Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse University PARIMA p

1. Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern AfricaJohn McPeak, Syracuse UniversityPARIMA project of the GL-CRSP

2. Pastoral, Arid and Semi Arid Area

3. Northern Kenya, Southern Ethiopia Northern Kenya, Southern Ethiopia

4. Study Area

5. Introduction • This project came about in response me seeing a move to community based, participatory project definition in pastoral areas. • Such a move is widespread in development policy. • I wondered how well such an approach would work. • This study has no behavioral model, and the underlying theory such as it is remains as background. • So today is more about “development” than “development economics”: be prepared for an equation free presentation.

6. Literature on Community Based and Driven Development • Mansuri and Rao (2004) provide a review indicating that project selection is not clearly related to participatory methods. • Rao and Ibanez (2003) find that the expressed needs of households are not matched by funded projects in Jamacia. • Platteau (2003), Platteau and Gaspart (2003) focus on potential for ‘elite capture’ of the process. • Conning and Kevane (2002) contrast local information advantages against rent seeking / lack of orientation toward the poor in targeting. • Bardhan (2002) places this issue in the context of overall decentralization.

7. Study Area

9. Development survey • Survey of 249 people in six communities in Kenya, 147 people in five communities in Ethiopia; 396 people. • Open ended work to develop survey form. • Run in late 2001 in Kenya, 2002 in Ethiopia. • Kenya interviewed multiple individuals per household, Ethiopia only household head. • Had been working with them since 2000. • Text to make clear motivation. • Revisited in summer 2006 to follow up.

10. Percent having personal experience with project of type:

11. How many of these on average per site per person?

12. Who did the projects? Recall Kargi, North Horr, Dillo low market access.

13. Different sources do different things: Ethiopia

14. Different sources do different things: Kenya

15. Rankings • Respondents rank from highest (1) to lowest (depends), and if not ranked a zero is assigned. • To put these in some kind of order, we normalize the rankings. • Normalized rank = [1-((item rank-1)/rank of maximum item)] • So if 3 items, 1=1, 2=.67, 3=.33, others =0. • Not flawless or beyond criticism, but seems to be consistent qualitatively with other approaches such as probit for #1, or probit for in the top 3, or ordered probit… • Simple to calculate and understand. • Issues arise as not all rank the same number, so #2 of 2 = .5, and #3 of 4 =.5 for example.

16. How are these past interventions ranked by most helpful to least?

17. Is low rank because no experience or low evaluation of experienced project? Rank by those with experience Low community: Transport, NRM, Restocking, Savings and Credit, Alternative income Low Personal: Transport, NRM, Electricity and phones High community: Food aid, Human health, Livestock health, Water, Education, Livestock marketing High personal: Food aid, Human health, Livestock health, Water, education, Livestock marketing, Wildlife management, Alt. income

18. Any that caused harm? • Ethiopia • 12% noted something that harmed the community and 8% identified personal harm (fertilizer burned plants, wrong medicine in health centers, restocked animals brought diseases, a few others) • Kenya • 23% identified something that harmed the community and 8% identified personal harm (borehole water poisoned and killed animals, the spread of mesquite plants, loss of grazing land to natural resource management projects or wildlife, a few others).

19. What about ranking future interventions - overall

20. Relatively clear consensus around the higher ranked items

21. There is a lot of variation: by site

22. And within sites: North Horr respondents

23. Individual Characteristics

24. Mean Household Characteristics

25. Regression methods • 2 limit tobit (probability mass at zero if not ranked as a priority, probability mass at one if ranked as highest priority). • Handout with tables for those interested.

26. Summary of regression findings • Individual characteristics not all that influential. • Household characteristics more influential. • Site specific dummies almost always significant.

27. How do these ranks compare

28. How do these match funding priorities? • Community driven development in Kenya, World Bank ALRMP. • 38.9 million USD will be spent on natural resources and disaster management • 24.2 million USD will be spent on community driven development • 14.8 million USD will be spent on support to local development (working with other development agencies already active).

29. Community Driven Development • Runs 14 day “Participatory Integrated Community Development” training. • Forms and trains “Community Development Committee” • These select and run “micro-projects” • The cost to the project of the trainings is equal to 27% of the total cost to the project of all the micro projects.

30. What are the micro projects?

31. Government plan for arid and semi arid lands: proposed budget

32. Conclusions • Past rankings: • Government is main source of past interventions. • Kenya and Ethiopia profiles not all that different. • Site differences exist. Easier to get to sites better served, more government intervention.

33. Contrasting priorities

34. 2006 visits • Follow up – do they think priorities have changed? • Mostly no, but a few changes: Ng’ambo noted some changes due to the sinking of a borehole, North Horr noted restocking may be more important due to recent drought, Sugata Marmar noted issues with people fleeing to the area due to violence in other areas.

35. What are the specifics within the broad categories • A dispensary needs to be built, a maternity ward needs to be equipped, sheep pox needs to be controlled, a public secondary school is needed as is a bursary fund, excavate and desilt dams, construction of irrigation canal, rehabilitate cattle and sheep dips, regulate the supply of veterinary drugs to control quality,improve higway security to improve marketing, develop access to higher return markets,….

36. Conclusions • Future rankings • Top ranks for interventions for past and future are pretty much the same with the exception of food aid. • Top three types of things desired have nothing to do with pastoralism: human health, water, and education. • Basic development needs are still in need of attention. • Food aid drops significantly, argument is that if other interventions are provided, need for food aid will be significantly reduced (not eliminated, but reduced)

37. Conclusions • Pastoral specific interventions are desired, following these basic needs. • Health and marketing are priorities. • Conflict resolution and restocking follow. • Natural resource management low on the list (11 to 13 in rankings, but 8th most commonly experienced). Note that most have had development agencies coming at them armed with a “tragedy of the commons’ worldview.

38. Conclusions • New opportunities are identified • Cultivation (8 to 9) • Savings and credit (12 to 11) • Alternative income generation (16 to 10) • Some are not all that popular • Wildlife management (14 to 16) • Transport infrastructure (9 to 12) • Electricity and phones. (13 to 15)