Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR)

In this report, we analyze the evidence that improved and expanded access to financial services can be a pathway out of poverty in Bangladesh and Tanzania. A brief background review of finance and poverty reduction evidence at the country, household, and individual level emphasizes the importance of a functioning financial system and the need to remove individual and household barriers to capital accumulation. We follow with an in-depth literature review on studies that link poverty reduction in Bangladesh or Tanzania with one or more of five financial intervention categories: remittances; government subsidies; conditional and unconditional cash transfers; credit; and combination programs. The resulting empirical evidence from these sources reveal a high share (61%) of positive reported associations between a financial intervention and outcome measure related to our five chosen financial interventions. The remaining studies found insignificant or mixed associations, but very few (3 out of 56) indicate that access to a financial mechanism was associated with worsened poverty. The heterogeneity of study types and interventions makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the efficacy of one intervention over another, and more research is needed on whether such approaches constitute a durable, long-term exit from poverty.

Our initial agriculture capacity building search revealed best practices including institutional partnership building, cross-border opportunities such as ‘twinning,’ and views that these practices are most effective when accompanied by appropriate policies and regulatory frameworks to incentivize return on education to home countries. In addition, the literature explained the historical and political context  in which some countries successfully built higher educational capacity, suggesting a set of socio-political conditions necessary for a ‘surge’ in capacity building to occur.  Our results raised questions about challenges shaping these best practices (e.g. “brain drain” leading to the need for cross-border opportunities) as well as possible approaches to address these underlying issues. To further examine identified challenges from our initial findings, we re-oriented our search to investigate retention strategies, regional or intra-national network capacity building approaches, and whether there is in fact a need for higher education capacity in all countries through comparative advantage or otherwise. This report presents a review of the literature on the best and worst practices for national agricultural capacity building when investing in a country's higher education system or when investing directly in national or relevant global research capacity. We find that several countries have successfully employed a variety of retention, return, and diaspora strategies to build capacity by capitalizing on the feedback loops of international mobility.  In addition, several countries in Africa have employed strategies to address the rural-to-urban “brain drain” by prioritizing education of students with post-secondary rural agricultural work experience and strong ties to rural communities in order to return the benefit of this education to local communities. The report discusses these and other strategies as well as analysis related to the ‘whole system effect’ of higher education and subsequent ‘need’ for Higher Agricultural Education (HAE) capacity in all countries.

Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are generally defined as geographically delimited areas administered by a single body, offering certain incentives (duty-free importing and streamlined customs procedures, for instance) to businesses that physically locate within the zone. This literature review provides a baseline analysis of SEZs and their potential impacts on smallholder farmers in SSA. Criticism on SEZs is distinctly divided between those who criticize on social or environmental grounds versus those who question the economic impact of SEZs. SEZs are often criticized based on perceived negative socio-economic impacts—particularly their negative impact on women, labor, and working conditions. This review includes several country-specific studies that find evidence that SEZs actually have higher environmental standards and higher worker satisfaction than outside the SEZ. Most responses to criticisms do note, however, that the case studies’ results are not necessarily generalizable to SEZs throughout the world. The literature review includes key elements of successes and failures pulled from the case studies of SEZs in SSA. Though the evidence is insufficient to conclusively determine if smallholder farmers receive direct benefits from SEZs and their associated agroindustrial contracts, this review finds that resources provided to farmers (credit at rates lower than bank rates, technical or managerial assistance, pesticides, seeds, and fertilizer on credit) tend to be concentrated among larger farmers. The report concludes with a note on donor involvement as well as recommendations for further research.