Year Published
- 2008 (0)
- 2009 (11) Apply 2009 filter
- (-) Remove 2010 filter 2010
- 2011 (3) Apply 2011 filter
- 2012 (3) Apply 2012 filter
- 2013 (2) Apply 2013 filter
- 2014 (3) Apply 2014 filter
- (-) Remove 2015 filter 2015
- 2016 (10) Apply 2016 filter
- 2017 (6) Apply 2017 filter
- 2018 (0)
- (-) Remove 2019 filter 2019
- 2020 (0)
- 2021 (3) Apply 2021 filter
Research Topics
Populations
Types of Research
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (2) Apply East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- Global (3) Apply Global filter
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (2) Apply South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (5) Apply Sub-Saharan Africa filter
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
Dataset
- ASTI (0)
- FAOSTAT (0)
- Farmer First (0)
- LSMS & LSMS-ISA (1) Apply LSMS & LSMS-ISA filter
- Other Datasets (2) Apply Other Datasets filter
Current search
- (-) Remove 2010 filter 2010
- (-) Remove Gender filter Gender
- (-) Remove 2015 filter 2015
- (-) Remove Aid & Other Development Finance filter Aid & Other Development Finance
- (-) Remove Labor & Time Use filter Labor & Time Use
- (-) Remove 2019 filter 2019
Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in Sub-Saharan Africa can be defined as mutual assistance organizations through which individuals undertake collective action in order to improve their own lives. “Collective action” implies that individuals share their time, labor, money, or other assets with the group. In a recent EPAR data analysis, we use three nationally-representative survey tools to examine various indicators related to the coverage and prevalence of Self-Help Group usage across six Sub-Saharan African countries. EPAR has developed Stata .do files for the construction of a set of self-help group indicators using data from the Living Standards Measurement Study - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA), Financial Inclusion Index (FII), and FinScope.
We compiled a set of summary statistics for the final indicators using data from the following survey instruments:
- Ethiopia:
- Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS), Wave 3 (2015-16)
- Kenya:
- Kenya FinScope, Wave 4 (2015)
- Kenya FII, Wave 4 (2016)
- Nigeria
- Nigeria FII, Wave 4 (2016)
- Rwanda:
- Rwanda FII, Wave 4 (2016)
- Tanzania:
- Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS), Wave 4 (2014-15)
- Tanzania FinScope, Wave 4 (2017)
- Tanzania FII, Wave 4 (2016)
- Uganda:
- Uganda FinScope, Wave 3 (2013)
- Uganda FII, Wave 4 (2016)
The raw survey data files are available for download free of charge from the World Bank LSMS-ISA website, the Financial Sector Deepening Trust website, and the Financial Inclusion Insights website. The .do files process the data and create final data sets at the household (LSMS-ISA) and individual (FII, FinScope) levels with labeled variables, which can be used to estimate summary statistics for the indicators.
All the instruments include nationally-representative samples. All estimates from the LSMS-ISA are household-level cluster-weighted means, while all estimates from FII and FinScope are calculated as individual-level weighted means. The proportions in the Indicators Spreadsheet are therefore estimates of the true proportion of individuals/households in the national population during the year of the survey. EPAR also created a Tableau visualization of these summary statistics, which can be found here.
We have also prepared a document outlining the construction decisions for each indicator across survey instruments and countries. We attempted to follow the same construction approach across instruments, and note any situations where differences in the instruments made this impossible.
