Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse University PARIMA project of the GL-CRSP

Pastoral, Arid and Semi Arid Area

Northern Kenya, Southern Ethiopia

Study Area

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.

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.

Study Area

SiteMarket Access Ethnic Majority Relative Ag. Potential Annual Rainfall Kenya Dirib GumboMediumBoranHigh650 KargiLowRendilleLow200 LogologoMediumAriaalMed.-Low250 N’gamboHighIl ChamusHigh650 North HorrLowGabraLow150 Sugata MarmarHighSamburuMedium500 Ethiopia Dida HaraMediumBoranMedium500 DilloLowBoranLow400 Finchawa Qorati High Medium Guji Boran High Medium WachilleMediumBoranMedium500

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 Text to make clear motivation. Revisited in summer 2006 to follow up.

Percent having personal experience with project of type:

How many of these on average per site per person?

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

Different sources do different things: Ethiopia

Different sources do different things: Kenya

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.

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

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

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).

What about ranking future interventions - overall

Relatively clear consensus around the higher ranked items

There is a lot of variation: by site

And within sites: North Horr respondents

Individual Characteristics N % FemaleAverage AgeAverage Years Education Dida Hara3023%550.1 Dillo3043%470.1 Finchawa3033%520.2 Qorati294%450.2 Wachille2829%450.6 Dirib Gumbo4957%450.3 Kargi4264%450.4 Logologo4269%441.0 Ng'ambo2934%450.8 North Horr4648%390.2 Sugata Marmar4144%441.2

Mean Household Characteristics TLUs2 Week Expend. in Shillings Salary Share Livestock sale share Any member Formal education Bank account House- hold size Female Headed Dida Hara %53%23%3%5.723% Dillo %49%48%0%13.143% Finchawa %64%47%3%10.533% Qorati %49%28%0%6.94% Wachille %52%57%0%6.729% D. Gumbo %25%86%0%6.416% Kargi %38%43%5%524% Logologo %19%60%12%6.533% Ng'ambo %19%93%12%6.533% North Horr %38%45%14%5.614% Sugata Marmar %25%55%3%6.628%

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.

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

How do these ranks compare Past ExperiencePast Rank (C)Future Rank (C) human health221 Water412 Education553 livestock health334 livestock marketing965 conflict resolution776 Restocking11107 Food aid148 Cultivation1089 Alternative income generation16 10 Savings and credit Transport improvement6912 Natural resource management81113 Institutional15 14 electric phone13 15 Wildlife managment121416

How do these match funding priorities? Community driven development in Kenya, World Bank ALRMP 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).

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.

What are the micro projects?

Government plan for arid and semi arid lands: proposed budget

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.

Contrasting priorities PriorityGovernment of KenyaALRMPDevelopment Rankings 1Public Infrastructure ( roads, electricity, solar, telephone ):57% Education: 53%Human Health 2Water: 8%Restocking: 16%Water 3Human Health: 8%Alternative Income Generation: 11% Education 4Livestock and Fisheries development: 8% Health and Sanitation: 9.6% Livestock Health 5Education: 6%Water: 4%Livestock Marketing 6Tourism, Trade and Industry: 4%Cultivation: 4%Conflict resolution 7Human Resource Development: 2%Housing for the poor: 1% Restocking 8Mixed farming: 3%Natural Resource Management: <1% Food Aid 9Conflict and Disaster Management: 3%Food Aid: <1%Cultivation 10Veterinary: <1%Alternative income

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.

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,….

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)

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 8 th most commonly experienced). Note that most have had development agencies coming at them armed with a “tragedy of the commons’ worldview.

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)