IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/756.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

From the ground up: Impacts of a pro-poor community-driven development project in Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Nkonya, Ephraim
  • Phillip, Dayo
  • Mogues, Tewodaj
  • Pender, John
  • 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." from Author's Abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Nkonya, Ephraim & Phillip, Dayo & Mogues, Tewodaj & Pender, John & 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00756.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    2. Kleemeier, Elizabeth, 2000. "The Impact of Participation on Sustainability: An Analysis of the Malawi Rural Piped Scheme Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 929-944, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Bouman, F. J. A., 1995. "Rotating and accumulating savings and credit associations: A development perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 371-384, March.
    5. Jagger, Pamela & Pender, John L., 2003. "Impacts of programs and organizations on the adoption of sustainable land management technologies in Uganda:," EPTD discussion papers 101, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. 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.
    7. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, Elsevier.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
    12. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Stich, Andreas, 1996. "Inequality and negative income," Discussion Papers in Econometrics and Statistics 4/96, University of Cologne, Institute of Econometrics and Statistics.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
    19. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2001. "Attribution and other problems in assessing the returns to agricultural R&D," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 141-152, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. World Bank, 2009. "Economy-Wide Impact of Oil Discovery in Ghana," World Bank Other Operational Studies 18903, The World Bank.
    2. Sarma, P. K. & Raha, S. K. & Jørgensen, H. & Mia, M. I. A., 2015. "Impact analysis of beef cattle agribusiness on income: A double difference approach," Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, vol. 13.
    3. Takeshima, Hiroyuki, 2012. "Onset risk and draft animal investment in nigeria:," IFPRI discussion papers 1198, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Takeshima, Hiroyuki & Adeoti, Adetola I. & Salau, Sheu, 2010. "Measuring the effect of transaction costs for investment in irrigation pumps: Application of unobserved stochastic threshold model to the case of Nigeria," NSSP working papers 15, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Takeshima, Hiroyuki & Yamauchi, Futoshi, 2010. "Market and climatic risks and farmers' investment in productive assets under the Second Fadama Development Project in Nigeria:," IFPRI discussion papers 1033, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Nkonya, Ephraim & von Braun, Joachim & Mirzabaev, Alisher & Le, Quang Bao & Kwon, Ho Young & Kirui, Oliver K., 2013. "Economics of Land Degradation Initiative: Methods and Approach for Global and National Assessments," Discussion Papers 158663, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    7. Takeshima, Hiroyuki & Adeoti, Adetola I. & Salau, Sheu, 2011. "Measuring the effect of transaction costs for investment in irrigation pumps: Application of the unobserved stochastic threshold model to the case of Nigeria," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 1-26, September.
    8. Peterman, Amber & Quisumbing, Agnes & Behrman, Julia & Nkonya, Ephraim, 2010. "Understanding gender differences in agricultural productivity in Uganda and Nigeria," IFPRI discussion papers 1003, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Ayanwale, Adeolu B. & Olarinde, Luke O. & Oladunni, Olufemi A. & Nokoe, Kaku S. & Adekunle, Adewale A. & Fatunbi, Oluwole, 2013. "Enhancing Smallholder Farmers Income and Food Security through Agricultural Research and Development in West Africa: Impact of the IAR4D1 in the KKM PLS," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 160575, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community driven development; Poverty reduction; Propensity score matching; Difference-in-difference; Fadama;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fpr:ifprid:756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.