Demographic Pressure and Institutional Change: Village-Level Response to Rural Population Growth in...

Demographic Pressure and Institutional Change:

Village-Level Response to Rural Population Growth

in Burkina Faso

Margaret S. McMillan, William A. Masters and Harounan Kazianga

NBER African Successes Project Conference, Zanzibar August 3-5, 2011

Can local public services and land rights be explained by population size?

• Study design and preview of results• Identification strategy• Data and survey methods• OLS and 2SLS results

Demographic Pressure and Institutional ChangeStudy Design | Identification | Data | Results

• Burkina Faso has had unusual shocks to rural population– Onchocerciasis control => migration into river valleys; – Cote d’Ivoire (CDI) politics => forced repatriation

• Spatial variation in shocks across villages could permit identification of demographic effects on public action– Low/rising densities could explain weak/stronger public sector– We have population census data for 1985, ‘96 and 2006– Use village distance to rivers and CDI to instrument exposure– Use village elders to recall changes in village amenities

• Causality is still unclear; goal is to describe correlation between population shocks and village amenities


Study design in one slide

Measuring amenities with time-varying indexes• Public services – four distance metrics of proximity to:

(1) Public Services and Utilities: office used to register births, savings & loan facility, fixed-line telephone, mobile phone reception; (2) Public Infrastructure: road passable all year, seasonal road, bus stop, primary school, secondary school, health center; (3) Religious Services: any church, mosque or temple; (4) Markets: open-air with storage facilities, livestock, or shop.

• Property rights – a principal-components index of:(a) Use rights to cropland (undefined, communal, familial, individual)(b) Transactions for cropland (parcels ever sold or rented)(c) Authorities for resolving conflicts (informal, traditional or elected)(d) Commons demarcation and regulation (pasture land, forest)


Linking amenities to population shocks• Migration adds variance to natural increase in population,

and migration is tied to river valleys and the CDI border,• Interpretation of causality is limited, as usual.

– Migrants could differ from non-migrants, and– Proximity to rivers and CDI could drive both via other channels.

• Novelty is in the data on rural amenities, and their correlation with population shocks– Here, we pre-committed to study design before data collection

so no selection bias in our methods or hypotheses– Future papers can do much more with these data…


Preview of results

• We find strong links between amenities and population – Instrumented population effects are much larger than OLS– Elasticities of distance to population are between 0.4 and 1.4

• Magnitude of variance and effect sizes are large– The increase in proximity of public services associated with

moving from the 1st to 5th quintile of predicted village population is larger than the 10 years of time trend from 1996 to 2006

• No correlation between population and property rights– Instrumented estimate is larger but not significantly positive– Significant time trend with 2006 values above 1985 and 1996


Onchocerciasis Control in West Africa (1974-2002): Aerial spraying over 11 countries for 14 years

to eliminate blackfly vectors


Burkina FasoBurkina Faso

Estimated Onchocerciasis Prevalence in West AfricaPrior to control (1974) After control (2002)

Source: WHO, Onchocerciasis Control Programme (www.who.int/apoc/onchocerciasis/ocp).

http://www.who.int/apoc/onchocerciasis/ocp

Repatriation from Cote d’Ivoire (1999-2003):As many as 1 million returnees in total,

out of 2.25 m. total Burkinabe in CDI in 1998,contributing to 13 m. total population in Burkina in 2003


Foreign population in Cote d’Ivoire census of 1998

Source: IRIN News, “In-depth: Cote d’Ivoire crisis”, November, 2002 (www.irinnews.org).

http://www.irinnews.org/

Villages’ distance to rivers and to Cote d’Ivoire

Cote d’Ivoire

MaliNiger

BeninTogoGhana


Survey Method• Sample is all 747 villages in the national farm survey

of the Office of Agricultural Statistics in Burkina Faso• Respondents were a focus group of village leaders

convened by the enumerator • Survey asks respondents to characterize:

– the situation now and when it was established; – the previous situation and when it was established;– and the situation before that, and when it was established;– variables are either continuous (distance to services), or

categorical (land rights).• Responses permit construction of 3-step time series

– we use only the situation in 1985, 1996 and the present– some villages failed to report some data, but all n>2,000


Questionnaire design: distance to services


N° Questions RéponseDistance (en km) Année d’établissement

V.1 Distance entre le village et l’administration centrale (pour les registres des naissances)

V.1.1

La situation actuelle |____|____|____| |____|____|____|____|

V.1.2

La situation précédente |____|____|____| |____|____|____|____|

V.1.3

La situation antécédente |____|____|____| |____|____|____|____|

V.2 Distance entre le village et la route praticable par car ou camion toute l’année

V.2.1

La situation actuelle |____|____|____| |____|____|____|____|

V.2.2

La situation précédente |____|____|____| |____|____|____|____|

V.2.3

La situation antécédente |____|____|____| |____|____|____|____|

Questionnaire design: land rights


N° Questions Réponse

VIII.1 Type de droit appliquée pour les terres de culture(si la réponse est non, mettre des croix à année de début d’application)

Type de droit appliquée (1=Oui ; 0=Non)

Année de début d’application

VIII.1.1 Propriété individuelle |____| |____|____|____|____|

VIII.1.2 Propriété collective-familiale |____| |____|____|____|____|

VIII.1.3 Propriété collective-communautaire |____| |____|____|____|____|

VIII.2 Location, vente et prêts de terres de culture(si la réponse est non, mettre des croix à année de début d’application)

Possibilité de transaction(1=Oui ; 0=Non)

Année de début d’application

VIII.2.1 Est-ce que la terre peut-être louée ? |____| |____|____|____|____|

VIII.2.2 Est-ce que la terre peut-être vendue ? |____| |____|____|____|____|

VIII.2.3 Est-ce que la terre peut-être prêtée ? |____| |____|____|____|____|

Construction of indexes for distance to services• Distance responses were aggregated into four types:

– Public Services: any office used to register births, savings & loan facility, fixed-line telephone, and/or mobile phone reception;

– Public Infrastructure: any road passable all year, seasonal road, bus stop, primary school, secondary school, health center;

– Religious Service: any church, mosque or temple; – Marketplaces: any market with storage, livestock, or shops.

