IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iffpr5/42344.html

From the Ground Up: Impacts of a Pro-Poor Community-Driven Development Project in Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Nkonya, Ephraim M.
  • Phillip, Dayo
  • Mogues, Tewodaj
  • Pender, John L.
  • Yahaya, Muhammed Kuta
  • Adebowale, Gbenga
  • Arokoyo, Tunji
  • Kato, Edward

Abstract

The community-driven development (CDD) approach has become increasingly popular because of its potential to develop projects that are sustainable, are responsive to local priorities, empower local communities, and more effectively target poor and vulnerable groups. The purpose of this study is to assess the impacts of Fadama II, which is a CDD project and the largest agricultural project in Nigeria. This study used propensity score matching (PSM) to select 1728 comparable project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The study also used double difference methods to compare the impact indicators. Our results show that Fadama II project succeeded in targeting the poor and women farmers in its productive asset acquisition component. Participation in the project also increased the income of beneficiaries by about 60 percent, which is well above the targeted increase of only 20 percent in the six year period of the project. Regarding rural infrastructure investments, we found that the Fadama II project had positive near-term impacts on beneficiaries’ access to markets and transportation costs, although the study revealed surprising effects on beneficiaries’ commercial behavior and statistically insignificant impacts on nonfarm activities. We also observed that Fadama II increased the demand for postharvest handling technologies but did not have a significant impact on the demand for financial management and market information. Fadama II reduced the demand for soil fertility management technologies. The decline likely reflects the project’s focus on providing postproduction advisory services and suggests the need for the project to increase its support for soil fertility management and thus limit the potential for land degradation resulting from increased agricultural productivity. Overall, the Fadama II project has achieved its goal of increasing the incomes of the beneficiaries in the first year of its operation. The project has also succeeded in targeting the poor and vulnerable in its productive-asset component, even though that did not appear to increase significantly short-term household incomes among the poorest asset tercile. The unique feature that could have contributed to the significant impact of the project in a short time is its broad-based approach, which addresses the major constraints limiting the success of CDD projects that address only one or two constraints. This has implications on planning poverty reduction efforts in low-income countries. Given that the poor face numerous constraints, a CDD project that simultaneously addresses many constraints will likely build synergies that will lead to larger impacts than will a project that addresses only one or two constraints. This suggests the need for the government and donors to pool resources and initiate multipronged CDD projects rather than many isolated projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Phillip, Dayo & Mogues, Tewodaj & Pender, John L. & Yahaya, Muhammed Kuta & Adebowale, Gbenga & Arokoyo, Tunji & Kato, Edward, 2008. "From the Ground Up: Impacts of a Pro-Poor Community-Driven Development Project in Nigeria," IFPRI Discussion Papers 42344, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iffpr5:42344
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.42344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/42344/files/ifpridp00756.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.42344?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. repec:bla:devpol:v:24:y:2006:i:5:p:499-511 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    3. Umali-Deininger, Dina, 1997. "Public and Private Agricultural Extension: Partners or Rivals?," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 12(2), pages 203-224, August.
    4. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    5. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    6. Stich, Andreas, 1996. "Inequality and negative income," Discussion Papers in Econometrics and Statistics 4/96, University of Cologne, Institute of Econometrics and Statistics.
    7. Worl, 2007. "Enabling East Asian Communities to Drive Local Development," World Bank Publications - Reports 12697, The World Bank Group.
    8. Conning, Jonathan & Kevane, Michael, 2002. "Community-Based Targeting Mechanisms for Social Safety Nets: A Critical Review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 375-394, March.
    9. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
    10. Chen, Chau-Nan & Tsaur, Tien-Wang & Rhai, Tong-Shieng, 1982. "The Gini Coefficient and Negative Income," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 473-478, November.
