1 / 17

Impacts of CAADP on Africa’s Agricultural-Led Development

Impacts of CAADP on Africa’s Agricultural-Led Development. Sam Benin, IFPRI. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01553 August 2016. Impacts of CAADP on Africa’s Agricultural-Led Development. Download at: https :// www.ifpri.org/publication/impacts-caadp-africas-agricultural-led-development

roddy
Télécharger la présentation

Impacts of CAADP on Africa’s Agricultural-Led Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impacts of CAADP on Africa’s Agricultural-Led Development Sam Benin, IFPRI

  2. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01553 August 2016 Impacts of CAADP on Africa’s Agricultural-Led Development Download at: https://www.ifpri.org/publication/impacts-caadp-africas-agricultural-led-development or send me email s.benin@cgiar.org Samuel Benin Development Strategy and Governance Division

  3. Introduction and objectives • Learned about growth and poverty reduction in Africa in recent years, and CAADP is 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, and nutrition

  4. Fundamentals of impact evaluation direct effect indirect effect Outcome CAADP Y XOUT XCAADP XCAADP&OUT Total Effect = direct effect + indirect effect (control for XCAADP, XOUT, XCAADP&OUT) Key Assumption: Xi is known, observed, and used

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

  6. Launch of CAADP A G B Joint sector review &mutual accountability Analysis of growth options, investment, & capacity needs CAADP country-level process & conceptual framework C F Consultations with stakeholders and validation of results Financing and implementation of plan and programs Two definitions of CAADP: • Whether signed compact (0=no, 1=yes) • Level reached: 0=precompact 1=compact 2=NAIP 3=1 ext fund 4=>1 ext fund D E Preparation and signing of compact by all stakeholders Preparation of investment plan & programs 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

  7. Conceptsand 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 & labor productivity • Broader outcomes: income (GDP per capita), nutrition (prevalence of adult undernourishment)

  8. Influential factors and hypothesis

  9. 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

  10. Distribution of countries (46)

  11. Determinants of CAADP implementation *, **, and *** =statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

  12. Determinants of CAADP implementation • Regarding compact signing, variables representing: • 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

  13. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14) 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

  14. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14) Puzzling impacts Largest significant impacts No significant impacts *, **, and *** =statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

  15. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14) • 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 Puzzling impacts Largest significant impacts No significant impacts *, **, and *** =statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

  16. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14) *, **, and *** =statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively • 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)

  17. Overall implications • 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

More Related