.
Regressions also control for set of individual controls (degree enrolled in, gender, age, caste, religion, and household size).

References
Azam, M., Chin, A., & Prakash, N. (2013). The returns to English-language skills in
India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 2(61), 335–367.
Bleakley, H., & Chin, A. (2004). Language skills and earnings: Evidence from
childhood immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(2), 267–298.
Bleakley, H., & Chin, A. (2010). Age at arrival, English proficiency, and social
assimilation among US immigrants, American Economic Journal. Applied
Economics, 2(1), 165–192.
Chamarbagwala, R., & Sharma, G. (2011). Industrial de-licensing, trade
liberalization, and skill upgrading in India. Journal of Development Economics,
96(2), 314–336.
Cohen, J., & Dupas, P. (2010). Free distribution or cost-sharing? Evidence from a
randomized malaria prevention experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125
(1), 1–45.
Dasgupta, U., Gangadharan, L., Maitra, P., Mani, S., & Subramanian, S. (2015).
Choosing to be trained: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 110, 145–159.
Dasgupta, U., S. Mani, S. Sharma, & S. Singhal (2017): Cognitive and non-cognitive
returns to college quality: Evidence from India, Fordham University Working
Paper.
Devoto, F., Duflo, E., Dupas, P., Parienté, W., & Pons, V. (2012). Happiness on tap:
Piped water adoption in urban Morocco. American Economic Journal: Economic
Policy, 4(4), 68–99.
Field, E., Jayachandran, S., & Pande, R. (2010). Do traditional institutions constrain
female entrepreneurship? A field experiment on business training in India.
American Economic Review, 100(2), 125–129.
Flege, J., Yeni-Komshian, G., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language
acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 78–104.
Jain, T., & Kapoor, M. (2015). The impact of study groups and roommates on
academic performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(1), 44–54.
Jensen, R. (2010). The (perceived) returns to education and the demand for
schooling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(2), 515–548.
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning:
The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second
language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.
Lang, K., & Siniver, E. (2009). The return to English in a non-English speaking
country: Russian immigrants and native Israelis in Israel. The BE Journal of
Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1).
Levinsohn, J. (2007). Globalization and the returns to speaking English in South
Africa. Globalization and Poverty (pp. 629–646). Chicago IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Maitra, P., & Mani, S. (2017). Learning and earning: Evidence from a randomized
evaluation in India. Labour Economics, 45, 116–130.
Mankiw, G., & Swagel, P. (2006). The politics and economics of offshore outsourcing.
Journal of Monetary Economics, 53(5), 1027–1056.
Shastry, K. (2012). Human capital response to globalization: Education and
information technology in India. Journal of Human Resources, 47(2), 287–330.
Subramanian, T. S. R. (2016). Report of the Committee for Evolution of the New
Education Policy. New Delhi: Government of India.
Suri, T. (2011). Selection and comparative advantage in technology adoption.
Econometrica, 79(1), 159–209.
Thornton, R. (2008). The demand for, and impact of, learning HIV status. American
Economic Review, 98(5), 1829–1863.
World Bank (2008): ‘‘Skill development in India: The vocational education and
training system,” Discussion paper, Report No. 22.