1. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
FROM MAPUTO TO MALABO
How has CAADP fared?
Samuel Benin
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Sub b

2. Introduction and objectives
Learned about significant growth and poverty reduction in Africa in recent years, and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) is often implicated
Question: how has CAADP actually contributed to these achievements? What are the impacts?
Objective of study: assess impact of CAADP on:
Government agriculture expenditure
Agricultural growth and productivity
Income
Nutrition

3. Conceptual framework: fundamentals
direct effect Y
indirect effect
CAADP
Outcome
XCAADP
XOUT
XCAADP&OUT
Total Effect = direct effect + indirect effect
(control for XCAADP, XOUT, XCAADP&OUT)
Key assumption: Xi is known, observed, and used

4. CAADP country-level process and conceptual framework
Joint sector review & mutual accountability
Launch of CAADP
Financing and implementation of
plan and programs
Analysis of growth
options, investment, &
capacity needs
Consultations with stakeholders and
validation of results
Preparation of investment plan & programs
Preparation and
signing of compact
by all stakeholders A B C D E F G

5. CAADP country-level process and conceptual framework
Two definitions of CAADP treatment:
Whether signed compact:
0=no
1=yes
Level reached:
0 = Precompact
1 = compact
2 = NAIP
3 = 1 ext. fund
4 = >1 ext. fund
Joint sector review & mutual accountability
Launch of CAADP
Financing and implementation of
plan and programs
Analysis of growth
options, investment, &
capacity needs
Consultations with stakeholders and
validation of results
Preparation of investment plan & programs
Preparation and
signing of compact
by all stakeholders A B C D E F G
Assumption
CAADP involves processes and actions that take time to manifest. The longer or more intensive a country engages, the greater the likelihood of success

6. Concepts and methods
Identify factors that determine a country’s decision to implement CAADP (d):
whether it signs a CAADP compact (d1 = 1, 0)
level of implementation reached (d2 = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4)
Controlling for above factors as well as those that affect realization of outcomes, estimate impact of implementing CAADP on annual change in:
Agricultural performance: agriculture expenditure, agricultural growth and land and labor productivity
Broader outcomes: income (GDP per capita) and nutrition (prevalence of adult undernourishment)

7. Influential factors and hypothesis
Conceptual factor (expected)
Variable and measures
Relevance of CAADP/ Importance of agriculture (+)
Share of agricultural value added in total GDP, share of agricultural area in total area
Political will (+)
Number of AU charters/treaties ratified by 2003
Peer pressure (+)
Share of bordering countries at next stage of CAADP implementation (physical or REC)
Negotiation posture (-)
Total expenditure per capita, share of GDP in Africa’s total GDP
Capacity of government (+)
Number years same agricultural minister in place
Demand and capacity of citizens (+/-)
Voice and accountability index (-2.5 to 2.5), autocracy-democracy index (-10 to 10)
Pretreatment outcomes
Lagged value of outcome variable
Cross-country effects
Population density, rainfall, AEZ-economic class
Global effects
Financial crisis (0 up to 2008, 1 after 2008)

8. Data sources and estimation
Data from various international and national sources from 2001 to 2014 Use panel-data regression methods to estimate treatment effects of CAADP and deal with several relevant econometric issues Use different model specifications to evaluate sensitivity of results to different issues and assumptions  generate greater confidence in results

9. Countries (46) by treatment at 2014
Signed CAADP compact in:
Level implementation reached by end of 2014
2007–2009
(13)
2010–
(16)
2013– 2014
(8)
Not signed
(9)
Level 0
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
(12)
Benin
Burundi
Cape Verde
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Liberia
Mali
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
S. Leone
Togo
Burkina Faso
Cent Afr Rep
Congo, D.R.
Côte d’Ivoire
Djibouti
Guinea
G-Bissau
Kenya
Malawi
Mauritania
Mozambique
Senegal
Swaziland
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Angola
Cameroon
Chad
Congo, R.
Lesotho
Madagascar
Sudan
Zimbabwe
Algeria
Botswana
Egypt
Eritrea
Mauritius
Morocco
Namibia
S. Africa
Tunisia

10. Determinants of CAADP implementation
Signed compact (logit)
Level reached (ologit)
Model 1
Model 2
Importance of agriculture
0.57
***
0.48
-0.01
0.02
Political will
0.70 **
0.63
-6.69
-6.38
Peer pressure
0.06
0.11
0.00
Negotiation posture
-1.49
-1.56
1.47
1.56
Government capacity
3.71
5.38
2.11
2.27
Citizens’ demand&capacity
0.58
0.80
0.16
Financial crisis
23.24
4.86
Population density
0.03 *
Intercept
-75.7
-65.1
n.a.
Chi-square statistic
58.85
81.28
803.2
769.0
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

