Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR)

Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in Sub-Saharan Africa can be defined as mutual assistance organizations through which individuals undertake collective action in order to improve their own lives. “Collective action” implies that individuals share their time, labor, money, or other assets with the group. In a recent EPAR data analysis, we use three nationally-representative survey tools to examine various indicators related to the coverage and prevalence of Self-Help Group usage across six Sub-Saharan African countries. EPAR has developed Stata .do files for the construction of a set of self-help group indicators using data from the Living Standards Measurement Study - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA), Financial Inclusion Index (FII), and FinScope.

We compiled a set of summary statistics for the final indicators using data from the following survey instruments:

• Ethiopia:
  • Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS), Wave 3 (2015-16)
• Kenya:
  • Kenya FinScope, Wave 4 (2015)
  • Kenya FII, Wave 4 (2016)
• Nigeria
  • Nigeria FII, Wave 4 (2016)
• Rwanda:
  • Rwanda FII, Wave 4 (2016)
• Tanzania:
  • Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS), Wave 4 (2014-15)
  • Tanzania FinScope, Wave 4 (2017)
  • Tanzania FII, Wave 4 (2016)
• Uganda:
  • Uganda FinScope, Wave 3 (2013)
  • Uganda FII, Wave 4 (2016)

The raw survey data files are available for download free of charge from the World Bank LSMS-ISA website, the Financial Sector Deepening Trust website, and the Financial Inclusion Insights website. The .do files process the data and create final data sets at the household (LSMS-ISA) and individual (FII, FinScope) levels with labeled variables, which can be used to estimate summary statistics for the indicators.

All the instruments include nationally-representative samples. All estimates from the LSMS-ISA are household-level cluster-weighted means, while all estimates from FII and FinScope are calculated as individual-level weighted means. The proportions in the Indicators Spreadsheet are therefore estimates of the true proportion of individuals/households in the national population during the year of the survey. EPAR also created a Tableau visualization of these summary statistics, which can be found here.

We have also prepared a document outlining the construction decisions for each indicator across survey instruments and countries. We attempted to follow the same construction approach across instruments, and note any situations where differences in the instruments made this impossible.

The spreadsheet includes estimates of the following indicators created in our code files:

Sub-Populations

• Proportion of individuals who have access to a mobile phone
• Proportion of individuals who have official identification
• Proportion of individuals who are female
• Proportion of individuals who use mobile money
• Proportion of individuals who have a bank account
• Proportion of individuals who live in a rural area
• Individual Poverty Status
  • Two Lowest PPI Quintiles
  • Middle PPI Quintile
  • Two Highest PPI Quintiles

Coverage & Prevalence

• Proportion of individuals who have interacted with a SHG
• Proportion of individuals who have used an SHG for financial services
• Proportion of individuals who depend most on SHGs for financial advice
• Proportion of individuals who have received financial advice from a SHG
• Proportion of households that have interacted with a SHG
• Proportion of households in communities with at least one SHG
• Proportion of households in communities with access to multiple farmer cooperative groups
• Proportion of households who have used an SHG for financial services

Characteristics
In addition, we produced estimates for 29 indicators related to characteristics of SHG use including indicators related to frequency of SHG use, characteristics of SHG groups, and individual/household trust of SHGs.

This report reviews approaches to results measurement used by multilateral and bilateral donor organizations and highlights trends and gaps in how donors measure and report on their performance. Our review consists of assessing donor organizations in terms of their institutional design and levels of evaluation for results measurement, their organizational processes for measuring types of results including coordination and alignment with recipients, outputs and implementation, outcomes and impacts, and costs and effectiveness, and their processes for reporting and using results information. We collect evidence on 12 bilateral organizations and 10 multilateral organizations. The evidence review includes multi-country reviews of aid effectiveness, peer reviews by other donor organizations, donor evaluation plans and frameworks, and donor results and reporting documents. The report is based on an accompanying spreadsheet that contains the coded information from the 22 donor organizations. We find that donors report several types of results, but that there are challenges to measuring certain results at the aggregate donor level, due to challenges with funding and coordination for results measurement at the project, country, portfolio, and donor levels. Approaches to results measurement vary across donor organizations. We identify some trends and differences among groups of donors, notably between bilateral and multilateral donors, but overall there are no clear delineations in how donors approach results measurement. 

Aid donors are interested in the arguments for allocating aid via bilateral versus multilateral channels, and specifically in understanding which channel is more “effective” at supporting positive development and social outcomes. We contribute to the literature on this subject by summarizing recent OECD data on aid flows and reviewing the theoretical arguments from the aid literature on the different characteristics supporting effectiveness of bilateral versus multilateral aid. We then review the empirical literature, analyzing 40 papers that study the effectiveness of different aid channels on various outcomes. Many studies do not directly compare the effectiveness of aid channels, and the studies vary in how aid channels are defined, measured, and evaluated. Further, these studies do not directly test the hypothesized advantages of one channel of aid versus another; rather they test bilateral versus multilateral aid flows associations with development outcomes, assuming some causal mechanism is at work to explain differences in impact. We evaluate studies reporting the impacts of aid on GDP growth, governance, government investment spending, health, the HDI, poverty, and private investment, and find no consistent evidence that either bilateral or multilateral aid is more effective. The lack of conclusive evidence supporting either aid channel is likely related to differences in the methodologies of the studies included in this review, but may also be due to differences in how the theoretical arguments for the effectiveness of either channel apply in different circumstances.