EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF FARMER GROUP PARTICIPATION ON RURAL LIVELIHOODS

1. 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

2. 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?

3. 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 community- e.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 self-interests, but also for attaining mutually collective interests.

4. 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

5. 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

6. Research Objectives • Identify the socio-economic factors that have a major influence on economic welfare. • Investigate the effect of participation in different types of groups on economic welfare. • Explore the effect of services accessed through different groups on economic welfare.

7. Study Sites Vihiga in Western Province Embu in Eastern Province Rainfall:1800-2000 (mm) Altitude: 1300-1500 (m) Pop Density: 850 (persons/km2) Rainfall:640-2000 Altitude: 760-2070 Pop Density: 330 Baringo in Rift Valley Province Rainfall:300-1200 Altitude: 300-2100 Pop Density: 26

8. 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

9. Dimensions of Well-being Increased Income/ Livelihood Security Improved Women’s Lives Increased Household Assets Well-being Healthy/ Sustainable Environment Increased Nutritional Status Decreased Morbidity Control on Fertility Decreased Mortality

10. 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.

11. Household Characteristics

12. Group Participation Patterns

13. Trend in Group Participation between 2000-2003

14. Factor Loading Patterns for High Group Participation

15. Factor Loading Patterns for Low Group Participation

16. Comparisons of Mean Service Access * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level

17. 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.

18. Coefficients of Group Participation on Well-being Statistically significant levels: * p < 0.10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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 organizationaland resource capacity to benefit more rural people by enabling more asset accumulation and higher asset productivity, thereby stimulating income growth.

22. 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.

23. 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 districts- MOA, KARI, and other Government Departments, NGOs, CBOs • Colleagues and many others

24. Thank you for listening. Comments are welcome. da54@cornell.edu

25. Regression Coefficients of Endowment Factors on Well-being Statistically significant levels: * p < 0.10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01

26. 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.