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

4. Study Area

5. Introduction • Questions motivating the study • What has been the development experience to date? • What kinds of interventions are most highly desired by people living in these communities for the future? • To what extent are these desires shared by individuals within these communities?

6. Introduction • Move to community based, participatory project definition. • What do people have experience with and how do they evaluate this experience? • What do they see as the most important future priorities? • Help know what types of organizations should be working where. • Help know what types of resource allocations to expect. • Need to understand if there is heterogeneity within communities

7. 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.

8. Study Area

10. 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.

11. Percent having personal experience with project of type:

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

13. Who did the projects? Recall N’gambo, Finchawa, Sugata Marmar high market access; Kargi, North Horr, Dillo low market access.

14. How are these past interventions ranked by most helpful to least? Significant difference between community and personal for: Livestock Health, Education (C>P); Alternative Income Generation, Food Aid (P>C); Others NS difference.

15. Is low rank because no experience or low evaluation of experienced project? Rank by those with experience

16. 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).

17. What about ranking future interventions - overall Education in only one with statistically significant difference, C>P

18. There is a lot of variation: by site

19. And within sites: North Horr respondents

20. Overall variation As a general rule, things ranked more highly have less variance about them as measured by the CV.

21. Regression results: Example

22. Summary of regression findings • Individual characteristics not all that influential. • Household characteristics more influential. • Site specific dummies almost always significant. • These are only for Kenya. Ethiopia data analysis ongoing.

23. How do ranks contrast?

24. 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.

25. 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)

26. 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 and 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.

27. Conclusions • New opportunities are identified • Agriculture about the same (8 and 9) • Savings and credit about the same (12 and 11) • Alternative income generation moves up (16 to 10) • Some move down • Wildlife management (14 and 16) • Transport infrastructure (9 and 12) • Electricity and phones. (13 and 15)

28. Conclusions: is the message getting through currently?

29. Conclusions • World Bank ALRMP in Kenya: phase 2 • 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).