Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse...
description
Transcript of Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse...
Perspectives on Development:
Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa
John McPeak, Syracuse UniversityPARIMA project of the GL-CRSP
Pastoral, Arid and Semi Arid Area
Northern Kenya, Southern EthiopiaNorthern Kenya, Southern Ethiopia
Study Area
Introduction• This project came about in response me seeing
a move to community based, participatory project definition in pastoral areas.
• Such a move is widespread in development policy.
• I wondered how well such an approach would work.
• This study has no behavioral model, and the underlying theory such as it is remains as background.
• So today is more about “development” than “development economics”: be prepared for an equation free presentation.
Literature on Community Based and Driven Development
• Mansuri and Rao (2004) provide a review indicating that project selection is not clearly related to participatory methods.
• Rao and Ibanez (2003) find that the expressed needs of households are not matched by funded projects in Jamacia.
• Platteau (2003), Platteau and Gaspart (2003) focus on potential for ‘elite capture’ of the process.
• Conning and Kevane (2002) contrast local information advantages against rent seeking / lack of orientation toward the poor in targeting.
• Bardhan (2002) places this issue in the context of overall decentralization.
Study AreaSurvey Sites in
Southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya
$Z
$Z
$Z
$Z
$Z
$Z
$Z
$Z
$Z
$Z$Z
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
Negelle
Hagere Mariam
Yabello
MegaMoyale
Marsabit
Marigat
Maralal
Isiolo
Dillo
Kargi
Ngambo
Qorate
Wachille
Finchawa
Logologo
Dida Hara
North Horr
Dirib Gumbo
Suguta Marmar
Major Roads$Z Survey Sites#Y Major Towns
100 0 100 200 300 Kilometers
N
EthiopiaSudan
Kenya
CentralAfrican
Republic
Tanzania
UgandaCongoSomalia
Rwanda
Burundi
Site Market Access
Ethnic Majority
Relative Ag. Potential
Annual Rainfall
Kenya Dirib Gumbo Medium Boran High 650 Kargi Low Rendille Low 200 Logologo Medium Ariaal Med.-Low 250 N’gambo High Il Chamus High 650 North Horr Low Gabra Low 150 Sugata Marmar High Samburu Medium 500Ethiopia Dida Hara Medium Boran Medium 500 Dillo Low Boran Low 400 Finchawa
Qorati
High
Medium
Guji
Boran
High
Medium
650
450 Wachille Medium Boran Medium 500
Development survey• Survey of 249 people in six communities in
Kenya, 147 people in five communities in Ethiopia; 396 people.
• Open ended work to develop survey form.• Run in late 2001 in Kenya, 2002 in Ethiopia.• Kenya interviewed multiple individuals per
household, Ethiopia only household head.• Had been working with them since 2000.• Text to make clear motivation.• Revisited in summer 2006 to follow up.
Percent having personal experience with project of type:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%EthiopiaKenya
How many of these on average per site per person?
Past "Yes"
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Who did the projects?
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
OtherNGOMISSIONGOVT
Recall Kargi, North Horr, Dillo low market access.
Different sources do different things: Ethiopia
Ethiopia
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
OtherMissionNGOGovernment
Different sources do different things: Kenya
Kenya Sources
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
OtherMissionNGOGovernment
Rankings• Respondents rank from highest (1) to lowest (depends),
and if not ranked a zero is assigned.• To put these in some kind of order, we normalize the
rankings.• Normalized rank = [1-((item rank-1)/rank of maximum
item)]• So if 3 items, 1=1, 2=.67, 3=.33, others =0.• Not flawless or beyond criticism, but seems to be
consistent qualitatively with other approaches such as probit for #1, or probit for in the top 3, or ordered probit…
• Simple to calculate and understand.• Issues arise as not all rank the same number, so #2 of 2
= .5, and #3 of 4 =.5 for example.
How are these past interventions ranked by most helpful to least?
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70
CommunityPersonal
Is low rank because no experience or low evaluation of experienced project? Rank by those with experience
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1 CommunityPersonal% with experience
Low community: Transport, NRM, Restocking, Savings and Credit, Alternative income
Low Personal: Transport, NRM, Electricity and phones
High community: Food aid, Human health, Livestock health, Water, Education, Livestock marketing
High personal: Food aid, Human health, Livestock health, Water, education, Livestock marketing, Wildlife management, Alt. income
Any that caused harm?• Ethiopia
– 12% noted something that harmed the community and 8% identified personal harm (fertilizer burned plants, wrong medicine in health centers, restocked animals brought diseases, a few others)
• Kenya– 23% identified something that harmed the
community and 8% identified personal harm (borehole water poisoned and killed animals, the spread of mesquite plants, loss of grazing land to natural resource management projects or wildlife, a few others).
