Feed the Future Learning Agenda Annotated Bibliography ... · was prepared by Jill T. W. Bernstein...

Feed the Future Learning Agenda

Annotated Bibliography:

Improving Resilience of

Vulnerable Populations

July 2013 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Jill T. W. Bernstein for the Feed the Future FEEDBACK project. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or of the United States Government.

Prepared for the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number GS-23F-

8144H/AID-OAA-M-12-00006, Feed the Future FEEDBACK

Contact:

Detra Robinson, Chief of Party

Westat

1600 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

Tel: 301-738-3653

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Improving Resilience of Vulnerable Populations 1

This annotated bibliography is a compilation of sources regarding the concept of resilience, and

is meant to address the following questions from the Feed the Future Learning Agenda on

Improving Resilience of Vulnerable Populations:

1) What interventions improve the ability of vulnerable households to withstand (stable

consumption and protected assets) common and extreme shocks affecting their economic

activities? In what ways?

2) What interventions strengthen the ability of vulnerable households to recover (regain

consumption levels and rebuild lost assets) from common and extreme shocks?

3) To what extent do different interventions to promote market access (such as promoting

access to markets with lower risks and lower entry barriers) generate the participation of

poorer households?

4) What interventions on both the “Push” (social protection) and “Pull” (value chain deepening)

sides improve the participation of the poor in value chain activities?1

5) Do safety net programs promote greater participation of poorer households in prudent risk

taking and more remunerative economic activities?

6) Have interventions changed risk-reduction strategies pursued by men and women to cope

with shocks (health-related, agro-climatic, economic, socio-political)?

7) Have FTF strategies to generate overall economic growth improved livelihoods of the

poorest and most vulnerable populations? What are the most effective economic growth

strategies for incorporating the poor and vulnerable?

1 Please see the Feed the Future Learning Agenda Annotated Bibliography on Expanded Markets, Value Chains, and Increased

Investment for a more thorough treatment of this topic.

http://feedthefuture.gov/resource/feed-future-learning-agenda

Feed the Future Learning Agenda Annotated Bibliography 2

2013

Cousin, E., da Silva, J. G., & Nwanze, K. F. (2013). Principles and practice for resilience, food

security, and nutrition. Huffington Post.

In this article, Ertharin Cousin, United States Ambassador to the United Nations

Agencies for Food and Agriculture, along with Jose Graziano da Silva and Dr. Kanayo

Nwanze, state that, “The world is becoming a less predictable and more threatening

place for the poorest and most vulnerable,” and they urge the international community

to work towards the increased resilience of food-insecure communities. They provide a

list of six principles to guide this shift towards resilience-building: 1.) People,

communities and governments must lead resilience-building for improved food security

and nutrition; 2.) Building resilience is beyond the capacity of any single institution; 3.)

Planning frameworks should combine immediate relief requirements with long-term

development objectives; 4.) Ensuring protection of the most vulnerable is crucial for

sustaining development efforts; 5.) Effective risk management requires integration of enhanced monitoring and analysis into decision-making; and 6.) Interventions must be

evidence-based and focus on long-term results. The authors provide brief explanations

of each of these principles and include examples of successful resilience-building efforts.

2012

ACCRA. (2012). The ACCRA local adaptive capacity framework. (An ACCRA Brief).

http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/adaptation/ACCRA%20Local_Adaptive%20Policy.

pdf

In the context of the challenges that local communities face due to climate change, the

Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (ACCRA) developed the Local Adaptive

Capacity (LAC) framework. Adaptive capacity is described in the following way:

“Broadly speaking, adaptive capacity denotes the ability of a system to adjust, modify or

change its characteristics and actions to moderate potential, future damage; take

advantage of opportunities; and to cope with the consequences of shock or stress

(Brooks, 2003).” The framework describes five characteristics of adaptive capacity: the

asset base; institutions and entitlements; knowledge and information; innovation; and

flexible, forward-looking decision-making and governance. Although the LAC framework

was originally designed for the sake of evaluating adaptive capacity to climate change, the

authors state that the framework is general in nature and can be applied to other types

of shock or change.

