Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Social Cohesion Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Elisabeth King Cyrus Samii Columbia University. Synthetic Review. Systematic review on existing studies on a topic Find out what works? Goal of informing policy. Motivation. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Social Cohesion Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa
Elisabeth KingCyrus Samii
Columbia University
Synthetic Review
• Systematic review on existing studies on a topic
• Find out what works?• Goal of informing policy
Motivation
• Studies suggest that social cohesion is important for development outcomes and for post-conflict peacebuilding.
• For these results to be meaningful for policy we need to know…
• Is social cohesion manipulable? Can you grow it?
Focus
• Development, reconstruction, and peacebuilding interventions in sub-Saharan Africa aiming to generate social cohesion.
• Interventions have beginning and end• Intervention types include: community-driven
development, social funds and education or media programs.
What is social cohesion?• “affective bonds between citizens” (Chipkin
and Ngqulunga 2008), “local patterns of cooperation” (Fearon et al 2009) and “the glue that bonds society together, promoting harmony, a sense of community, and a degree of commitment to promoting the common good” (Colletta et al 2001).
• Social cohesion (rather than “social capital”) to emphasize that we are talking about attributes of groups
Social cohesion: inter-personal
• Inter-personal: relations between different groupings of individuals
• Behavioural measures of collective action, group membership & participation
• Attitudinal measures of participants’ feelings of trust, harmony and solidarity with other community members.
Social cohesion: inter-group
• Inter-group: relations across group lines• Behaviourally, the more socially cohesive the
society, the less sub-group identities are likely to delimit networks of regular cooperation and exchange.
• Attitudes of group members express feelings of trust, harmony and solidarity with members of other groups.
Questions
What scientific evidence exists on the effectiveness of social cohesion interventions in Africa?
1. Minimum standards for inclusion2. Types of interventions, measures &
evaluation of effectiveness3. Moving forward
Pre-Post Comparison
Pre-Post 2 3 4 5
Post only 1
None
Not random
or conditioned
Conditioned,
but not random
Randomized
Comparison
Criteria for Inclusion
Borrowed from Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS)
Pre-Post Comparison
Pre-Post 2 3 4 5
Post with pre controls or
retrospective at post
3 4
Post only 1
None
Not random
or conditioned
Conditioned,
but not random
Randomized
Comparison
Modified Criteria for Inclusion
Pre-Post Comparison
Pre-Post 2 3 Staub et al.;
Pronyk et al.
Post with pre controls or
retrospective at post
Chase & Sherbur
ne-Benz;
Kumar; Vajja & White
Fearon et al.; Levy-
Paluck;
Gugerty &
Kremer
Post only 1
None
Not random
or conditioned
Conditioned,
but not random
Randomized
Comparison
Studies to Include
8 Included interventions
CDD CurriculumInter-group Vajja & White Levy-Paluck; Staub
Inter-personal Chase & Sherburne-Benz; Fearon et al; Gugerty & Kremer; Kumar; Vajja & White
Levy-Paluck; Pronyk; Gugerty & Kremer
Interventions in: Benin, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa & Zambia
Effectiveness
• “Effective” means that the intervention had a positive effect on social cohesion
• √: effective. There is sufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis (that is ineffective)
• X: ineffective or insufficient evidence. We can’t reject the null hypothesis (that is ineffective)
Effectiveness: inter-personalmeasures CDD Curriculum
Inter-personal Attitudes Chase & SB XKumar √Vajja & White X
Pronyk et al. √
Behaviour (self-reported)
Chase & SB X Kumar XVajja & White X
Pronyk et al. √
Behaviour (activity organized by intervention)
Fearon et al. √ Levy-Paluck √
Behaviour (routine activity )
Gugerty & Kremer X
Gugerty & Kremer X
Effectiveness: inter-groupmeasures CDD Curriculum
Inter-group Attitudes Vajja & White X Levy-Paluck √Staub √
Behaviour (self-reported)
Behaviour (activity organized by intervention)
Behaviour (routine activity )
Moving forward
• Heterogeneity in findings• None of cells are full – evidence thin• Esp. inter-group• Inconsistency in outcome measures
Moving forward
• If had to make summary judgment, CDD are potentially ineffective
• Moving forward, want more on mechanisms, mediators. CDD too much on incentives & not enough on process/capacity-building?
Moving forward
• If had to make summary judgment on curriculum, potentially effective.
• Moving forward, what is it about curriculum that works? Mechanisms & mediators? Specific messages? Context in which message delivered? Manner in which message delivered?
Moving forward
• Useful exercise• What we know & what we don’t know – help
set a research agenda
Shukran
Elisabeth King [email protected]
Cyrus [email protected]
*Pls send us your relevant studies to include*
Types of MeasuresAttitudes Behaviour
Self-reported (through questions about behaviour)
Observed – activity organized by intervention
Observed – routine activity
Chase & Sherburne-Benz; Kumar; Levy-Paluck; Pronyk et al.; Staub et al.; Vajja & White
Chase & Sherburne-Benz; Kumar; Vajja & White
Fearon et al.; Levy-Paluck
Gugerty & Kremer;
Type of InterventionCommunity participation project (CBD, CDD, social fund, etc.)Most involve setting spending priorities
Chase & Sherburne-BenzFearon et al.Gugerty & Kremer (PTA intervention)KumarVajja & White
Group training or message/curriculum delivery
Gugerty & Kremer (women’s group)Levy-PaluckStaub et al.Pronyk
Microfinance Pronyk
Types of outcomes
Inter-personal Both Inter-group
Chase & Sherburne-Benz; Fearon et al.; Gugerty & Kremer; Kumar; Pronyk et al.
Levy-Paluck; Vajja & White
Staub et al.
Intervention Types & Outcomesmeasures CDD Curriculum microfinance
Inter-group Attitudes Vajja & White Levy-Paluck; Staub
Behaviour (self-reported)
Vajja & White
Behaviour (activity organized by intervention)
Levy-Paluck
Behaviour (routine activity )
