Transcript Document

EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF
FARMER GROUP PARTICIPATION
ON RURAL LIVELIHOODS
David M. Amudavi
(PhD. Candidate)
Department of Education
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Presentation for the
SAGA PROJECT POLICY CONFERENCE
“Empowering the Rural Poor and Reducing Their Risk and Vulnerability”
February 10th , 2005, Grand Regency Hotel
Nairobi, Kenya
Introduction
Sudden interest in the use of rural community
groups (RCGs) & organizations as a mode of
reaching the resource-limited farmers and
their potential for scaling up extension
outreach
Do groups matter in supporting household welfare?
Group Participation
Community/Local Groups
• Community groups formed endogenously within a community of their
own accord based on their own identified needs- E.g., women groups,
self-help groups, youth groups, social groups, etc.
• Limited networks with external social actors
• Less linkage-dependent
Supra Groups
• Formed exogenously by or in cooperation with external agencies (e.g.,
government, NGOs, private businesses) in response to some
anticipated resource flow between external entities and the communitye.g. cooperatives, farmer associations (DGAK)
• Possess networks of contacts outside a community/village
• Linkage-dependent to some degree.
Group participation
Involvement by individuals in specific organized informal or formal
organizations for purposes of realizing not only utilitarian rational selfinterests, but also for attaining mutually collective interests.
Efficacy of Community Groups
• Promote economic well-being and offer buffers
against natural and policy shocks, e.g., SAPs
• Facilitate low cost access to information
• Stimulate adoption of technology, practices,
innovations
• Enhance contract enforcement
• Facilitate labor sharing at critical times
• Important in cooperative marketing, input
supply, or savings and credit
• Enhance one’s opportunity to locate the
information, resources and influence necessary
to advance economic welfare
Purpose of the Study
Concerns establishing whether group
participation substantially influences
household welfare/well-being and whether
this varies by group type and by the extent of
group mediation of access to services
Research Objectives
a) Identify the socio-economic factors that
have a major influence on economic
welfare.
b) Investigate the effect of participation in
different types of groups on economic
welfare.
c) Explore the effect of services accessed
through different groups on economic
welfare.
Vihiga in
Western
Province
Study Sites
Rainfall: 1800-2000
(mm)
Altitude: 1300-1500
(m)
Pop Density: 850
(persons/km2)
Embu in
Eastern
Province
Rainfall: 640-2000
Altitude: 760-2070
Baringo in
Rift Valley
Province
Rainfall: 300-1200
Altitude: 300-2100
Pop Density: 330
Pop Density: 26
Data
Household Data (Survey)
• Household socio-demographic variables
• Crop production & types and numbers of
livestock
• Participation in community-based institutions
• Collective action and trust
Data on Community Groups (Focus groups)
•
•
•
•
Group formation & group size
Group orientation: functions and benefits
Group heterogeneity and synergies
Group sustenance/stability
Dimensions of Well-being
Improved
Women’s
Lives
Healthy/
Sustainable
Environment
Control on
Fertility
Increased Income/
Livelihood
Security
Well-being
Increased
Household
Assets
Increased
Nutritional
Status
Decreased
Morbidity
Decreased
Mortality
Economic Well-being Measures
Asset index: Computed from ownership of
assets via principal components analysis, as
an alternative diagnostic measure to income.
Based on information on key household
items and the condition of respondents’
dwellings.
Annual income: Computed from crop and
livestock activities, non-farm activities and
formal sector employment.
Household Characteristics
Baringo
Vihiga
Embu
Male-headed (%)
Female-headed
Primary Educ (%)
Secondary Educ
Tertiary Educ
83.8
16.2
43.0
36.1
20.9
83.1
6.9
33.8
53.1
13.1
82.5
17.5
30.0
53.8
16.3
Age of head of hh (yrs)
45.0
51.0
52.0
Household size
7.0
7.8
6.5
Total Liv. Units
Income (Kshs)
Land size (ha)
Title deed
Credit (%)
3.7
70,925
1.92
33.7
43.1
1.4
86,740
0.75
39.9
61.25
1.0
125,561
1.52
63.5
48.8
Variable
Group Participation Patterns
Group Type
Community
Groups
Frequency Baringo
%
Vihiga
%
Embu Overall
%
%
0
29.4
20.6
18.8
22.9
1-3
70.7
76.9
75.0
74.2
4
0
2.5
6.4
2.9
Chi-square = 73.5, df = 12, p <0.001, phi = 0.391
Supra
Groups
0
60
8.8
9.4
26.0
1-3
40
88.8
80.1
69.6
4
0.0
2.5
10.7
4.4
Chi-square = 283.78, df = 14, p <0.001, phi = 0.769
Trend in Group Participation between 2000-2003
80
75
73
76
60
56
49
40
42
44
35
District
25
20
Baringo
Vihiga
0
4
Embu
Missing
Remained constant
Decreased
Current participation
Increased
Factor Loading Patterns for High Group Participation
Factor Pattern
1
2
3
Variable
4
Collective action in public goods
.709
0
0
0
Education-enlightenment
.681
0
0
0
Improves supply of social capital
.677
0
0
0
Problem solving and social support
.676
0
0
0
Enhance social norms for social control
.563
0
0
0
Generate cash flows - savings, loans etc
0
.610
0
0
Improve standards of living
0
.607
0
0
Enhance efficiency on farm
0
.533
0
0
Enhance income generating activities
0
.477
0
0
Enhance welfare development
0
.795
0
Acquire productive assets
0
.648
0
Gain access to markets
0
0
.795
Reduce poverty
0
0
.760
12.0
11.2
Variance explained