Barrett, C. B., & Carter, M. R. (2012). The economics of poverty traps and persistent poverty: Policy

and empirical implications. Cornell University, School of Applied Economics and

Management, Ithaca, NY. Unpublished manuscript.

Barrett and Carter explain what is meant by persistent poverty and poverty traps and

identify some of the possible mechanisms that can generate poverty traps. The authors

provide examples of single and multiple equilibrium poverty traps and describe in detail

http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/adaptation/ACCRA%20Local_Adaptive%20Policy.pdf

http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/adaptation/ACCRA%20Local_Adaptive%20Policy.pdf


the multiple financial market failures (MFMF) poverty trap model. Under the MFMF

poverty trap model, it is assumed that individuals do not have access to credit or to any

type of insurance. Whether or not they fall into a poverty trap depends on both their

assets and intrinsic abilities. According to the model, those with abilities below a certain

level will fall into a long-term poverty trap regardless of how high their assets are, and

those with abilities above a certain level will not fall into a long-term poverty trap

regardless of how low their asset levels are. Whether or not individuals with medium

asset levels fall into poverty traps depends on their assets. Thus, according to the

authors, the MFMF poverty trap model contains both single and multiple equilibrium

poverty traps. The authors identify several implications of the MFMF poverty trap

model, including behavioral implications of the model. The authors describe the many

challenges of direct empirical testing of poverty traps, and suggest that indirect tests for

poverty traps’ behavioral effects can be conducted. They provide examples of this type

of analysis that have been conducted to date, and although analyses of this type have

been rare, the examples identified by the authors tend to point to the existence of

poverty traps. The authors conclude with a discussion of the importance of correctly determining whether poverty traps exist and the policy implications.

Béné, C., Wood, R. G., Newsham, A., & Davies, M. (2012). Resilience: New utopia or new tyranny?

Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability

reduction programmes. IDS Working Papers, 2012(405), 1-61.

Béné et al. describe the growing use of the concept of resilience and seek to “review

and expose the potential benefits and limits of this concept.” The authors state that in

the literature, the concept of resilience is generally described as a dynamic concept, an

‘ability’ to recover from shock rather than a steady-state ‘outcome.’ They discuss the

advantages of the concept of resilience, such as the possibility for resilience to be

applied in a systematic way and the potential for the concept to create a unifying

language in conversations and work between representatives of different fields. A

disadvantage of the concept is “its inability to appropriately capture and reflect social

dynamics in general and consider issues of agency and power.” The authors also discuss

the issue of resilience versus well-being, and argue that increasing resilience does not

necessarily increase well-being, particularly if increasing one’s ability to respond to shock

means lowering one’s expectations. Another issue is the lack of attention to

distributional issues inherent in the concept of resilience. The authors compare and

contrast the concepts of vulnerability and resilience, and caution against neglecting the

concept of vulnerability. Then, the authors describe the characteristics of a resilient

system, and develop the “3D resilience framework” including the concepts of absorptive

coping capacity, adaptive capacity, and transformative capacity, which the authors argue

are complementary traits rather than competing traits as characterized by some. The

authors conclude with a discussion and summary of the advantages and disadvantages of

using the concept of resilience, drawing upon examples from earlier sections of the

paper.


Frankenberger T. R, Spangler, T., Nelson, S., & Langworthy, M. (2012). Enhancing resilience to

food insecurity amid protracted crisis. Paper prepared for the High Level Expert Forum on

Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises, Rome, Italy, 13–14 September, 2012.

Frankenberger et al. provide an overview of guiding principles for developing resilience

to crises, targeted at donor agencies. For the sake of the paper, the authors define

resilience in the following way: “The ability of countries, communities, and households

to efficiently anticipate, adapt to, and/or recover from the effects of potentially

hazardous occurrences (natural disasters, economic instability, conflict) in a manner that

protects livelihoods, accelerates and sustains recovery, and supports economic growth.”

The authors emphasize the importance of integrating humanitarian responses to crises

with longer-term development programs, so as to increase the ability of households to

prepare for future crises. They point to the importance of empowering local actors to

direct change, rather than taking a top-down approach. They also point to the

importance of developing multi-sectoral coordination in order to build resilience. The

authors provide some examples of programs that have been successful in building resilience, if not in terms of tried and tested results on the ground, at least in terms of

laying the groundwork for future success.

