Perspectives on Development:

Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa

John McPeak, Syracuse UniversityPARIMA project of the GL-CRSP

Pastoral, Arid and Semi Arid Area

Northern Kenya, Southern Ethiopia

Study Area

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?

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

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 AreaSurvey Sites in

Southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

$Z

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

Negelle

Hagere Mariam

Yabello

Mega

Moyale

Marsabit

Marigat

Maralal

Isiolo

Dillo

Kargi

Ngambo

Qorate

Wachille

Finchawa

Logologo

Dida Hara

North Horr

Dirib Gumbo

Suguta Marmar

Major Roads$Z Survey Sites#Y Major Towns

100 0 100 200 300 Kilometers

N

EthiopiaSudan

Kenya

CentralAfrican

Republic

Tanzania

UgandaCongoSomalia

Rwanda

Burundi

Site Market Access

Ethnic Majority

Relative Ag. Potential

Annual Rainfall

Kenya Dirib Gumbo Medium Boran High 650

Kargi Low Rendille Low 200

Logologo Medium Ariaal Med.-Low 250

N’gambo High Il Chamus High 650

North Horr Low Gabra Low 150

Sugata Marmar High Samburu Medium 500

Ethiopia Dida Hara Medium Boran Medium 500

Dillo Low Boran Low 400

Finchawa

Qorati

High

Medium

Guji

Boran

High

Medium

650

450

Wachille Medium Boran Medium 500

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.

Percent having personal experience with project of type:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ethiopia

Kenya

How many of these on average per site per person?

Past "Yes"

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Who did the projects?

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Other

NGO

MISSION

GOVT

Recall N’gambo, Finchawa, Sugata Marmar high market access;

Kargi, North Horr, Dillo low market access.

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.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7Community

Personal

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

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1 Community

Personal

% with experience

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8Community

Personal

Education in only one with statistically significant difference, C>P

There is a lot of variation: by site

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1Overall DG-K KA-K LL-K NG-K NH-K

SM-K DH-E DI-E FI-E QO-E WA-E

And within sites: North Horr respondents

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Overall variation

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4Mean

CV

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

Regression results: Example  Human Health Human Health Water Water

Community Personal Community Personal

Female Indiv        

Age   P *    

Education indiv        

Herd Size     P ** P **

Expenditure N *      

% Income salary        

% Income lstock N **      

Female Head       N **

Bank P ** P ***    

Education HH        

HH members   N **    

DG   P *** P *** P ***

KA P *** P ***    

LL     P *** P ***

NG N *** N * P ** P ***

NH P * P *** N ** N **

Constant P ** P ** P *** P ***

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.

How do ranks contrast?Past Experience Past rank Future Rank

Human Health 2 2 1

Water 4 1 2

Education 5 5 3

Livestock Health 3 3 4

Livestock Marketing 9 6 5

Conflict resolution 7 7 6

Restocking 11 10 7

Food Aid 1 4 8

Agriculture 10 8 9

Alternative income 16 16 10

Savings 14 12 11

Transport 6 9 12

NRM 8 11 13

Institutional dev. 15 15 14

Phone, electric 13 13 15

Wildlife management 12 14 16

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.

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 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.

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)

Conclusions: is the message getting through currently?

Public Infrastructure (roads,electricity, solar, telephone)

Water

Human Health

Livestock and Fisheriesdevelopment

Education

Tourism, Trade and Industry

Human ResourceDevelopment

Mixed farming

Conflict and DisasterManagement

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).