The spreadsheet includes estimates of the following indicators created in our code files:
Sub-Populations
- Proportion of individuals who have access to a mobile phone
- Proportion of individuals who have official identification
- Proportion of individuals who are female
- Proportion of individuals who use mobile money
- Proportion of individuals who have a bank account
- Proportion of individuals who live in a rural area
- Individual Poverty Status
- Two Lowest PPI Quintiles
- Middle PPI Quintile
- Two Highest PPI Quintiles
Coverage & Prevalence
- Proportion of individuals who have interacted with a SHG
- Proportion of individuals who have used an SHG for financial services
- Proportion of individuals who depend most on SHGs for financial advice
- Proportion of individuals who have received financial advice from a SHG
- Proportion of households that have interacted with a SHG
- Proportion of households in communities with at least one SHG
- Proportion of households in communities with access to multiple farmer cooperative groups
- Proportion of households who have used an SHG for financial services
Characteristics
In addition, we produced estimates for 29 indicators related to characteristics of SHG use including indicators related to frequency of SHG use, characteristics of SHG groups, and individual/household trust of SHGs.
This report reviews approaches to results measurement used by multilateral and bilateral donor organizations and highlights trends and gaps in how donors measure and report on their performance. Our review consists of assessing donor organizations in terms of their institutional design and levels of evaluation for results measurement, their organizational processes for measuring types of results including coordination and alignment with recipients, outputs and implementation, outcomes and impacts, and costs and effectiveness, and their processes for reporting and using results information. We collect evidence on 12 bilateral organizations and 10 multilateral organizations. The evidence review includes multi-country reviews of aid effectiveness, peer reviews by other donor organizations, donor evaluation plans and frameworks, and donor results and reporting documents. The report is based on an accompanying spreadsheet that contains the coded information from the 22 donor organizations. We find that donors report several types of results, but that there are challenges to measuring certain results at the aggregate donor level, due to challenges with funding and coordination for results measurement at the project, country, portfolio, and donor levels. Approaches to results measurement vary across donor organizations. We identify some trends and differences among groups of donors, notably between bilateral and multilateral donors, but overall there are no clear delineations in how donors approach results measurement.
This report provides a summary of findings from six Financial Inclusion Insights (FII) data analysis reports conducted by various agencies for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). These reports investigate barriers to financial inclusion and use of digital financial services (DFS) in Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. We compile comparable gender-specific statistics, summarize the authors’ findings to determine commonalities and differences across countries, and highlight gender-specific conclusions and recommendations provided in the studies.
Aid results information is often not comparable, since monitoring and evaluation frameworks, information gathering processes, and definitions of “results” differ across donors and governments. This report reviews approaches to results monitoring and evaluation used by governments in developing countries, and highlights trends and gaps in national monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems. We collect evidence on 42 separate government M&E systems in 23 developing countries, including 17 general national M&E systems and 25 sector-specific national M&E systems, with 14 focused on HIV/AIDS, 8 on health, and 3 on agriculture. The evidence review includes external case studies and evaluations of M&E systems, government M&E assessments, M&E plans, strategic plans with an M&E component, and multi-country reviews of M&E, accountability, and aid effectiveness. We evaluate harmonization of government and development partner M&E systems, coordination and institutionalization of government M&E, challenges in data collection and monitoring, and analysis and use of results information. We also report on key characteristics of M&E systems in different sectors.
Aid donors are interested in the arguments for allocating aid via bilateral versus multilateral channels, and specifically in understanding which channel is more “effective” at supporting positive development and social outcomes. We contribute to the literature on this subject by summarizing recent OECD data on aid flows and reviewing the theoretical arguments from the aid literature on the different characteristics supporting effectiveness of bilateral versus multilateral aid. We then review the empirical literature, analyzing 40 papers that study the effectiveness of different aid channels on various outcomes. Many studies do not directly compare the effectiveness of aid channels, and the studies vary in how aid channels are defined, measured, and evaluated. Further, these studies do not directly test the hypothesized advantages of one channel of aid versus another; rather they test bilateral versus multilateral aid flows associations with development outcomes, assuming some causal mechanism is at work to explain differences in impact. We evaluate studies reporting the impacts of aid on GDP growth, governance, government investment spending, health, the HDI, poverty, and private investment, and find no consistent evidence that either bilateral or multilateral aid is more effective. The lack of conclusive evidence supporting either aid channel is likely related to differences in the methodologies of the studies included in this review, but may also be due to differences in how the theoretical arguments for the effectiveness of either channel apply in different circumstances.