Levine, S, Pain, A., Bailey, S., & Fan, L. (2012). The relevance of resilience? ODI, Humanitarian

Policy Brief 49.

This policy brief, which addresses the question of the relevance of the concept of

resilience, was prepared by Levin and colleagues and is a summary of the results of

research efforts undertaken by the Overseas Development Institute’s Humanitarian

Policy Group between 2011 and 2013. The authors describe the proliferation of

resilience frameworks that have been developed, but argue that although these

frameworks are thought to have the potential to bring together practitioners from

different disciplines, it is not clear that this will occur. The authors also argue that

although resilience is supposed to bridge the gap between humanitarian and

development efforts, there is little guidance regarding how to undertake humanitarian

work so as to build resilience. Levine et al. offer three key messages regarding resilience:

“1. The concept of resilience is at the centre of current debates in development, climate

change adaptation and humanitarian aid. However, it is not clear what resilience is, or

how it can or should be promoted during and after crises. 2.) Although it seems self-

evident that opportunities to build people’s resilience should be seized, a strong case

would be needed to justify diverting humanitarian resources to that end. 3.) Far more

understanding is needed about what kind of support is most effective and how this can

best be delivered.”

Stephens, E. C., Nicholson, C. F., Brown, D. R., Parsons, D., Barrett, C. B., Lehmann, J., ... &

Riha, S. J. (2012). Modeling the impact of natural resource-based poverty traps on food

security in Kenya: The Crops, Livestock and Soils in Smallholder Economic Systems

(CLASSES) model. Food Security, 4(3), 423-439.


In this paper, Stephens et al. use the Crops, Livestock and Soils in Smallholder Economic

Systems (CLASSES) model to better understand the relationship between biophysical

assets and economic decisions and well-being of small farming households in highland

Kenya. By using the CLASSES model, the authors are able to analyze a wide variety of

data regarding farming techniques, soil quality, and household characteristics. The

authors summarize their findings in the following statement: “Using a system dynamics

bio-economic model of farming households in Kenya, we examine the interactions

among the farm’s biophysical (crop, livestock and soil nutrient) assets and their

economic well being as well as identify important asset thresholds that characterize

households that are unable to escape from poverty and associated food insecurity. We

show that the natural resource base has strong influence on poverty, livelihood choices

and consumption and that economic phenomena, such as the transactions costs of

market access, likewise affect biophysical phenomena. Natural resource base

degradation or insufficient levels of initial natural capital are associated with low levels of

accumulated surplus and growing insecurity in consumption of staple grains.”

Vaitla, B., Tesfay, G., Rounseville, M., & Maxwell, D. (2012). Resilience and livelihoods change in

Tigray, Ethiopia. Feinstein International Center. Somerville, MA.

Vaitla et al. describe the concept of resilience, and quote the following definition of

resilience from DFID: “the ability of countries, communities and households to manage

change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or

stresses—such as earthquakes, drought or violent conflict—without compromising their

long-term prospects.” After laying out a conceptual framework of livelihoods change and

resilience, the authors describe the areas of Tigray, Ethiopia that have been the subject

of research regarding livelihood change over time (LCOT) using panel data collected in

August 2011 (during the hungry season) and February 2012 (in the post-harvest season).

In order to measure resilience, the authors develop a methodology whereby they

evaluate the change over time of seven indicators of livelihoods outcomes and

household well-being: the Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS); the

Coping Strategies Index (CSI); the Food Consumption Score (FCS); an illness score; a

measure of the value of productive assets (land, livestock, and tools); a measure of the

household’s net debt; and an approximation of income. In this paper, the authors

analyze the levels of each of these indicators at the two points in time when the surveys

were conducted and state their intention to examine the change over time when

additional data are available. The authors hope to ultimately determine what factors

determine household response to shock, i.e. whether and why households “bounce

back better”; “bounce back”; “recover, but worse than before”; or “collapse.”

Venton, C. C., Fitzgibbon, C., Shitarek, T., Coulter, L., & Dooley, O. (2012). The economics of

early response and disaster resilience: Lessons from Kenya and Ethiopia. DFID, London.