11. Determinants of CAADP implementation
Signed compact (logit)
Level reached (ologit)
Model 1
Model 2
Importance of agriculture
0.57
***
0.48
-0.01
0.02
Political will
0.70 **
0.63
-6.69
-6.38
Peer pressure
0.06
0.11
0.00
Negotiation posture
-1.49
-1.56
1.47
1.56
Government capacity
3.71
5.38
2.11
2.27
Citizens’ demand&capacity
0.58
0.80
0.16
Financial crisis
23.24
4.86
Population density
0.03 *
Intercept
-75.7
-65.1
n.a.
Chi-square statistic
58.85
81.28
803.2
769.0
Regarding compact signing:
Role of agriculture, political will, peer pressure, government capacity, and financial crisis have positive and statistically significant influence
Negotiation posture has negative influence, likely due to alternative (non-agriculture) sources of development
Citizens’ demands and capacity are not significant
For level of implementation reached:
Only peer pressure (stage of implementation of neighbor) and government capacity (how long minister of agriculture has been in place) are important
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

12. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14)
Annual change in:
Signed compact
Level of implementation achieved
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Ag expenditure as % of total expenditure
-3.6
-4.0
-5.1
6.3
-23.0
***
Ag expenditure as % of ag value added
-1.9
-5.0
-7.8
-2.3
-20.1 **
Agricultural value added per hectare
-6.5
12.9
-7.0 *
8.3
16.5
Agricultural value added per worker
-4.1
8.7
-9.0
3.6
11.6
Agricultural value added
4.9
8.6
7.4
10.8
16.7
GDP per capita
-0.6
-1.3
-0.3
-0.2
1.5
Prevalence of adult undernourishment
1.3
1.1
3.0
-0.1
Interpretation: percentage change in the outcome in countries that are implementing CAADP, compared to the general trend in countries that are not implementing CAADP
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

13. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14)
Annual change in:
Signed compact
Level of implementation achieved
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Ag expenditure as % of total expenditure
-3.6
-4.0
-5.1
6.3
-23.0
***
Ag expenditure as % of ag value added
-1.9
-5.0
-7.8
-2.3
-20.1 **
Agricultural value added per hectare
-6.5
12.9
-7.0 *
8.3
16.5
Agricultural value added per worker
-4.1
8.7
-9.0
3.6
11.6
Agricultural value added
4.9
8.6
7.4
10.8
16.7
GDP per capita
-0.6
-1.3
-0.3
-0.2
1.5
Prevalence of adult undernourishment
1.3
1.1
3.0
-0.1
No significant impacts
Largest significant impacts
Puzzling impacts
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

14. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14)
Annual change in:
Signed compact
Level of implementation achieved
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Ag expenditure as % of total expenditure
-3.6
-4.0
-5.1
6.3
-23.0
***
Ag expenditure as % of ag value added
-1.9
-5.0
-7.8
-2.3
-20.1 **
Agricultural value added per hectare
-6.5
12.9
-7.0 *
8.3
16.5
Agricultural value added per worker
-4.1
8.7
-9.0
3.6
11.6
Agricultural value added
4.9
8.6
7.4
10.8
16.7
GDP per capita
-0.6
-1.3
-0.3
-0.2
1.5
Prevalence of adult undernourishment
1.3
1.1
3.0
-0.1
Signing a compact alone has no significant impact
Negative impact on expenditure  substitution effect, largest for level 4, which has more than one external sources of funding
Positive impacts on agricultural value added: level 4 = 17%; level 3 = 11%; level 2 = 7%; level 1 = 9%
Mixed impact on land and labor productivity: positive, but negative for level 2 (small number of countries)
General insignificant impact on income and nutrition  positive gains in production/productivity yet to translate into broader positive outcomes
No significant impacts
Largest significant impacts
Puzzling impacts
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

15. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14)
Indicator
Year of compact
Level of implementation achieved
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
GDP per capita
-0.8
-1.4
-0.6
0.2
-0.5
3.7
0.0 **
Undernourishment
1.7
-1.1
***
2.0 *
4.8
0.9
2.4
-0.9
Strongly positive impact on income for early implementers at level 4  broader benefits of reforms take time to manifest
Counterintuitive impact on nutrition reflects weaker emphasis on nutrition in early NAIPs compared to later NAFSIPs (FS = food security)
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

16. Overall implications Thank you
Because CAADP is a framework for inclusive participation, ownership, evidence-based policy making, and donor alignment for an agricultural-led development:
it takes time to gain buy-in from all stakeholders to safeguard successful implementation
as such, finding a shortcut is unlikely
We can expect (greater) benefits from processes that include a systematic effort to:
identify strategies that are likely to work (as expected of the growth options and investment and capacity requirements analyses)
articulate those strategies in a plan that is adequately funded and implemented accordingly
to monitor and evaluate progress to continuously refine the investments and programs
Thank you