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.

There is a wide gap between realized and potential yields for many crops in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Experts identify poor soil quality as a primary constraint to increased agricultural productivity. Therefore, increasing agricultural productivity by improving soil quality is seen as a viable strategy to enhance food security. Yet adoption rates of programs focused on improving soil quality have generally been lower than expected. We explore a seldom considered factor that may limit farmers’ demand for improved soil quality, namely, whether farmers’ self-assessments of their soil quality match soil scientists’ assessments. In this paper, using Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS) data, part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA), we compare farmers’ own assessments of soil quality with scientific measurements of soil quality from the Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD). We find a considerable “mismatch” and most notably, that 11.5 percent of survey households that reported having “good” soil quality are measured by scientific standards to have severely constrained nutrient availability. Mismatches between scientific measurements and farmer assessments of soil quality may highlight a potential barrier for programs seeking to encourage farmers to adopt soil quality improvement activities. 

This brief explores how two datasets – The Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS) and the TNS-Research International Farmer Focus (FF) – predict the determinants of inorganic fertilizer use among smallholder farmers in Tanzania by using regression analysis. The (TZNPS) was implemented by the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics, with support from the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team and includes extensive information on crop productivity and input use. The FF survey was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and implemented by TNS Research International and focuses on the on the behaviors and attitudes of smallholder farmers in Tanzania. The two datasets produce relatively comparable results for the primary predictors of inorganic fertilizer use: agricultural extension and whether or not a household grows cash crops. However, other factors influencing input use produce results that vary in magnitude and direction of the effect across the two datasets. Distinct survey instrument designs make it difficult to test the robustness of the models on input use other than inorganic fertilizer. This brief uses data inorganic fertilizer use, rather than adoption per se. The TZNPS did not ask households how recently they began using a certain product and although the FF survey asked respondents how many new inputs were tried in the past four planting seasons, they did not ask specifically about inorganic fertilizer.