In this study, Venton et al. discuss the growing frequency of disasters, the increasing

rhetoric calling for resilience-building, and the lack of research regarding the cost-

effectiveness of resilience-building measures. Using a variety of data sources, the study

looks at the impact of drought and resilience-building initiatives on pastoralists in Kenya


and Ethiopia, by comparing the cost of drought under three scenarios: late

humanitarian/emergency relief, early/pre-planned response, and disaster resilience

activities. The authors also seek to identify what types of interventions have the highest

Value for Money. Based on their analysis using the Household Economy Analysis (HEA)

model, the authors reach the following conclusions: 1. “Early response is far more cost

effective than late humanitarian response.” 2.) “There is a great deal of uncertainty

around the cost of building resilience. Nonetheless, the estimates presented here

suggest that, while the cost of resilience is comparatively high, the wider benefits of

building resilience can significantly outweigh the costs, leading to the conclusion that

investment in resilience is the best value for money.” 3.) “Early response and resilience

building measures should be the overwhelming priority response to disasters.” 4.)

“There are many resilience-building measures that are likely to be value for money.” 5.)

“Drought recovery takes longer (or may be impossible) when a community is not

resilient.” 6.) “Destocking interventions alone are often not sufficient to meet deficit

levels faced by in-need households.” 7.) “Other intervention types, such as

supplementary feeding interventions, are required to have an impact on animal mortality, conceptions, abortions, births, and milk production rates.”

2011

Andersson, C., Mekonnen, A., & Stage, J. (2011). Impacts of the Productive Safety Net Program

in Ethiopia on livestock and tree holdings of rural households. Journal of Development

Economics, 94(1), 119-126.

Andersson et al. considered the question of how safety net programs affect households’

investment and disinvestment in productive assets, specifically livestock and trees. The

authors provided an empirical analysis of the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in

Ethiopia with attention to the following: “We studied both ex ante risk behavior, by

examining whether risk aversion determines investments in assets, and ex post risk

behavior, by examining whether assets are sold in times of temporary shocks. We also

explored whether the potential role of productive assets as a safety net was affected by

the introduction of a public safety net.” The PSNP was introduced in Ethiopia in 2005

and is primarily a public works program that employs program participants for five days

per month with the goal of increasing food security. The authors considered the

possibility that participation in the program, by reducing food insecurity, could result in

participants reducing or discontinuing typical risk-reduction strategies such as investing

in livestock and trees. According to the authors, the extent to which this occurs

depends on several factors: the perceived riskiness and yields of the assets, the risk

aversion of the households involved, and their discount rates. The authors utilized a

panel dataset from surveys conducted in 2002, 2005, and 2007, in addition to a survey

conducted in 2008 that specifically looked at PSNP participation. The authors’

econometric analysis revealed the following: “We found no indication that participation

in PSNP leads households to disinvest in livestock or trees; in fact, the number of trees

increased for households that participated in the program…. We found no evidence

that the PSNP protects livestock in times of shock. Shocks appear to lead households to


disinvest in livestock, but not in trees.” Finally, the authors found that increased credit

access (through a program that is complementary to PSNP) did positively affect

livestock holdings. Overall, the authors concluded that because the PSNP did not lead to

disinvestment, but rather led to increased investment in trees, the program has the

potential to increase income in the long term. (Questions 5 and 6.)

Dercon, S., Hill, R. V., Outes-Leon, I., Bayrou, A., Clarke, D., & Seyoum-Taffesse, A. (2011).

Offering rainfall insurance to informal insurance groups: Evidence from a field experiment in

Ethiopia. Mimeo.

Dercon et al. provide an empirical study of the uptake of a rainfall-based insurance

product to groups of households in pre-existing informal insurance groups in Ethiopia.

