- 2008 (1) Apply 2008 filter
- 2009 (16) Apply 2009 filter
- 2010 (14) Apply 2010 filter
- 2011 (9) Apply 2011 filter
- 2012 (0)
- 2013 (6) Apply 2013 filter
- 2014 (4) Apply 2014 filter
- 2015 (5) Apply 2015 filter
- 2016 (4) Apply 2016 filter
- 2017 (2) Apply 2017 filter
- 2018 (1) Apply 2018 filter
- 2019 (1) Apply 2019 filter
- 2020 (1) Apply 2020 filter
- 2021 (2) Apply 2021 filter
- Development Finance & Policy (9) Apply Development Finance & Policy filter
- Household Well-Being & Equity (10) Apply Household Well-Being & Equity filter
- Education & Training (1) Apply Education & Training filter
- Food Security & Nutrition (2) Apply Food Security & Nutrition filter
- Gender (14) Apply Gender filter
- Health (5) Apply Health filter
- Labor & Time Use (13) Apply Labor & Time Use filter
- Poverty (2) Apply Poverty filter
- Risk, Preferences, & Decision-Making (3) Apply Risk, Preferences, & Decision-Making filter
- Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods (50) Apply Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods filter
- Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management (21) Apply Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter
- Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints (21) Apply Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints filter
- Environment & Climate Change (19) Apply Environment & Climate Change filter
- Finance & Investment (7) Apply Finance & Investment filter
- Market & Value Chain Analysis (19) Apply Market & Value Chain Analysis filter
- Technology (19) Apply Technology filter
Types of Research
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (59) Apply East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- Global (26) Apply Global filter
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (33) Apply South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (6) Apply Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- (-) Remove Sub-Saharan Africa filter Sub-Saharan Africa
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (26) Apply West Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
Climate change is predicted to have increasingly dire effects on the largely rainfed agriculture of sub-Saharan agriculture, a livelihood that also contributes to climate change. Within this context, multilateral funding institutions are increasingly funding projects devoted to the adaptation to or mitigation of climate change. Data from the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) provide an overview of climate-related project data, but the intersection of climate-related projects and projects intended to develop rural and agricultural economies is less explored. This paper focuses on climate-related projects in sub-Saharan Africa in the context of rural and agricultural project funding. We use a custom dataset from three separate multilaterals (the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Fund for Agricultural Development) to answer the following research questions:
- What proportion of agriculture-related lending across the three multilaterals of interest has a climate component?
- Which countries are borrowing most for climate-related agricultural projects? Is the amount of borrowing correlated with a country’s climate risk?
Of all financing projects in our dataset (N = 1,846), we identified 203 as being climate-related (11%) and 505 as being related to rural agricultural economies (27%). Of the $26.5 billion annualized project funding, rural and agricultural financing accounts for $6.5 billion (24.6%) while climate projects receive $1.97 billion (7.4%). The World Bank funds approximately half of all agriculture projects in the dataset, with the AfDB funding just under 30% and IFAD just over 20%.
Annual average borrowing amounts from multilaterals for climate-related rural/agricultural economies projects varies widely across sub-Saharan Africa. The major borrowers include Ethiopia ($150 million), Nigeria ($105 million), and Kenya ($102 million). The proportion of multilateral borrowing for climate-related projects among all rural agricultural borrowing also varies substantially across sub-Saharan Africa; the Seychelles and Eswatini devote the largest proportions of rural agricultural borrowing toward climate work (100% and 69.8%, respectively). Fourteen SSA countries devote between 15% and 30% of rural agricultural borrowing to climate-related projects and fifteen have not received any multilateral financing for climate-related rural/agricultural economies projects.
We do not find a statistically significant relationship between a country’s Climate Risk Index and the proportion of annual rural/agricultural economies borrowing focused on climate.
Financing for Climate Change in Africa: A View of Sovereign Borrowing in Agriculture from Multilateral Funding Institutions . EPAR Technical Report #411 (2022). Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington. Retrieved <Day Month Year> from https://epar.evans.uw.edu/research
In this dataset, we compile current project data from three major international financial institutions (or IFIs) - the World Bank, African Development Bank, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development - to understand
- how much countries are borrowing from each institution. and
- how much of that funding is devoted to small scale producer agriculture.
