Year Published
- 2008 (4) Apply 2008 filter
- 2009 (33) Apply 2009 filter
- 2010 (38) Apply 2010 filter
- 2011 (26) Apply 2011 filter
- (-) Remove 2012 filter 2012
- 2013 (17) Apply 2013 filter
- (-) Remove 2014 filter 2014
- 2015 (17) Apply 2015 filter
- 2016 (20) Apply 2016 filter
- 2017 (14) Apply 2017 filter
- 2018 (4) Apply 2018 filter
- 2019 (8) Apply 2019 filter
- 2020 (1) Apply 2020 filter
- (-) Remove 2021 filter 2021
Research Topics
Populations
Types of Research
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (16) Apply East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- Global (4) Apply Global filter
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (6) Apply South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (6) Apply Sub-Saharan Africa filter
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (3) Apply West Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
Dataset
Current search
- (-) Remove 2012 filter 2012
- (-) Remove 2014 filter 2014
- (-) Remove 2021 filter 2021
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.
Suggested Citation:
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
Key Takeaways
-
A survey of poverty indicators surfaced 139 candidates, of which 36 were ultimately selected for inclusion in the study based on indicator construction, use, and timeliness.
-
The selected 36 poverty indicators relied primarily on 26 data sources, mainly household surveys and administrative government data.
-
Most indicators relied on household survey data and used multidimensional indices to comprehensively measure poverty, aside from poverty line and poverty gap measures which relied exclusively on income and consumption.
-
Indicators or indicator components were typically based on quantitative estimates of income or consumption, although an increasing number of measurements are instead classifying households according to deprivation of assets, food, or access to services and basic infrastructure.
-
Overall, critics find that an emphasis on poverty line measurements has led to an incomplete understanding of poverty’s prevalence and trends over the last several decades (UN Special Rapporteur, 2020).
-
No single indicator dominates on considerations of reliability, dimensions, depth or intensity, comparability, etc., but rather each measure involves tradeoffs.
-
If the goal is to increase the utility of commonly used indicators, including those considering multiple dimensions of poverty, then investments focused on expanding the coverage, frequency, or scope of nationally representative household surveys is a necessary first step.
-
Making cross-country comparisons using any poverty indicator runs the risk of using a common metric based on different data sources and collected in different years that may not fully reflect a household’s welfare. Indices which include multiple subcomponents may be more holistic, but even less reliable as the number of components requiring data increases.
Suggested citation:
Landscape Review of Poverty Measures. EPAR Technical Report #424 (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.
Suggested Citation:
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
This document is an initial scoping of the theory and evidence linking digital services to women’s rural-to-urban migration. The document contains (1) a survey of the literature on digital financial services to discern how often this body of literature considers gender-disaggregated impacts on migration, (2) a detailed review of 13 hypotheses regarding the effects of digital services on women’s migration to cities, and (3) an illustrative overview of rural-urban migration patterns and digital technology usage in two East African countries (Ethiopia and Tanzania).
Donors and governments are increasingly seeking to implement development projects through self-help groups (SHGs) in the belief that such institutional arrangements will enhance development outcomes, encourage sustainability, and foster capacity in local civil society – all at lower cost to coffers. But little is known about the effectiveness of such institutional arrangements or the potential harm that might be caused by using SHGs as ‘vehicles’ for the delivery of development aid. This report synthesizes available evidence on the effectiveness of Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in promoting health, finance, agriculture, and empowerment objectives in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Our findings are intended to inform strategic decisions about how to best use scarce resources to leverage existing SHG interventions in various geographies and to better understand how local institutions such as SHGs can serve as platforms to enhance investments.
Suggested Citation:
Anderson, C. L., Gugerty, M. K., Biscaye, P., True, Z., Clark, C., & Harris, K. P. (2014). Self-Help Groups in Development: A Review of Evidence from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. EPAR Technical Report #283. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington. Retrieved <Day Month Year> from https://epar.evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/epar_283_shg_evidence_review_brief_10.23.20.pdf
This report draws on past and present peer-reviewed articles and published reports by institutions including the World Health Organization (WHO), the UK Department for International Development (DFID), and others to provide a scoping summary of the household-level spillovers and broader impacts of a select group of health initiatives. Rather than focusing on estimates of the direct health impacts of investments (e.g., reductions in mortality from vaccine delivery), we focus on estimates of the less-often reported spillover effects of specific health investments on household welfare or the broader economy. The brief is designed to give a concise overview of major theories linking health improvements to broader social and economic outcomes, followed by more in-depth summaries of available local- and country-level estimates of broader impacts, defined as project spillovers offering local, regional and national social and economic benefits not typically reported in project evaluations.
This report summarizes current trends in the application of Development Finance Institution (DFI)-based returnable capital finance in developing countries, with an emphasis on “pro-poor” development initiatives. We begin by reviewing the financial instruments used by DFIs. We then review the major DFI providers of returnable-capital based finance, drawing on past and present peer-reviewed articles and published reports exploring trends in the uses of different returnable capital instruments over time. Finally, we conclude by further examining recent efforts to use returnable capital to finance development initiatives explicitly targeting the poor.
This poster presentation summarizes research on changes in crop planting decisions on the extensive and intensive margin in Tanzania, with regards to changes in agricultural land that a farmer has available and area planted in the context of smallholders and farming systems. We use household survey data from the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS), part of the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study–Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS – ISA) to test how much the agricultural land available to households changes, how much farmers change the proportion of land decidated to growing priority crops, and how crop area changes vary with changes in landholding. We find that almost half of households had a change of agricultural land area of at least half a hectare from 2008-2010. Smallholder farmers on average decreased the amount of available land between 2008 and 2010, while non-smallholder farmers increased agricultural land area during that time period, but that smallholder households planted a greater proportion of their agricultural land than nonsmallholders. Eighty percent of households changed crop proportions from 2008 to 2010, yet aggregate level indicators mask household level changes.
This research project examines the traits of Tanzanian farmers living in five different farming system-based sub-regions: the Northern Highlands, Sukumaland, Central Maize, Coastal Cassava, and Zanzibar. We conducted quantitative analysis on data from the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS). We complimented this analysis with qualitative data from fieldwork conducted in the summer of 2011 and September 2013 to present a quantitatively and qualitatively informed profile of the “typical” agricultural household’s land use patterns, demographic dynamics, and key issues or production constraints in each sub-region.
This brief draws on recent reports by the OECD, the World Bank, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and others to provide an overview of climate finance in developing countries. The brief is divided into three sections: (i) sources of global climate finance; (ii) country-level flows of climate finance; and (iii) applications of climate finance in developing countries. The brief is designed to give a concise overview of financial flows directed at climate change mitigation and adaptation globally and in developing countries, with an introduction to climate finance accounting such that climate financial flow volumes can be compared to aid volumes in other sectors. Total global climate finance flows were approximately USD $364 billion in 2011 (Buchner et al., 2012) and $359 billion in 2012. However the vast majority of these flows - 76%, or $275 billion - was finance generated and spent within a country’s own borders (domestic finance) (Buchner et al., 2013). The “Fast-Start Finance” period from 2010-2012 saw $35 billion in new aid mobilized for climate finance in developing countries. Developed countries have recently committed to mobilize an additional $100 billion per year by 2020.