As the authors point out, previous experiments with weather-based insurance in the

developing world have exhibited low uptake levels, and many have provided the

following explanations for these results: the role of trust, credit constraints or poor

understanding of the product(s). Another factor is basis risk, defined as such: “basis risk means that compared to the original risk distribution faced, there will be states of the

world in which the net loss is actually higher (as an actual loss is faced, but the trigger

shows that there is no rainfall failure) and states of the world in which gains are made

(as there is no loss incurred, but the trigger results in a payout).” The experiment

targeted informal insurance groups that self-insure the cost of funerals in Ethiopia, and

funeral society leaders were trained in the details of rainfall-based index insurance

products so that they could then pass on the information to other members of their

groups. The authors randomized the training of funeral society leaders, whereby some

were assigned to trainings that presented the insurance as a group-based product and

others were assigned to participate in trainings that presented the insurance as an

individual insurance product. The authors found that uptake was higher in groups that

had had a leader trained in the group-based approach, and find that a likely explanation

is that in these groups, subsequent training of and discussions amongst group members

was higher than in the other groups. One factor that the authors do not discuss is

whether the groups that were considering group-based insurance policies experienced

somewhat of a peer pressure or herd effect where they felt that their decision to

participate in the product was important for the welfare of their fellow group members,

thus positively influencing their decision to purchase the insurance product. (Questions

1 and 2.)

DFID. (2011). Defining disaster resilience: A DFID approach paper. DFID, London.

This approach paper lays out DFID’s working definition of disaster resilience: “Disaster

Resilience is the ability of countries, communities and households to manage change, by

maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses - such as

earthquakes, drought or violent conflict – without compromising their long-term

prospects.” The paper describes a resilience framework, which includes analysis of the

following four elements: the context; the disturbance (shocks or long-term stresses);

the capacity to deal with the disturbance (which depends upon the extent of exposure,

sensitivity, and adaptive capacity); and the reaction to the disturbance. Regarding DFID’s


own disaster resilience programs, the paper states that the concept of resilience has

brought together efforts from different fields including disaster risk reduction, climate

change adaptation, and social protection. DFID recognizes that resilience can also be a

useful concept for dealing with conflict and fragility, in addition to natural disasters. The

paper sets forth the ‘assets pentagon’ from the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, and

states that resilience-enhancing activities often include the development of social/human,

technological/physical, financial/economic, natural/environmental, and political assets that

can be used to deal with stress or shock. Examples of several of DFID’s projects that

are designed to enhance resilience to disasters are provided. The paper states that

DFID is committed to embedding resilience in all its country programs by 2015, and lists

ways in which the organization plans to meet that goal. The paper concludes with a

discussion of ways in which DFID can contribute to promoting the disaster resilience

agenda amongst the international community.

Fraser, E. D., Dougill, A. J., Hubacek, K., Quinn, C. H., Sendzimir, J., & Termansen, M. (2011).

Assessing vulnerability to climate change in dryland livelihood systems: Conceptual challenges and interdisciplinary solutions. Ecology and Society, 16(3), 3.

In this introduction to the journal Ecology and Society’s special feature on ‘Resilience and

Vulnerability of Arid and Semi-Arid Social Ecological Systems,’ Fraser et al. discuss the

potential vulnerability of dryland livelihood systems to climate change and address the

following issues: “(1) how to conceptualize vulnerability to climate change in coupled

social-ecological systems; and (2) the methodological challenges of anticipating trends in

vulnerability in dynamic environments.” The authors also summarize several case studies

from the journal regarding dryland vulnerability to climate change. According to the

authors, each vulnerability assessment in the special feature includes the following: “an

analysis of the agroecological factors effecting the farming system vulnerability”, “an

explicit evaluation of the socioeconomic context based on a sustainable livelihoods

approach”, and “an institutional dimension that includes exploring what groups within a

society have power and are able to mobilize political attention.” The authors discuss the

various methodological approaches that are used to understand vulnerability to climate

change, and briefly describe the case studies in this issue of Ecology and Society.

Kida, M. (2011). Agriculture and inclusive growth—Key questions and diagnostic tools for country

economists. Accessed from:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDEBTDEPT/Resources/4689801316457581843/T

PIGandAgriculture.pdf.