We begin by gathering publicly accessible data through downloads and webscraping Python and R scripts. These data are then imported into the statistical software program, Stata, for cleaning and export to Excel for analysis. This dataset contains rich information about current projects (active, in implementation, or recently approved), such as project title, project description, borrowing ministry, commitment amount, and sector. We then code relevant projects into two categories: On Farm (projects pertaining directly to small scale producer agriculture) and Rural/Agricultural Economies (inclusive of On Farm, but broader to include projects that impact community livelihoods and wellbeing). Finally, we annualize and aggregate these coded projects by IFI and then by country for analysis. Bilateral funding, government expenditures on agriculture, and development indicators are also included as supporting data to add context to a country's progress towards agricultural transformation.
The primary utility of this dataset is having all projects collected in a single spreadsheet where it is possible to search by key terms (e.g. commodity, market, financial, value chain) for lending by IFI and country, and to get some level of project detail. We have categorized projects by lending category (e.g. irrigation, livestock, agricultural development, research/extention/training) to aggregate across IFI so that the total funding for any country is easier to find. For example, Ethiopia and Nigeria receive the most total lending from these IFIs (though not on a per capita basis), with each country receiving more than $3 billion per year on average. Ethiopia receives the most lending devoted to On Farm projects, roughly $585 million per year. Overall, these data provide a snapshot of the magnitude and direction of these IFI's lending over the past several years to sub-Saharan Africa.
Figone, K., Porton, A., Kiel, S., Hariri, B., Kaminsky, M., Alia, D., Anderson, C.L., and Trindade, F. (2021). Summary of Three International Financial Institution (IFI) Investments in Sub-Saharan Africa. EPAR Technical Report #411. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington. Retrieved <Day Month Year> from https://epar.evans.uw.edu/research/tracking-investment-landscape-summary-three-international-financial-institutions-ifis
Recent research has used typologies to classify rural households into categories such as “subsistence” versus “commercialized” as a means of targeting agricultural development interventions and tracking agricultural transformation. Following an approach proposed by Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, we examine patterns in two agricultural transformation hallmarks – commercialization of farm output, and diversification into non-farm income – among rural households in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania from 2008-2015. We classify households into five smallholder farm categories based on commercialization and non-farm income levels (Subsistence, Pre-commercial, Transitioning, Specialized Commercial, and Diversified Commercial farms), as well as two non-smallholder categories (Largeholder farms and Non-farm households). We then summarize the share of households in each of these categories, examine geographic and demographic factors associated with different categories, and explore households’ movement across categories over time. We find a large amount of “churn” across categories, with most households moving to a different (more or less commercialized, more or less diversified) category across survey years. We also find many non-farm households become smallholder farmers – and vice versa – over time. Finally, we show that in many cases increases in farm household commercialization or diversification rates actually reflect decreased total farm production, or decreased total income (i.e., declines in the denominators of the agricultural transformation metrics), suggesting a potential loss of rural household welfare even in the presence of “positive” trends in transformation indicators. Findings underscore challenges with using common macro-level indicators to target development efforts and track progress at the household level in rural agrarian communities.
In many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia smallholder farmers are among the most vulnerable to climatic changes, and the observed shocks and stresses associated with these changes impact agricultural systems in many ways. This research brief offers findings on observed or measured changes in precipitation, temperature or both, on five biophysical pathways and systems including variable or changing growing seasons, extreme events, biotic stressors, plant species density, richness and range, impacts to streamflow, and impacts on crop yield. These findings are the result of a review of relevant documents cited in Kilroy (2015), references included in the IPCC draft Special Report on Food Security, and targeted searches from 2015 - present for South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Many low- and middle-income countries remain challenged by a financial infrastructure gap, evidenced by very low numbers of bank branches and automated teller machines (ATMs) (e.g., 2.9 branches per 100,000 people in Ethiopia versus 13.5 in India and 32.9 in the United States (U.S.) and 0.5 ATMs per 100,000 people in Ethiopia versus 19.7 in India and 173 in the U.S.) (The World Bank 2015a; 2015b). Furthermore, only an estimated 62 percent of adults globally have a banking account through a formal financial institution, leaving over 2 billion adults unbanked (Demirgüç–Kunt et al., 2015). While conventional banks have struggled to extend their networks into low-income and rural communities, digital financial services (DFS) have the potential to extend financial opportunities to these groups (Radcliffe & Voorhies, 2012). In order to utilize DFS however, users must convert physical cash to electronic money which requires access to cash-in, cash-out (CICO) networks—physical access points including bank branches but also including “branchless banking" access points such as ATMs, point-of-sale (POS) terminals, agents, and cash merchants. As mobile money and branchless banking expand, countries are developing new regulations to govern their operations (Lyman, Ivatury, & Staschen, 2006; Lyman, Pickens, & Porteous, 2008; Ivatury & Mas, 2008), including regulations targeting aspects of the different CICO interfaces.
