Evidence for Agriculture
November 7-8, 2016
World Bank, Washington, DC
Production for protectionDo agricultural productivity programs serve a social protection role
as well as lifting incomes? What evidence do we have?
Paul Winters
Officer-in-Charge, Strategy and Knowledge Department
& Director, Research and Impact Assessment Division
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Production and protection
2
Protection production
Farmers face
market
imperfections
(credit,
insurance…)
Non-
separablility of
production &
consumption
Social
protection
programs
overcome
market failures
Enhanced
production
Production protection
Productive
projects build
assets,
overcome
constraints
Enhance
production and
potentially
sales
Greater food
and income
Direct
consumption
or income for
protective
benefits
Production and protection: Sets of metrics
3
Social protection
(e.g. cash transfers)Agricultural
production
Health• Clinic visits, health outcomes…
Nutrition• Anthropometrics, food diversity...
Education• Attendance, enrolment, repeat, test
scores…
Child labor• Hours worked…
Empowerment• Empowerment index…
Non-monetary poverty outcomes• Vulnerability, multidimensional
poverty, response to shocks…
Assets• Agric. and non-agric. implements
owned, livestock…
Inputs• Seed, pesticide, fertilizer…
adoption and value, labor use...
Production• Yields, production value, crop
diversification…
Sales• Amount sold, transaction costs…
Home production• Production consumed…
Income• Agric. and non-agric. income…
From protection to production
4
Social protection
(e.g. cash transfers)Agricultural
production
Assets• Agric. and non-agric. implements
owned, livestock…
Inputs• Seed, pesticide, fertilizer…
adoption and value, labor use...
Production• Yields, production value, crop
diversification…
Sales• Amount sold, transaction costs…
Home production• Production consumed…
Income• Agric. and non-agric. income…
Health• Clinic visits, health outcomes…
Nutrition• Anthropometrics, food diversity...
Education• Attendance, enrolment, repeat, test
scores…
Child labor• Hours worked…
Empowerment• Empowerment index…
Non-monetary poverty outcomes• Vulnerability, multidimensional
poverty, response to shocks…
5
Daidone, S., S. Asfaw, B. Davis, S. Handa, P. Winters (2016) The household and
individual-level productive impacts of cash transfer programs in Sub-Saharan
Africa.
From protection to production:
Analysis of cash transfer programs in Sub-Saharan Africa
Zambia Malawi Kenya Lesotho Ghana Eth. Zimb.
Design RCT RCT RCT RCT PSM PSMMatchedcontrol
Baseline 2010 2013 2007 2011 2010 2012 2013
Follow-up20122013
201420092011
2013 2012 2014 2014
Sample size 2,298 3,369 1,907 1,406 1,504 3,173 2,630
Households invest in productive activities—
though impact varies by country
Zambia Malawi Kenya Lesotho Ghana Eth. Zimb.
Agricultural inputs +++ + - ++ +++ -/+
Agricultural tools +++ +++ NS NS NS +
Agricultural production
+++ ++ NS ++ NS ++ +
Sales +++ + NS NS - -
Home consumption NS +++ +++ NS
Livestock ownership All types All types Small Pigs NS -- Small Goats
Non farm enterprise +++ --/+++FHH-MHH
- NS -- ++
Stronger impact Mixed impact Less impact
What explains differences across countries?
Crop Livestock NFE Productivelabor
Social Network
Zambia yes yes yes yes
Malawi yes yes no yes small
Kenya no small yes yes
Lesotho yes small no no yes
Zimbabwe yes small yes yes
Ethiopia yes no no no no
Ghana no no no small yes
Predictability of payment
Regular and predictable transfers facilitate planning, consumption smoothing and investment
0
1
# o
f p
aym
en
ts
Zambia CGP
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
# o
f p
aym
en
ts
Ghana LEAP
Regular and predictableLumpy and irregular
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Kenya CT-OVC (big
hh)
BurkinaFaso
GhanaLEAP(2011)
Kenya CT-OVC (2010)
Malawi SCT(2013)
South AfricaCSG (2012)
LesothoCGP (2011)
GhanaLEAP(2012)
Kenya CT-OVC (small
hh)
ZimbabweHSCT(2013)
ZambiaCGP (2014)
ZambiaMCP (2014)
Malawi SCT(2008)
Bigger transfer means more impact
Widespread impact
Selective impact
% o
f p
er
cap
ita
inco
me
of
po
or
Demographic profile of beneficiaries
Under 5
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
40 to 44
45 to 49
50 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 64
65 to 69
70 to 74
75 to 79
80 to 84
85 to 89
Over 90
1000 500 500 1000 population
Males Females
Ghana LEAP
Under 5
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
40 to 44
45 to 49
50 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 64
65 to 69
70 to 74
75 to 79
80 to 84
85 to 89
Over 90
2000 500 500 2000 population
Males Females
Zambia CGP
More able-bodied, younger children
More labor-constrained, older children
Conclusions on protection for production
1. Cash transfers do not create dependency
2. Wide range of impacts across many
domains—but depends on implementation
and other factors
3. Cash transfers are transformative,
contributing to protective and productive
outcomes
4. Cannot separate productive from social
objectives
Production for protection:
Are we providing similar answers?
12
Social protection
(e.g. cash transfers)Agricultural
production
Health• Clinic visits, health outcomes…
Nutrition• Anthropometrics, food diversity...
Education• Attendance, enrolment, repeat, test
scores…
Child labor• Hours worked…
Empowerment• Empowerment index…
Non-monetary poverty outcomes• Vulnerability, multidimensional
poverty, response to shocks…
Assets• Agric. and non-agric. implements
owned, livestock…
Inputs• Seed, pesticide, fertilizer…
adoption and value, labor use...
Production• Yields, production value, crop
diversification…
Sales• Amount sold, transaction costs…
Home production• Production consumed…
Income• Agric. and non-agric. income…
1. Are there social protection
benefits of productive projects?
2. Under what conditions are there
protective impacts?
3. Does it require specialized
interventions?
Production for protection: what do we know?
13
Review of impact evaluation database of the
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
480 rigorous impact evaluations of
agricultural projects identified
Assessment of systematic reviews
linked to agriculture—two identified
Papers examined for standard
social protection indicators
2
3
4
5
Only 28 robust impact evaluations of agricultural projects that include social protection indicators. 1
14
Production for protection: what evidence do we have?
Majority are microfinance (10) and farmer field schools (10).
Many agricultural project types have no evidence of links.
None found, for example, on irrigation projects.
Health (10), education (8) and nutrition (8) most common protective metric.
Even measurement of income/poverty is uncommon and peripheral with little attempt to discern a causal pathway.
We have very little evidence!
Production for protection: Should we care?
15
• Agricultural projects should focus on increasing productivity and profitability
• Feed growing urban populationsNO
• Rural productive investment as a path to Sustainable Development Goals
• Support to the missing middle
• Synergies between productive projects and social protection interventions
YES
Thank you!
Production for protection
16
Do agricultural productivity programs serve a social
protection role as well as lifting incomes? What
evidence do we have?
Agricultural programs may play a social protection role,
but there is limited evidence on if, when and how these
programs do—the evidence needs to be generated.