Kida considers the issue of what role agriculture can play in promoting inclusive growth

and questions the assumption that agriculture is necessarily the key to poverty

reduction. The author states that there are three mechanisms through which agriculture

can promote inclusive growth: “stimulating economic growth, reducing poverty, and

creating employment.” For each of these, the author considers the cross-country

evidence and suggests ways in which analysts can evaluate these relationships for

individual countries. Regarding agriculture and overall economic growth, Kida states that

while a clear correlation between agricultural growth and overall growth has been


identified, it has not been possible in cross-country studies to identify causation, i.e.

whether agricultural growth in fact drives broader economic growth. On a country by

country basis, the author suggests that it is informative to perform a sectoral

decomposition of growth, but still points out that this does not clearly establish

causation. Regarding the effect of agricultural growth on poverty reduction, Kida states

that while some studies such as Ligon and Sadoulet (2007) and Christiansen and Demery

(2007) have shown that agriculture plays an especially powerful role in reducing poverty,

several others have found that other sectors such as manufacturing and services play

more important roles in poverty reduction. Again, the author suggests that at the

individual country level, a sectoral decomposition of poverty reduction can be

conducted, and gives the examples of India where the service sector was most influential

in reducing poverty and China where agriculture was the key driver. Finally, regarding

the relationship between agriculture and employment, the author argues that the

assumption that rural people are predominantly engaged in farming is simplistic, and

suggests ways to understand the employment decisions and patterns within individual

countries. (Question 7.)

Torero, M. (2011). A framework for linking small farmers to markets. Paper presented at the IFAD

Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture 24-25 January, 2011.

In this paper, Torero describes the poverty trap that faces small farmers who rely on

subsistence farming or are limited to selling to local markets, and suggests that there are

two important instruments for enabling them to access markets where they can earn

more for their harvest: “one is physical infrastructure such as information technology,

roads, ports, etc. that connects smallholders to markets; and the other is the role of

accompanying institutions that can reduce the marketing risk and transaction costs in

the process of exchange between producers and consumers.” After providing a

theoretical framework of how infrastructure and institutions contribute to market

development, the author provides an overview of the literature regarding rural

producer organizations (RPOs) and contract farming. As Torero describes, the global

food market often requires high costs of participation because of necessary investments

in equipment and the importance of gaining knowledge about consumer demands. By

joining in RPOs, producers can overcome these barriers to entry. However, Torero

points out that there is limited empirical evidence of the effectiveness of RPOs for

small-scale, poor farmers. Regarding contract farming, Torero states the following: “This

institution has the potential to incorporate low-income growers (mostly small

landholders) into the modern agricultural sectors because it is a source of credit,

insurance, and information for the contracted farmers.” The potential for small-scale

producers is to lower the risks that they incur in what can be inherently risky crops,

particularly in subsectors such as horticulture where contract farming is common.

Despite the advantages that small-producers stand to gain from participation in contract

farming, according to Torero it has been mainly medium-sized farmers and better-

educated farmers who have benefited from contract farming. (Question 3.)


2010

Alinovi, L., D’Errico, M., Erdgin, M., & Romano, D. (2010). Livelihoods strategies and household

resilience to food insecurity: An empirical analysis to Kenya. In Conference on Promoting

Resilience through Social Protection in Sub-Saharan Africa, European Report on

Development, Dakar, Senegal.

In this paper, Alinovi et al. describe the concepts of resilience and livelihoods and

develop a model for analyzing the resilience levels of different livelihood clusters in

Kenya. The authors utilize data from the Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey

2005-06. With this data, they conduct a cluster analysis to identify groupings of Kenyan

households based on the following variables: sector of employment, job classification,

income shares, income generating activities, owned land, owned livestock, and transfers.

Using this technique, the authors identify six livelihood clusters in Kenya: pastoralist

(6%), agro-pastoralist (14%), small-holder farmers (34%), large-holder farmers (3%),

entrepreneurs (19%) and wage-employees (24%). The authors then determine the household resilience to food insecurity for each group based on the following variables:

income and food access (IFA), agricultural assets (AA), non-agricultural assets (NAA),

agricultural practice and technology (APT), access to basic services (ABS), social safety-

nets (SSN), stability (S), and adaptive capacity (AC), each of which is an index derived

from a set of appropriate variables. Analysis of the resilience of each of the livelihood

clusters reveals the following: “large-holder farmers are the most resilient (0.22),

followed by wage-employees (0.15), entrepreneurs (0.08) and agro-pastoralists (0.03).

