Year Published
- 2008 (0)
- 2009 (6) Apply 2009 filter
- 2010 (4) Apply 2010 filter
- 2011 (1) Apply 2011 filter
- 2012 (3) Apply 2012 filter
- 2013 (0)
- 2014 (1) Apply 2014 filter
- 2015 (0)
- 2016 (2) Apply 2016 filter
- 2017 (2) Apply 2017 filter
- 2018 (2) Apply 2018 filter
- 2019 (3) Apply 2019 filter
- 2020 (0)
- (-) Remove 2021 filter 2021
Research Topics
Populations
- Countries/Governments (0)
- Rural Populations (0)
- Smallholder Farmers (1) Apply Smallholder Farmers filter
- Women (0)
Types of Research
- Data Analysis (1) Apply Data Analysis filter
- Literature Review (0)
- Portfolio Review (0)
- Research Brief (1) Apply Research Brief filter
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Global (1) Apply Global filter
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (1) Apply Sub-Saharan Africa filter
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
Dataset
- ASTI (0)
- FAOSTAT (0)
- Farmer First (0)
- LSMS & LSMS-ISA (0)
- (-) Remove Other Datasets filter Other Datasets
Current search
- (-) Remove Finance & Investment filter Finance & Investment
- (-) Remove Technology filter Technology
- (-) Remove Food Security & Nutrition filter Food Security & Nutrition
- (-) Remove Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints filter Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints
- (-) Remove Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management
- (-) Remove Other Datasets filter Other Datasets
- (-) Remove Poverty filter Poverty
- (-) Remove Market & Value Chain Analysis filter Market & Value Chain Analysis
- (-) Remove 2021 filter 2021
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