What about ranking future interventions - overall
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8
CommunityPersonal
Relatively clear consensus around the higher ranked items
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Human
healt
h
Wate
r
Educa
tion
Lives
tock h
ealth
Lives
tock m
arke
ting
Conflic
t reso
lution
Restoc
king
Food a
id
Cultiva
tion
Alterna
tive i
ncom
e
Saving
s and
Cred
it
Transp
ortNRM
Institu
tiona
l
Electric
, pho
ne
Wild
life M
anag
emen
t
MeanCV
There is a lot of variation: by site
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1 Overall DG-K KA-K LL-K NG-K NH-K
SM-K DH-E DI-E FI-E QO-E WA-E
And within sites: North Horr respondents
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Individual CharacteristicsN
% Female Average Age Average Years Education
Dida Hara 30 23% 55 0.1
Dillo 30 43% 47 0.1
Finchawa 30 33% 52 0.2
Qorati 29 4% 45 0.2
Wachille 28 29% 45 0.6
Dirib Gumbo 49 57% 45 0.3
Kargi 42 64% 45 0.4
Logologo 42 69% 44 1.0
Ng'ambo 29 34% 45 0.8
North Horr 46 48% 39 0.2
Sugata Marmar 41 44% 44 1.2
Mean Household CharacteristicsTLUs 2 Week
Expend. in
Shillings
Salary Share
Livestock sale share
Any member Formal
education
Bank account
House- hold size
Female Headed
Dida Hara 17.6 796 0% 53% 23% 3% 5.7 23%
Dillo 12.2 419 2% 49% 48% 0% 13.1 43%
Finchawa 14.7 1760 0% 64% 47% 3% 10.5 33%
Qorati 14.1 336 0% 49% 28% 0% 6.9 4%
Wachille 10.9 1055 0% 52% 57% 0% 6.7 29%
D. Gumbo 5.0 559 9% 25% 86% 0% 6.4 16%
Kargi 35.1 398 6% 38% 43% 5% 5 24%
Logologo 12.9 1274 35% 19% 60% 12% 6.5 33%
Ng'ambo 3.6 1464 21% 19% 93% 12% 6.5 33%
North Horr 20.7 523 6% 38% 45% 14% 5.6 14%
Sugata Marmar
19.8 1236 10% 25% 55% 3% 6.6 28%
Regression methods
• 2 limit tobit (probability mass at zero if not ranked as a priority, probability mass at one if ranked as highest priority).
• Handout with tables for those interested.
Summary of regression findings
• Individual characteristics not all that influential.
• Household characteristics more influential.• Site specific dummies almost always
significant.
How do these ranks comparePast Experience Past Rank (C) Future Rank (C)
human health 2 2 1
Water 4 1 2
Education 5 5 3
livestock health 3 3 4
livestock marketing 9 6 5
conflict resolution 7 7 6
Restocking 11 10 7
Food aid 1 4 8
Cultivation 10 8 9
Alternative income generation 16 16 10
Savings and credit 14 12 11
Transport improvement 6 9 12
Natural resource management 8 11 13
Institutional 15 15 14
electric phone 13 13 15
Wildlife managment 12 14 16
How do these match funding priorities?
• Community driven development in Kenya, World Bank ALRMP.
• 38.9 million USD will be spent on natural resources and disaster management
• 24.2 million USD will be spent on community driven development
• 14.8 million USD will be spent on support to local development (working with other development agencies already active).
Community Driven Development
• Runs 14 day “Participatory Integrated Community Development” training.
• Forms and trains “Community Development Committee”
• These select and run “micro-projects”• The cost to the project of the trainings is
equal to 27% of the total cost to the project of all the micro projects.
What are the micro projects?
54%
16%
10%
6%
4%4%
4% 1%EducationRestockingAIGHealthWaterCultivationSanitationHousing for poorNRMFoodaidVeterinary
Government plan for arid and semi arid lands: proposed budget
57%
8%
8%
8%
6%
4%
3%
3%3%
Public Infrastructure (roads,electricity, solar, telephone)
Water
Human Health
Livestock and Fisheriesdevelopment
Education
Tourism, Trade and Industry
Human ResourceDevelopment
Mixed farming
Conflict and DisasterManagement
Conclusions
• Past rankings:– Government is main source of past
interventions.– Kenya and Ethiopia profiles not all that
different.– Site differences exist. Easier to get to sites
better served, more government intervention.
Contrasting prioritiesPriority Government of Kenya ALRMP Development
Rankings
1 Public Infrastructure (roads, electricity, solar, telephone):57%
Education: 53% Human Health
2 Water: 8% Restocking: 16% Water
3 Human Health: 8% Alternative Income Generation: 11%
Education
4 Livestock and Fisheries development: 8%
Health and Sanitation: 9.6%
Livestock Health
5 Education: 6% Water: 4% Livestock Marketing
6 Tourism, Trade and Industry: 4% Cultivation: 4% Conflict resolution
7 Human Resource Development: 2% Housing for the poor: 1%
Restocking
8 Mixed farming: 3% Natural Resource Management: <1%
Food Aid
9 Conflict and Disaster Management: 3% Food Aid: <1% Cultivation
10 Veterinary: <1% Alternative income
2006 visits
• Follow up – do they think priorities have changed?– Mostly no, but a few changes: Ng’ambo
noted some changes due to the sinking of a borehole, North Horr noted restocking may be more important due to recent drought, Sugata Marmar noted issues with people fleeing to the area due to violence in other areas.
What are the specifics within the broad categories
• A dispensary needs to be built, a maternity ward needs to be equipped, sheep pox needs to be controlled, a public secondary school is needed as is a bursary fund, excavate and desilt dams, construction of irrigation canal, rehabilitate cattle and sheep dips, regulate the supply of veterinary drugs to control quality,improve higway security to improve marketing, develop access to higher return markets,….
Conclusions• Future rankings
– Top ranks for interventions for past and future are pretty much the same with the exception of food aid.
– Top three types of things desired have nothing to do with pastoralism: human health, water, and education.
– Basic development needs are still in need of attention.– Food aid drops significantly, argument is that if other
interventions are provided, need for food aid will be significantly reduced (not eliminated, but reduced)
Conclusions
• Pastoral specific interventions are desired, following these basic needs.– Health and marketing are priorities.– Conflict resolution and restocking follow.– Natural resource management low on the list
(11 to 13 in rankings, but 8th most commonly experienced). Note that most have had development agencies coming at them armed with a “tragedy of the commons’ worldview.
Conclusions• New opportunities are identified
– Cultivation (8 to 9)– Savings and credit (12 to 11)– Alternative income generation (16 to 10)
• Some are not all that popular– Wildlife management (14 to 16)– Transport infrastructure (9 to 12)– Electricity and phones. (13 to 15)