(54.9%)
19.2
12.5
Factor Loading Patterns for Low Group Participation
Factor Pattern
1
2
3
4
Variable
5
Poor management
.733
0
0
0
0
Misunderstandings
.745
0
0
0
0
Lack of accountability
.715
0
0
0
0
Poor arrangement and logistics
.503
0
0
0
0
Discouragement
.528
0
0
0
0
Lack of financial resources
0
.702
0
0
0
High share contributions
0
.752
0
0
0
Lack of active membership
0
.518
0
0
0
Dependency on external support
0
0
.573
0
0
Lack of commitment -domestic chores
0
0
.556
0
0
Heterogeneity of members
0
0
.804
0
0
Groups not helpful – seek AIG activities
0
0
0
.728
0
Lack of clear goals and objectives
0
0
0
.672
0
Lack of self-expression/voice
0
0
0
0
.650
16.9
12.4
10.7
9.9
7.7
Variance explained (57.6%)
Comparisons of Mean Service Access
Dependent
Variable
(I)
District
Mean
(J)
District
Mean
Mean
Diff (I-J)
Service
Access by
Community
Groups
Vihiga
3.73
Baringo
1.43
2.30*
Embu
6.08
Baringo
1.42
4.66*
Embu
6.08
Vihiga
3.72
2.36*
Service
Access by
Supra
Groups
Vihiga
3.36
Baringo
1.26
2.09*
Embu
9.18
Baringo
1.26
7.92*
Embu
9.18
Vihiga
3.36
5.82*
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
Effects of Groups on Welfare
So does the density of group memberships and
of services access through groups measurably
affect household welfare?
This hypothesis was tested by using multivariate
regression analyses with Asset Index and Log
of income as dependent (response) variables.
Coefficients of Group Participation on Well-being
Variable
Asset Index Log Income
Memberships in
0.046
0.060
Community Groups
Memberships in
0.124***
0.203***
Supra Groups
Service access by
0.013
0.002
Community Groups
Service access by
0.022***
0.012
Supra Groups
Vihiga District (Dummy)
0.031
0.404***
Embu District (Dummy)
0.491***
0.423***
Statistically significant levels:
* p < 0.10;
** p < .05;
*** p < .01
Group Effects On Well-being cont’d
• Household resource endowments – level of
education, size of livestock, and size of land with
secure land tenure – have the expected, significant,
positive effects on the household asset index and on
income.
• Significant positive effects associated with young,
male-headed households and residence in Embu or
Vihiga
• Density of participation in supra groups significantly
and positively affects both measures of household
welfare.
• Supra groups may raise the aggregate or average
income in an area, but simultaneously depress the
relative economic status of certain segments of the
population in the community, particularly the poor
Conclusions
• Group participation matters in economic
welfare. Social capital manifest in group
participation matters materially to household
welfare measures.
• Levels of group participation and associated
access to services differ significantly across
households and districts.
• Human, physical and natural capital holdings
and gender are critical factors explaining
variation in household wealth.
Conclusion cont’d
• The fact that supra group-mediated services access
has additional positive effects on household wealth
also indicates that supra groups offering a greater
range of services are associated with the highest
levels of economic welfare in the communities
studied.
• The significant effects of supra groups on economic
welfare suggests the need to expand their
organizational and resource capacity to benefit
more rural people by enabling more asset
accumulation and higher asset productivity, thereby
stimulating income growth.
Policy Implications
• Being realistic when considering the capacity of
groups to undertake significant functions and
responsibilities.
• Checking the formation and development of
more groups against their capacity to leverage
key services such as farm inputs, information,
accessing markets and financial services.
• Increasing the services accessible through extant
groups may be a more desirable course than
fostering the emergence of new groups.
• Addressing the stark disparity across
communities and districts in group participation
rates and in the services available through
community and supra groups requires attention.
Acknowledgments
• The Rockefeller Foundation for financial support of
the entire program
• Cornell University for the education and training
• SAGA Project
• The Farmers – who participated in the study
• Key Informants of agencies in the three districtsMOA, KARI, and other Government Departments,
NGOs, CBOs
• Colleagues and many others
Thank you for listening.
Comments are welcome.
[email protected]
Regression Coefficients of Endowment Factors on Well-being
Variable
Asset Index Log Income
Constant
-1.156***
9.635***
Gender of head of
0.347***
0.363***
hhd
Age of head of hhd
-0.006**
-0.017***
Secondary Education
0.267***
0.348***
Tertiary Education
0.781***
0.0.938***
Size of household
-0.016
0.015
Family in off-farm jobs
0.056**
0.139**
Land size (ha)
0.108***
0.137***
Land Tenure (Title)
0.413***
0.140***
Total
Livestock
Units
0.052***
Statistically
significant
levels:
* p < 0.041***
0.10;
** p < .05;
***
p < .01
Benefits of Participation
Participation in groups can offer several
resource/benefits:
• Material (increase in consumption, income or assets),
• Social (services such as schools, health clinics, water
systems, improved and better roads), and
• Personal benefits such as self-esteem.
The distribution of service access was estimated by
summing up all possible services obtained from each
type of group.