How development organizations, NGOs, and governments can best allocate scarce resources to those in need has long been debated. As opposed to universal allocation of resources, a more targeted approach attempts to minimize program costs while maximizing benefits among those with the greatest need or market opportunity. Drawing on literature from several sectors,this brief presents two categories of beneficiary targeting in the development context: administrative targeting and self-targeting. The paper includes a brief overview of targeting and segmentation in development, a summary of reasons for targeting, theoretical and practical critiques of targeting, and a discussion of targeting methods in research and practice, including examples from the literature. Implementation examples cited in this body of research include food aid program targeting by self-reported household income in Egypt; fertilizer use in low-potential zones of Uganda; and seven strategic initiatives to improve drought and disease resistance in crops in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. We find that beneficiary segmentation has several theoretical advantages. Improved targeting may increase the efficiency and equity of organizational and program efforts and help better match interventions to recipient preferences, increasing the likelihood of adoption and participation. Development organizations may improve the focus of both their strategic priorities and budgets through customized targeting methods. However, concerns exist regarding the accuracy, reliability, cost, and time-constraints of targeting methodologies. Creating valid and reliable target groups with implementation potential remains a significant challenge.
How development organizations, NGOs, and governments can best allocate scarce resources to those in need has long been debated. As opposed to universal allocation of resources, a more targeted approach attempts to minimize program costs while maximizing benefits among those with the greatest need or market opportunity. Many international development organizations strategically target clients based on geographic location (e.g., community, region, country) or socio-economic indicators, such as the World Bank’s “$1 a day” poverty line. Drawing on literature from several sectors, this brief presents additional methods of beneficiary targeting that international development organizations might consider. We find that beneficiary targeting/segmentation has the potential to make organizational and program efforts more equitable and efficient. With limited resources, smaller organizations have tended to use single robust indicators or simple heuristics, whereas agribusinesses and private sector firms have used more data-intensive marketing tools to position their products. Technological innovation and better access to data have made targeting more prevalent and potentially more affordable in agricultural development. However, creating valid and reliable target segments remains the most significant challenge.
Contract farming (CF) is an arrangement between farmers and a processing or marketing firm for the production and supply of agricultural products, often at predetermined prices. This literature review builds on EPAR's review of smallholder contract farming in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia (EPAR Technical Report #60) by specifically examining the evidence on impacts and potential benefits of contract farming for women in SSA. Key takeaways suggest women’s direct participation in contract farming is limited, with limited access to land and control over the allocation of labor and cash resources key constraints hindering women’s ability to benefit from CF. Further, we find that the impact of contract farming on women is often mediated by their relative bargaining power within the household.
In recent years, product supply chains for agricultural goods have become increasingly globalized. As a result, greater numbers of smallholder farmers in South Asia (SA) and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) participate in global supply chains, many of them through contract farming (CF). CF is an arrangement between a farmer and a processing or marketing firm for the production and supply of agricultural products, often at predetermined prices. This literature review finds empirical evidence that demonstrates that the economic and social benefits of CF for smallholder farmers are mixed. A number of studies suggest that CF may improve farmer productivity, reduce production risk and transaction costs, and increase farmer incomes. However, critics caution that CF may undermine farmers’ relative bargaining power and increase health, environmental, and financial risk through exposure to monopsonistic markets, weak contract environments, and unfamiliar agricultural technologies. There is consensus across the literature that CF has the best outcomes for farmers when farmers have more bargaining power to negotiate the terms of the contract. In reviewing the literature on CF, we find a number of challenges to comparing studies and evaluating outcomes across contracts. This literature review summarizes empirical findings and analyses regarding contract models and best practices to increase farmers’ bargaining power and decrease contract default.