Types of Research
- (-) Remove Household Well-Being & Equity filter Household Well-Being & Equity
- (-) Remove Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods filter Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods
- (-) Remove 2018 filter 2018
- (-) Remove Development Finance & Policy filter Development Finance & Policy
- (-) Remove Food Security & Nutrition filter Food Security & Nutrition
- (-) Remove Labor & Time Use filter Labor & Time Use
- (-) Remove 2014 filter 2014
Many low- and middle-income countries remain challenged by a financial infrastructure gap, evidenced by very low numbers of bank branches and automated teller machines (ATMs) (e.g., 2.9 branches per 100,000 people in Ethiopia versus 13.5 in India and 32.9 in the United States (U.S.) and 0.5 ATMs per 100,000 people in Ethiopia versus 19.7 in India and 173 in the U.S.) (The World Bank 2015a; 2015b). Furthermore, only an estimated 62 percent of adults globally have a banking account through a formal financial institution, leaving over 2 billion adults unbanked (Demirgüç–Kunt et al., 2015). While conventional banks have struggled to extend their networks into low-income and rural communities, digital financial services (DFS) have the potential to extend financial opportunities to these groups (Radcliffe & Voorhies, 2012). In order to utilize DFS however, users must convert physical cash to electronic money which requires access to cash-in, cash-out (CICO) networks—physical access points including bank branches but also including “branchless banking" access points such as ATMs, point-of-sale (POS) terminals, agents, and cash merchants. As mobile money and branchless banking expand, countries are developing new regulations to govern their operations (Lyman, Ivatury, & Staschen, 2006; Lyman, Pickens, & Porteous, 2008; Ivatury & Mas, 2008), including regulations targeting aspects of the different CICO interfaces.
EPAR's work on CICO networks consists of five components. First, we summarize types of recent mobile money and branchless banking regulations related to CICO networks and review available evidence on the impacts these regulations may have on markets and consumers. In addition to this technical report we developed a short addendum (EPAR 355a) which includes a description of findings on patterns around CICO regulations over time. Another addendum (EPAR 355b) summarizes trends in exclusivity regulations including overall trends, country-specific approaches to exclusivity, and a table showing how available data on DFS adoption from FII and GSMA might relate to changes in exclusivity policies over time. A third addendum (EPAR 355c) explores trends in CICO network expansion with a focus on policies seeking to improve access among more remote or under-served populations. Lastly, we developed a database of CICO regulations, including a regulatory decision options table which outlines the key decisions that countries can make to regulate CICOs and a timeline of when specific regulations related to CICOs were introduced in eight focus countries, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda.
This research project examines the traits of Tanzanian farmers living in five different farming system-based sub-regions: the Northern Highlands, Sukumaland, Central Maize, Coastal Cassava, and Zanzibar. We conducted quantitative analysis on data from the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS). We complimented this analysis with qualitative data from fieldwork conducted in the summer of 2011 and September 2013 to present a quantitatively and qualitatively informed profile of the “typical” agricultural household’s land use patterns, demographic dynamics, and key issues or production constraints in each sub-region.
This poster presentation summarizes research on changes in crop planting decisions on the extensive and intensive margin in Tanzania, with regards to changes in agricultural land that a farmer has available and area planted in the context of smallholders and farming systems. We use household survey data from the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS), part of the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study–Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS – ISA) to test how much the agricultural land available to households changes, how much farmers change the proportion of land decidated to growing priority crops, and how crop area changes vary with changes in landholding. We find that almost half of households had a change of agricultural land area of at least half a hectare from 2008-2010. Smallholder farmers on average decreased the amount of available land between 2008 and 2010, while non-smallholder farmers increased agricultural land area during that time period, but that smallholder households planted a greater proportion of their agricultural land than nonsmallholders. Eighty percent of households changed crop proportions from 2008 to 2010, yet aggregate level indicators mask household level changes.
The purpose of this analysis is to provide a measure of marketable surplus of maize in Tanzania. We proxy marketable surplus with national-level estimates of total maize sold, presumably the surplus for maize producing and consuming households. We also provide national level estimates of total maize produced and estimate “average prices” for Tanzania which allows this quantity to be expressed as an estimate of the value of marketable surplus. The analysis uses the Tanzanian National Panel Survey (TNPS) LSMS – ISA which is a nationally representative panel survey, for the years 2008/2009 and 2010/2011. A spreadsheet provides our estimates for different subsets of the sample and using different approaches to data cleaning and weighting. The total number of households for Tanzania was estimated with linear extrapolation based on the Tanzanian National Bureau of Statistics for the years 2002 and 2012. The weighted proportions of maize-producing and maize-selling households were multiplied to the national estimate of total households. This estimate of total Tanzanian maize-selling and maize-producing households was then multiplied by the average amount sold and by the average amount produced respectively to obtain national level estimates of total maize sold and total maize produced in 2009 and 2011.