1 / 15

MCC Nicaragua Program

MCC Nicaragua Program. MCC Nicaragua Program. 22 millions. 33 millions. 107 millions. MCC Nicaragua Program. Which program combination will have the biggest impact?. Challenges to Answering this Question.

aline-battle
Download Presentation

MCC Nicaragua Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MCC Nicaragua Program

  2. MCC Nicaragua Program 22 millions 33 millions 107 millions

  3. MCC Nicaragua Program • Which program combination will have the biggest impact?

  4. Challenges to Answering this Question • Reliable measurement of impacts for programs that are subject to self-selected (non-random) participation • Heterogeneity of response to land title based on perceived security • Asymmetries in insecurity without title • Explicit preference for ill-defined/contestable rights? • Let’s look at each of these challenges in more detail …

  5. Basic Impact Evaluation Design • Randomized geographic roll-out • Pre-program identification of treatment clusters & eligible households within them • Random allocation to early/late status • Surveys of random sample of eligible producer households (~400/regime)

  6. Effectiveness of Randomization • Using baseline data (late 2007), let’s look at randomization respect to business services:

  7. Effectiveness of Randomization • In early areas can see self-selection by looking at the eligible who enrolled versus those who did not: Participants $404** $402 Non-partic. $388**

  8. Full Randomization Scheme • Less effective randomization with titling blocks • Program delays—still no titling as of 3/2009 • Shift to new program design: • Systematic titling in favored areas • On-demand in less favored areas (travel to regional center and request title)

  9. Recovering Randomization of Title • Alternative strategy • Randomized individual titling issuance in high potential area • Randomized ‘encouragement’ in less favored areas (bus rides & lunch money) • Move to continuous treatment design: • One dimensional example from South Africa and why this is a sensible approach • Two dimensions of treatment: titling and services • Hope that get sufficient variation in timing to identify something about regime 3 (title only)

  10. Heterogeneity of Insecurity • General heterogeneity • Selection into title

  11. Analytical Strategy to Uncover Heterogeneous Impacts • Switching Tobit Regression: • Results using endogenous title: • Illustrative, but do not believe: • Self-selection of those with title • Further heterogeneity of those with & without credit & other business services

  12. Stay Tuned for Future Results! • Round 2 Survey in Field Now • Will allow evaluation of average effect of business program • Continuing delays for land titling • Round 3 Survey in 2011 • Allow deeper evaluation of time path of impact (see Keswell et al. presentation on south Africa earlier today) • Hopefully allow reliable inference on all four treatment regimes • Authoritative answer to Carter-Olinto “Getting Institutions Right for Whom” question (Am J of Ag Econ, 2004)

More Related