IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/capriw/50048.html

Collective Action in Space: Assessing How Collective Action Varies Across an African Landscape

Author

Listed:
  • Swallow, Brent M.
  • Wangila, Justine
  • Mulatu, Woudyalew
  • Okello, Onyango
  • McCarthy, Nancy

Abstract

This paper develops and applies a new approach for analyzing the spatial aspects of individual adoption of a technology that produces a mixed public-private good. The technology is an animal insecticide treatment called a “pouron” that individual households buy and apply to their animals. Private benefits accrue to households whose animals are treated, while the public benefits accrue to all those who own animals within an area of effective suppression. A model of household demand for pourons is presented. As for a private good, household demand for the variable input depends upon output price, input cost, and household characteristics. Input costs for pouron treatments include both the market price of the pourons and the transaction costs that the household must incur to obtain the treatments. Demand also depends upon the way that each household expects its neighbors to respond to one’s own behavior. Free-riding is expected in communities with no tradition or formal organization to support collective action. Greater cooperation is expected in communities that have organizations that reward cooperative behavior and punish deviant behavior. Data for estimation of the model were collected for all of the 5,000 households that reside within the study area of 350 square kilometers in southwest Ethiopia. Geographic reference data were collected for every household using portable Geographic Positioning System units. GIS software was used to generate spatial variables. Variables for distance from the household to the nearest treatment center and number of cattle-owning neighbors within a 1- kilometer radius of the household were created. The density of cattle-owning neighbors was used as a measure of the potential benefits from cooperation; this variable was expected to have a positive effect on household pouron demand in communities able to support effective collective action and a negative effect in communities not able to support effective collective action. A set of community binary variables was interacted with the density variable to capture differences between communities. The results confirm the importance of the household-level variables. The results also indicate large differences in ability to cooperate between local administrative units. Everything else equal, the areas least able to cooperate were located farthest from the treatment center, were ethnically heterogenous, and had a different ethnic composition than areas around the treatment centers.

Suggested Citation

  • Swallow, Brent M. & Wangila, Justine & Mulatu, Woudyalew & Okello, Onyango & McCarthy, Nancy, 2000. "Collective Action in Space: Assessing How Collective Action Varies Across an African Landscape," CAPRi Working Papers 50048, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:capriw:50048
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.50048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/50048/files/capriwp05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.50048?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Echessah, Protase N. & Swallow, Brent M. & Kamara, Damaris W. & Curry, John J., 1997. "Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: Application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 239-253, February.
    2. Nancy E. Bockstael, 1996. "Modeling Economics and Ecology: The Importance of a Spatial Perspective," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1168-1180.
    3. Chomitz, Kenneth M & Gray, David A, 1996. "Roads, Land Use, and Deforestation: A Spatial Model Applied to Belize," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 10(3), pages 487-512, September.
    4. Jayne, T S, 1994. "Do High Food Marketing Costs Constrain Cash Crop Production? Evidence from Zimbabwe," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 387-402, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Swallow, Brent M. & Wangila, Justine & Mulatu, Woudyalew & Okello, Onyango & McCarthy, Nancy, 2000. "Collective action in space: assessing how collective action varies across an African landscape," CAPRi working papers 5, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Haixiao Huang, Walter C. Labys, 2002. "Environment and trade: a review of issues and methods," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 100-160.
    3. Dorner, Zack & Hyslop, Dean, 2014. "Modelling Changing Rural Land Use in New Zealand 1997 to 2008 Using a Multinomial Logit Approach," Motu Working Papers 290602, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    4. Nelson, Gerald C. & Geoghegan, Jacqueline, 2002. "Deforestation and land use change: sparse data environments," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 201-216, November.
    5. Lewis, David J. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2004. "Policies To Reduce Forest Fragmentation: Combining Econometric Models With Gis-Based Landscape Simulations," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19910, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Coria, Jessica & Robinson, Elizabeth & Smith, Henrik G. & Sterner, Thomas, 2012. "Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Services Provision: Tale of Confused Objectives, Multiple Market Failures and Policy Challenges," Working Papers in Economics 546, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    7. I.J. Bateman & A.P. Jones & A.A. Lovett & I.R. Lake & B.H. Day, 2002. "Applying Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to Environmental and Resource Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 219-269, June.
    8. David J. Lewis & Andrew J. Plantinga, 2007. "Policies for Habitat Fragmentation: Combining Econometrics with GIS-Based Landscape Simulations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(2), pages 109-127.
    9. Marcellus Caldas & Robert Walker & Stephen Perz, 2002. "Small Producer Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Integrating Household Structure and Economic Circumstance in Behavioral Explanation," CID Working Papers 96, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    10. Levente Timar, 2022. "Modelling private land-use decisions affecting forest cover: the effect of land tenure and environmental policy," Motu Working Papers 22_12, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    11. Staal, S. J. & Baltenweck, I. & Waithaka, M. M. & deWolff, T. & Njoroge, L., 2002. "Location and uptake: integrated household and GIS analysis of technology adoption and land use, with application to smallholder dairy farms in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 295-315, November.
    12. Lewis, David J., 2010. "An economic framework for forecasting land-use and ecosystem change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 98-116, April.
    13. Katharine Sims, 2014. "Do Protected Areas Reduce Forest Fragmentation? A Microlandscapes Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(2), pages 303-333, June.
    14. Robert Walker & Stephen Perz & Marcellus Caldas & Luiz Guilherme Teixeira Silva, 2002. "Land Use and Land Cover Change in Forest Frontiers: The Role of Household Life Cycles," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 25(2), pages 169-199, April.
    15. Villegas, Laura, 2019. "Integrating Econometric Models of Land Use Change with Models of Ecosystem Services and Landscape Simulations to Guide Coastal Management and Planning for Flood Control," EfD Discussion Paper 19-13, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    16. Mann, Michael L. & Kaufmann, Robert K. & Bauer, Dana Marie & Gopal, Sucharita & Nomack, Mallory & Womack, Jesse Y. & Sullivan, Kerry & Soares-Filho, Britaldo S., 2014. "Pasture conversion and competitive cattle rents in the Amazon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 182-190.
    17. Sandler, Austin M. & Rashford, Benjamin S., 2018. "Misclassification error in satellite imagery data: Implications for empirical land-use models," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 530-537.
    18. Parker, Dawn Cassandra, 2000. "Edge-Effect Externalities: Theoretical And Empirical Implications Of Spatial Heterogeneity," Dissertations 11940, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    19. Luz Angela Rodr√≠guez Ram√≠rez, 2006. "Determinantes De Las Decisiones De Conservaci√Ìn De √Åreas Naturales: Un An√Ålisis Desde La Perspectiva P√Öblica Y Privada," Documentos CEDE 2322, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    20. Magliocca, Nicholas & McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret, 2015. "Exploring sprawl: Results from an economic agent-based model of land and housing markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 114-125.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:capriw:50048. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.