View
215
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 Ethiopia
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?
Introduction• Move to community based, participatory
project definition.– What do people have experience with and
how do they evaluate this experience?– What do they see as the most important future
priorities?• Help know what types of organizations should be
working where.• Help know what types of resource allocations to
expect.
– Need to understand if there is heterogeneity within communities
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
$Z
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
Negelle
Hagere Mariam
Yabello
Mega
Moyale
Marsabit
Marigat
Maralal
Isiolo
Dillo
Kargi
Ngambo
Qorate
Wachille
Finchawa
Logologo
Dida Hara
North Horr
Dirib Gumbo
Suguta Marmar
Major Roads$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 500
Ethiopia 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:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ethiopia
Kenya
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%
Other
NGO
MISSION
GOVT
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.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7Community
Personal
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 Community
Personal
% 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
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8Community
Personal
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
1Overall 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
1.4Mean
CV
As a general rule, things ranked more highly have less variance about them as measured by the CV.
Regression results: Example Human Health Human Health Water Water
Community Personal Community Personal
Female Indiv
Age P *
Education indiv
Herd Size P ** P **
Expenditure N *
% Income salary
% Income lstock N **
Female Head N **
Bank P ** P ***
Education HH
HH members N **
DG P *** P *** P ***
KA P *** P ***
LL P *** P ***
NG N *** N * P ** P ***
NH P * P *** N ** N **
Constant P ** P ** P *** P ***
Summary of regression findings
• Individual characteristics not all that influential.
• Household characteristics more influential.
• Site specific dummies almost always significant.– These are only for Kenya. Ethiopia data
analysis ongoing.
How do ranks contrast?Past Experience Past rank Future Rank
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
Agriculture 10 8 9
Alternative income 16 16 10
Savings 14 12 11
Transport 6 9 12
NRM 8 11 13
Institutional dev. 15 15 14
Phone, electric 13 13 15
Wildlife management 12 14 16
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.
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 and 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
– Agriculture about the same (8 and 9)– Savings and credit about the same (12 and
11)– Alternative income generation moves up (16 to
10)
• Some move down– Wildlife management (14 and 16)– Transport infrastructure (9 and 12)– Electricity and phones. (13 and 15)
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).