The worst-off are pastoralists (-0.26) and smallholder farmers (-0.13).” Furthermore,

the authors find that the determinants of resilience are different for each group. They

also analyze the resilience levels based on province, and find that Nairobi province is the

most resilient. Analysis based on gender shows that female-headed households are

much less resilient than male-headed households. The authors conclude with a summary

of policy implications.

Andersson, C. (2010). Can a social safety net affect farmers’ crop portfolios? A study of the

Productive Safety Net Programme in Ethiopia (No. 807). Umeå University, Department of

Economics.

Andersson describes the situation whereby farmers who face risky environments and do

not have access to tools such as credit, insurance, liquid assets, and off-farm income opt

for lower-return, lower-risk crops. The author uses data from Ethiopia’s Productive

Safety Net Programme (PSNP) to examine the question of whether a safety net program

can offset this effect and influence crop choice. The PSNP was implemented in 2005

with the goal of protecting the consumption and assets of vulnerable households in the

face of income shocks. Participants participate in public works programs in exchange for

income. The author develops a theoretical model to show how participation in the

program can affect the composition of the crop portfolio and the average risk and

return of crop production. The data for the empirical analysis are from household

surveys conducted in 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2007 in the Amhara region of Ethiopia,

supplemented by a survey specific to the PSNP conducted in 2008 that covered some of


the same households. Andersson’s econometric analysis shows that participation in the

PSNP did not affect the mean value or variance of the total crop portfolio. The author

finds that participation in the PSNP significantly increased the probability of growing

perennials and wheat and decreased the probability of growing zengada. Also, when

looking at the acreage allotted to different crops, the author found that participation in

the PSNP significantly increased the acreage allotted to perennials and decreased the

acreage in pulses and teff. The author offers this analysis, “Perennials have longer

planning horizons, have a higher value, and have higher variability than other crops

grown by the farmers in this sample. Hence, this result is in line with the findings in

previous studies, namely that increased possibilities to ex-post smooth consumption in

times of negative income shocks lead to less income skewing in favour of low-risk, low-

return activities.” Finally, the author offers possible explanations for the finding that

PSNP participation was not associated with a change in the mean value or variance of

the crop portfolio. (Questions 5 and 6.)

De Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2010). Agricultural growth and poverty reduction: Additional evidence. The World Bank Research Observer, 25(1), 1-20.

De Janvry and Sadoulet argue that compared to redistribution of income, pro-poor

growth is a preferable means to reduce poverty. Regarding agriculture, they show that

increasing land and labor productivity are associated with poverty reduction, but that

the extent of these relationships varies considerably. Comparing agricultural growth to

growth in other sectors, the authors find that the impact of agricultural growth on

poverty reduction is approximately three times that of growth of other sectors. They

highlight the example of China in recent decades. They show evidence from the

literature which indicates that investment in agriculture can generate sizable returns, but

emphasize that this is context dependent. They complement this analysis with a

household-level analysis of the effects of agricultural growth on household poverty,

using the example of Vietnam between 1992 and 1998, which experienced average

annual growth in real agricultural value added of 4.1% in that time period. The authors

found that market-oriented producers experienced the greatest reduction in the

incidence of poverty (42%), compared to market entrants (35%) and subsistence farmers

(28%). Based on this analysis, the authors draw the following conclusion: “This suggests

that a return to using growth in agriculture as an instrument for poverty reduction may

be warranted under many circumstances.” (Question 7.)

Maluccio, J. A. (2010). The impact of conditional cash transfers on consumption and investment

in Nicaragua. The Journal of Development Studies, 46(1), 14-38.

Maluccio evaluates Nicaragua’s conditional cash transfer (CCT) program Red de

Proteccion Social (RPS) in terms of its effects on consumption and household investments

in productive activities. The author suggests that based on the evidence from similar

programs in other countries, it is conceivable that the program would stimulate

investment in productive activities, despite the fact that this is not one of the objectives

of the RPS. The author uses panel data collected before and after program

implementation (2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004) in treatment and control localities, and for


most variables uses double-difference methods to estimate the effects of the program.