• Distance indexes constructed in three ways:• Proximity of the farthest service in the basket• Proximity of the nearest service in the basket• Average proximity of all goods in the basket


Proximity to all sources (km)(Average distance to all services)

Proximity to closest source (km)(Distance to closest site in each set)

YearPublic

ServicesPublic Infrast.

ReligiousServices

Market-places

Public Services

Public Infrast.

ReligiousServices

Market-places

1985 26.968 14.798 6.476 8.603 18.349 3.628 3.551 4.828

1996 25.142 11.629 4.740 7.788 15.155 1.856 2.308 3.734

2010 19.724 8.164 3.043 6.116 8.648 0.502 1.175 1.948

Mean value of distance indexes for census yearsAll types of public services are being provided

increasingly close to surveyed villages


Construction of indexes for land rights

• Institutions governing land rights were aggregated using principal components analysis, into a single index whether:– cropland rights are undefined, communal, familial or individual;

– transactions for cropland include sales or rentals;

– authorities to resolve conflicts are informal, traditional or elected;

– pasture and forest is demarcated and restricted via quotas/taxes

• Index is defined with higher values for greater rule of law


Principal-components index of land

rights1 Year1985 -0.0961996 -0.0352006 0.140


Mean value of land rights indexLand rights improved sharply from 1996 to 2006

• Main regression is:

– Where:i is infrastructure or institutional service to the village; P is population of the village; are fixed effects for 45 provinces and 3 years; is error term;j indexes villages (≈16 per province);t indexes time (1985, 1996, 2006)

jtjtjtjt Pi


Regression specification


OLS estimates of main regressionProximity of farthest source (km) Proximity to all sources (km)

Services Infrastr. Religion Markets Services Infrastr. Religion Markets(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Population 0.045* 0.003 0.153*** 0.182*** 0.041* 0.049** 0.145*** 0.187***Y=1996 -0.059 0.174*** 0.127** -0.030 0.025 0.193*** 0.167*** 0.034Y=2006 0.027 0.485*** 0.493*** 0.072 0.255*** 0.538*** 0.515*** 0.222***Constant -3.29*** -3.18*** -2.44*** -3.20*** -2.97*** -2.71*** -2.14*** -3.03***Observ. 2,132 2,161 2,040 2,136 2,132 2,161 2,040 2,136R-squared 0.097 0.147 0.233 0.220 0.116 0.220 0.265 0.225

Proximity to closest source (km) Land Services Infrastr. Religion Markets rights

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13)Population 0.108*** 0.116*** 0.125*** 0.228*** -0.001Y=1996 0.191*** 0.305*** 0.225*** 0.193*** 0.063Y=2006 1.109*** 0.611*** 0.490*** 0.628*** 0.230***Constant -2.69*** -1.40*** -1.50*** -2.64*** 0.02Observ. 2,132 2,161 2,040 2,136 2,170R-squared 0.230 0.234 0.232 0.235 0.217

First stage results for IV estimates

Dependent variable: Village population(1) (2) (3)

Distance to closest river -0.130*** -0.120***Distance to Cote d’Ivoire -0.276*** -0.142Year==1996 0.083* 0.081* 0.083*Year==2006 -0.212*** -0.213*** -0.212***Constant 7.209*** 8.595*** 8.101***

Observations 2,130 2,130 2,130R-squared 0.176 0.167 0.177F-Stat Inst 15.14


2SLS estimates of main regressionProximity of farthest source (km) Proximity to all sources (km)

Services Infrastr. Religion Markets Services Infrastr. Religion Markets(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Pop. shock 0.417** 0.658*** 1.377*** 0.555** 0.558*** 0.968*** 1.147*** 0.707***Y=1996 -0.091 0.122** 0.045 -0.060 -0.019 0.119** 0.098 -0.008Y=2006 0.103 0.623*** 0.794*** 0.154* 0.360*** 0.734*** 0.761*** 0.339***Constant -5.82*** -7.63*** -10.8*** -5.73*** -6.48*** -8.95*** -8.99*** -6.57***Observ. 2,093 2,121 2,000 2,096 2,093 2,121 2,000 2,096


Proximity to closest source (km) Land Services Infrastr. Religion Markets rights

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13)Pop. shock 1.169*** 0.471** 0.655*** 1.121*** 0.367Y=1996 0.104 0.271*** 0.181*** 0.122* 0.037Y=2006 1.331*** 0.677*** 0.620*** 0.835*** 0.308***Constant -9.89*** -3.81*** -5.12** -8.71*** -2.48Observ. 2,093 2,121 2,000 2,096 2,130

Conclusion


• Can local public services and property rights be explained by size of local population?– For public services, a strong correlation with population shocks:

– link to shift from 1st to 5th quintile of predicted population is larger than the common time trend from 1996 to 2006

– For property rights, spatial variance is less significant:– variance in this dataset is linked only to the national trend

• Looking forward, we’ve shown that:– Villagers’ recall data can be used to study public sector changes;– Low population density could help explain weak public services;– Burkina Faso is responding to higher density with more services.

Demographic Pressure and Institutional Change: Village-Level Response to Rural Population Growth in...

Documents

Transcript of Demographic Pressure and Institutional Change: Village-Level Response to Rural Population Growth in...