Perspectives on Development:

Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa

John McPeak, Syracuse UniversityPARIMA project of the GL-CRSP

Study Area

Introduction• Questions motivating the study

– What has been the development experience to date?

– What kinds of interventions are most highly desired by people living in these communities for the future?

– To what extent are these desires shared by individuals within these communities?

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

Mega

Moyale

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.

Percent having personal experience with project of type:

Who did the projects?

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

OtherNGOMISSIONGOVT

Recall N’gambo, Finchawa, Sugata Marmar high market access;

Kargi, North Horr, Dillo low market access.

How are these past interventions ranked by most helpful to least?

Significant difference between community and personal for: Livestock Health, Education (C>P); Alternative Income Generation, Food Aid (P>C); Others NS difference.

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

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

Education in only one with statistically significant difference, C>P

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

Overall variation

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4 MeanCV

As a general rule, things ranked more highly have less variance about them as measured by the CV.

Summary of regression findings(p-values) Site dummies HH characteristics Individual characteristics

Human health .000 *** .051 * .119

Water .000 *** .119 .674

Education .000 *** .234 .463

Livestock health .000 *** .680 .510

Livestock marketing .000 *** .161 .337

Conflict resolution .000 *** .093 * .187

Restocking .000 *** .760 .466

Food aid .000 *** .388 .523

Cultivation .000 *** .184 .274

Alternative income .000 *** .091 * .277

Savings /credit .000 *** .187 .241

Transport imp. .000 *** .166 .598

NRM .002 *** .122 .831

Institutional dev .000 *** .005 *** .573

Other services .000 *** .074 * .304

Wildlife management .000 *** .169 .094 *

Conclusions: is the message getting through currently?

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

• World Bank ALRMP in Kenya: phase 2• 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).

Priority Development Rankings

Government of : funding allocation

ALRMP : funding allocation

1 Human Health Public Infrastructure (roads, electricity, solar, telephone): 57%

Education: 53%

2 Water Water: 8% Restocking: 16%

3 Livestock Health Human Health: 8% Alternative Income Generation: 11%

4 Education Livestock and Fisheries development: 8%

Health and Sanitation: 9.6%

5 Livestock Marketing Education: 6% Water: 4%

6 Conflict Resolution Tourism, Trade and Industry: 4%

Cultivation: 4%

7 Restocking

Human Resource Development: 2%

Housing for the poor: 1%

8 Cultivation Mixed farming: 3% Natural Resource Management: <1%

9 Food Aid Conflict and Disaster Management: 3%

Food Aid: <1%

10 Alternative income Generation

Veterinary: <1%