slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse University PARIMA p

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse University PARIMA p - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 128 Views
  • Uploaded on

Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse University PARIMA project of the GL-CRSP. Pastoral, Arid and Semi Arid Area. Northern Kenya, Southern Ethiopia. Study Area. Introduction. Questions motivating the study

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse University PARIMA p' - fallon


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern AfricaJohn McPeak, Syracuse UniversityPARIMA project of the GL-CRSP

introduction
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?
introduction6
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
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.
development survey
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.
who did the projects
Who did the projects?

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
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.

slide15
Is low rank because no experience or low evaluation of experienced project? Rank by those with experience
any that caused harm
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
What about ranking future interventions - overall

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

overall variation
Overall variation

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

summary of regression findings
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.
conclusions
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.
conclusions25
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)
conclusions26
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.
conclusions27
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)
conclusions29
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).