    11. Binswanger, Hans P. & Aiyar, Swaminathan, 2003. "Scaling up community-driven development : theoretical underpinnings and program design implications," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3039, The World Bank.
    12. Khwaja, Asim Ijaz, 2001. "Can Good Projects Succeed in Bad Communities? Collective Action in the Himalayas," Working Paper Series rwp01-043, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    13. Frances Cleaver, 1999. "Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 597-612.
    14. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
    15. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    16. Berrebi, Z M & Silber, Jacques, 1985. "The Gini Coefficient and Negative Income: A Comment," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 525-526, September.
    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. Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Phillip, Dayo & Mogues, Tewodaj & Pender, John L. & Yahaya, Muhammed Kuta & Adebowale, Gbenga & Arokoyo, Tunji & Kato, Edward, 2008. "From the ground up: Impacts of a pro-poor community-driven development project in Nigeria," IFPRI discussion papers 756, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Nkonya, Ephraim & Phillip, Dayo & Mogues, Tewodaj & Pender, John & Kato, Edward, 2012. "Impacts of Community-driven Development Programs on Income and Asset Acquisition in Africa: The Case of Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1824-1838.
    3. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2013. "The performance of estimators based on the propensity score," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 1-21.
    4. Chad D. Meyerhoefer & Muzhe Yang, 2011. "The Relationship between Food Assistance and Health: A Review of the Literature and Empirical Strategies for Identifying Program Effects," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 304-344.
    5. Vijayendra Rao & Ana Maria Ibanez, 2005. "The Social Impact of Social Funds in Jamaica: A 'Participatory Econometric' Analysis of Targeting, Collective Action, and Participation in Community-Driven Development," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 788-838.
    6. Pauline Givord, 2011. "Essay on four issues in public policy evaluation [Essai sur quatre problèmes d’évaluation de politiques publiques]," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) tel-04049492, HAL.
    7. Jones A.M & Rice N, 2009. "Econometric Evaluation of Health Policies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/53r60a8s3kup1vc9je5h30d2n is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2010. "How to Control for Many Covariates? Reliable Estimators Based on the Propensity Score," IZA Discussion Papers 5268, IZA Network @ LISER.
    10. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    11. Martin Huber, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," Papers 1910.00641, arXiv.org.
    12. Marco Vega & Diego Winkelried, 2005. "Inflation Targeting and Inflation Behavior: A Successful Story?," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 1(3), December.
    13. Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
    14. Yechan Park & Yuya Sasaki, 2024. "Matching $\leq$ Hybrid $\leq$ Difference in Differences," Papers 2411.07952, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2025.
    15. Dillon, Andrew, 2011. "The Effect of Irrigation on Poverty Reduction, Asset Accumulation, and Informal Insurance: Evidence from Northern Mali," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 2165-2175.
    16. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Evaluating Nonexperimental Estimators for Multiple Treatments: Evidence from Experimental Data," Working Papers 2010-10, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    17. Sunil Mithas & M. S. Krishnan, 2009. "From Association to Causation via a Potential Outcomes Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 295-313, June.
    18. Juan Díaz & Miguel Jaramillo, 2006. "An Evaluation of the Peruvian "Youth Labor Training Program"-PROJOVEN," OVE Working Papers 1006, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    19. Marcus Eliason & Donald Storrie, 2003. "The Echo of Job Displacement," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2003-618, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    20. Martey, Edward & Kuwornu, John K.M. & Adjebeng-Danquah, Joseph, 2019. "Estimating the effect of mineral fertilizer use on Land productivity and income: Evidence from Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 463-475.
    21. Solomon Asfaw & Silvio Daidone & Benjamin Davis & Josh Dewbre & Alessandro Romeo & Paul Winters & Katia Covarrubias & Habiba Djebbari, 2012. "Analytical Framework for Evaluating the Productive Impact of Cash Transfer Programmes on Household Behaviour – Methodological Guidelines for the From Protection to Production Project," Working Papers 101, International Policy Centre.

    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:iffpr5:42344. 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.