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)