EPAR's work on CICO networks consists of five components. First, we summarize types of recent mobile money and branchless banking regulations related to CICO networks and review available evidence on the impacts these regulations may have on markets and consumers. In addition to this technical report we developed a short addendum (EPAR 355a) which includes a description of findings on patterns around CICO regulations over time. Another addendum (EPAR 355b) summarizes trends in exclusivity regulations including overall trends, country-specific approaches to exclusivity, and a table showing how available data on DFS adoption from FII and GSMA might relate to changes in exclusivity policies over time. A third addendum (EPAR 355c) explores trends in CICO network expansion with a focus on policies seeking to improve access among more remote or under-served populations. Lastly, we developed a database of CICO regulations, including a regulatory decision options table which outlines the key decisions that countries can make to regulate CICOs and a timeline of when specific regulations related to CICOs were introduced in eight focus countries, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda.
A large and growing body of scholarship now suggests that many household outcomes, including children’s education and nutrition, are associated with a wife’s bargaining power and control over household decision-making. In turn, bargaining power in a household is theorized to be driven by a wife’s financial and human capital assets – in particular the degree to which these assets contribute to household productivity and/or to the wife’s exit options. This paper draws on the detailed Farmer First dataset in Tanzania and Mali to examine husband and wife reports of a wife’s share of decision-making authority in polygynous households, where multiple wives jointly contribute to household productivity, and where exit options for any single wife may be less credible. We find that both husbands and wives assign less authority to the wife in polygynous households relative to monogamous households. We also find that a wife’s assets are not as strongly associated with decision-making authority in polygynous versus monogamous contexts. Finally, we find that responses to questions on spousal authority vary significantly by spouse in both polygynous and monogamous households, suggesting interventions based on the response of a single spouse may incorrectly inform policies and programs.
An ongoing stream of EPAR research considers how public good characteristics of different types of research and development (R&D) and the motivations of different providers of R&D funding affect the relative advantages of alternative funding sources. For this project, we seek to summarize the key public good characteristics of R&D investment for agriculture in general and for different subsets of crops, and hypothesize how these characteristics might be expected to affect public, private, or philanthropic funders’ investment decisions.
Mobile technology is associated with a variety of positive development and social outcomes, and as a result reaching the “final frontier” of uncovered populations is an important policy issue. We use proprietary 2012 data on mobile coverage from Collins Bartholomew to estimate the proportion of the population living in areas without mobile coverage globally and in selected regions and countries, and use spatial analysis to identify where these populations are concentrated. We then compare our coverage estimates to data from previous years and estimates from the most recent literature to provide a picture of recent trends in coverage expansion, considering separately the trends for coverage of urban and rural populations. We find that mobile coverage expansion rates are slowing, as easier to reach urban populations in developing countries are now almost entirely covered and the remaining uncovered populations are more dispersed in rural areas and therefore more difficult and costly to reach. This analysis of mobile coverage trends was the focus of an initial report on mobile coverage estimates. In a follow-up paper prepared for presentation at the 2016 APPAM International Conference, we investigate the assumption that levels of mobile network coverage are related to the degree of market liberalization at the country level.
Common estimates of agricultural productivity rely upon crude measures of crop yield, typically defined as the weight harvested of a crop divided by the area harvested. But this common yield measure poorly reflects performance among farm systems combining multiple crops in one area (e.g., intercropping), and also ignores the possibility that farmers might lose crop area between planting and harvest (e.g., partial crop failure). Drawing on detailed plot-level data from the LSMS-ISA in Tanzania, Nigeria, and Ethiopia, we show how various yield measurement decisions affect estimates of smallholder yields for a variety of crops. We consider the effect of measuring production by plot area, area planted, and area harvested, of trimming the top 1% and 2% of values, and of considering different groups of farmers according to total area planted.