production for protection - public documents...

Evidence for Agriculture

November 7-8, 2016

World Bank, Washington, DC

Production for protectionDo agricultural productivity programs serve a social protection role

as well as lifting incomes? What evidence do we have?

Paul Winters

Officer-in-Charge, Strategy and Knowledge Department

& Director, Research and Impact Assessment Division

International Fund for Agricultural Development

Production and protection

2

Protection production

Farmers face

market

imperfections

(credit,

insurance…)

Non-

separablility of

production &

consumption

Social

protection

programs

overcome

market failures

Enhanced

production

Production protection

Productive

projects build

assets,

overcome

constraints

Enhance

production and

potentially

sales

Greater food

and income

Direct

consumption

or income for

protective

benefits

Production and protection: Sets of metrics

3

Social protection

(e.g. cash transfers)Agricultural

production

Health• Clinic visits, health outcomes…

Nutrition• Anthropometrics, food diversity...

Education• Attendance, enrolment, repeat, test

scores…

Child labor• Hours worked…

Empowerment• Empowerment index…

Non-monetary poverty outcomes• Vulnerability, multidimensional

poverty, response to shocks…

Assets• Agric. and non-agric. implements

owned, livestock…

Inputs• Seed, pesticide, fertilizer…

adoption and value, labor use...

Production• Yields, production value, crop

diversification…

Sales• Amount sold, transaction costs…

Home production• Production consumed…

Income• Agric. and non-agric. income…

From protection to production

4

Social protection


production


owned, livestock…




diversification…







scores…





5

Daidone, S., S. Asfaw, B. Davis, S. Handa, P. Winters (2016) The household and

individual-level productive impacts of cash transfer programs in Sub-Saharan

Africa.

From protection to production:

Analysis of cash transfer programs in Sub-Saharan Africa

Zambia Malawi Kenya Lesotho Ghana Eth. Zimb.

Design RCT RCT RCT RCT PSM PSMMatchedcontrol

Baseline 2010 2013 2007 2011 2010 2012 2013

Follow-up20122013

201420092011

2013 2012 2014 2014

Sample size 2,298 3,369 1,907 1,406 1,504 3,173 2,630

Households invest in productive activities—

though impact varies by country

Zambia Malawi Kenya Lesotho Ghana Eth. Zimb.

Agricultural inputs +++ + - ++ +++ -/+

Agricultural tools +++ +++ NS NS NS +

Agricultural production

+++ ++ NS ++ NS ++ +

Sales +++ + NS NS - -

Home consumption NS +++ +++ NS

Livestock ownership All types All types Small Pigs NS -- Small Goats

Non farm enterprise +++ --/+++FHH-MHH

- NS -- ++

Stronger impact Mixed impact Less impact

What explains differences across countries?

Crop Livestock NFE Productivelabor

Social Network

Zambia yes yes yes yes

Malawi yes yes no yes small

Kenya no small yes yes

Lesotho yes small no no yes

Zimbabwe yes small yes yes

Ethiopia yes no no no no

Ghana no no no small yes

Predictability of payment

Regular and predictable transfers facilitate planning, consumption smoothing and investment

0

1

# o

f p

aym

en

ts

Zambia CGP

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

# o

f p

aym

en

ts

Ghana LEAP

Regular and predictableLumpy and irregular

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Kenya CT-OVC (big

hh)

BurkinaFaso

GhanaLEAP(2011)

Kenya CT-OVC (2010)

Malawi SCT(2013)

South AfricaCSG (2012)

LesothoCGP (2011)

GhanaLEAP(2012)

Kenya CT-OVC (small

hh)

ZimbabweHSCT(2013)

ZambiaCGP (2014)

ZambiaMCP (2014)

Malawi SCT(2008)

Bigger transfer means more impact

Widespread impact

Selective impact

% o

f p

er

cap

ita

inco

me

of

po

or

Demographic profile of beneficiaries

Under 5

5 to 9

10 to 14

15 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 64

65 to 69

70 to 74

75 to 79

80 to 84

85 to 89

Over 90

1000 500 500 1000 population

Males Females

Ghana LEAP

Under 5

5 to 9

10 to 14

15 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 64

65 to 69

70 to 74

75 to 79

80 to 84

85 to 89

Over 90

2000 500 500 2000 population

Males Females

Zambia CGP

More able-bodied, younger children

More labor-constrained, older children

Conclusions on protection for production

1. Cash transfers do not create dependency

2. Wide range of impacts across many

domains—but depends on implementation

and other factors

3. Cash transfers are transformative,

contributing to protective and productive

outcomes

4. Cannot separate productive from social

objectives

Production for protection:

Are we providing similar answers?

12

Social protection


production




scores…






owned, livestock…




diversification…




1. Are there social protection

benefits of productive projects?

2. Under what conditions are there

protective impacts?

3. Does it require specialized

interventions?

Production for protection: what do we know?

13

Review of impact evaluation database of the

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)

480 rigorous impact evaluations of

agricultural projects identified

Assessment of systematic reviews

linked to agriculture—two identified

Papers examined for standard

social protection indicators

2

3

4

5

Only 28 robust impact evaluations of agricultural projects that include social protection indicators. 1

14

Production for protection: what evidence do we have?

Majority are microfinance (10) and farmer field schools (10).

Many agricultural project types have no evidence of links.

None found, for example, on irrigation projects.

Health (10), education (8) and nutrition (8) most common protective metric.

Even measurement of income/poverty is uncommon and peripheral with little attempt to discern a causal pathway.

We have very little evidence!

Production for protection: Should we care?

15

• Agricultural projects should focus on increasing productivity and profitability

• Feed growing urban populationsNO

• Rural productive investment as a path to Sustainable Development Goals

• Support to the missing middle

• Synergies between productive projects and social protection interventions

YES

Thank you!

Production for protection

16

Do agricultural productivity programs serve a social

protection role as well as lifting incomes? What

evidence do we have?

Agricultural programs may play a social protection role,

but there is limited evidence on if, when and how these

programs do—the evidence needs to be generated.

production for protection - public documents...

Documents