He finds that in 2001 and 2002, “the estimated programme effects were large and

significant for all the expenditure categories considered.” He also finds that the

increased expenditures were directed predominantly towards food and education

expenses. The author finds little evidence that the program led to increased

expenditures on consumer durables or productive agricultural goods, no evidence of an

effect on investment in animal husbandry, and evidence in 2001 and 2002 that the

program had a negative effect on participation in non-agricultural micro-enterprise. To

further understand these findings, the author calculates the marginal propensity to

consume (MPC) and finds that this is not significantly different from 1 in the initial year

of program participation, but that this dropped below 1 after the first year. The author

contrasts his findings to similar research regarding PROCAMPO/Oportunidades in

Mexico which showed that that CCT did increase investment in productive activities.

(Question 5.)

Soares, F. V., Ribas, R. P., & Hirata, G. I. (2010). Impact evaluation of a rural conditional cash transfer programme on outcomes beyond health and education. Journal of Development

Effectiveness, 2(1), 138-157.

Soares et al. describe Tekopora, a piloted conditional cash transfer program

implemented in Paraguay in 2005, which includes education and health requirements as

well as regular visits from social workers who promote income-generating activities as

well as other potentially beneficial behaviors. They conduct a quasi-experimental study

of the program, based on data from a 2007 survey with beneficiaries compared to non-

beneficiaries using propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability weighted

regression (IPW) techniques. Because baseline data were available for some but not all

households, the authors use both difference-in-differences and single difference

estimators. The study focuses on the effects of the program on agricultural activities and

labor supply, social participation, access to credit and savings and identity cards. The

authors find the following: “Tekopora has had a positive effect on investment in

agriculture, savings, and on the possession of identity card, but did not have much

impact on access to credit and on social participation.” Specifically, in regard to the

program’s effects on agricultural activities, the authors found that a higher proportion of

beneficiaries invested in agriculture compared to non-beneficiaries, and that beneficiaries

invested more money overall than non-beneficiaries. In terms of the specific agricultural

activities, the authors report that beneficiaries were 6% more likely to acquire livestock

than non-beneficiaries (significant at the 5% level). Also, while all groups experienced a

reduction in vegetable gardens and crop diversity, program beneficiaries experienced

less of a reduction in these areas than non-beneficiaries. (Question 5.)

2009

Alinovi, L., Mane, E., & Romano, D. (2009). Measuring household resilience to food insecurity:

Application to Palestinian households. FAO‐ESA Working Paper. FAO, Agricultural and Development Economics Division, Rome.


In this paper, Alinovi et al. develop a methodology for measuring household resilience to

food insecurity. The authors describe the concept of resilience in the following way:

“Broadly speaking, resilience is a measure of a system’s ability to withstand stresses and

shocks, that is, its ability to persist in an uncertain world.” In attempting to measure

household resilience to food insecurity, the authors make the following assumption: “the

resilience of a given household at a given point in time, T0, depends primarily on the

options available to that household to make a living, such as its access to assets, income-

generating activities, public services and social safety nets.” The authors develop a

formula for measuring resilience, composed of indices of the following variables:

stability; social safety nets; access to public services; assets; income and food access; and

adaptive capacity. Data are from the 2007 Palestinian Public Perception Survey (PPPS),

which covered 2,087 households. Analysis of the results shows that of the five

Palestinian regions studied, East Jerusalem is the most resilient. Another interesting

observation made by the authors is that resilience in Gaza is highly dependent on access

to social safety nets such as food aid. The model is validated using the CART methodology. The authors conclude with a discussion of how this model can be used as

a tool for policy-makers to identify resilience-enhancing policies.

Asian Development Bank (ADB) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

(2009). Building climate resilience in the agriculture sector of Asia and the Pacific. ADB,

Manila.

This report outlines the challenges that climate change will present to the agricultural

sector in Asia. The report states that, “Developing countries in Asia and the Pacific are

likely to face the highest reductions in agricultural potential in the world due to climate

change. As a result, climate change will place an additional burden on efforts to meet

long-term development goals in Asia and the Pacific.” The report describes resilience as

an appropriate conceptual framework with which to consider climate change, in part

because of the recognition of the interconnectedness of human and environmental

systems. The report describes vulnerability as a function of one’s exposure, sensitivity,

and adaptive capacity. It suggests that climate change adaptation must include ongoing

development initiatives, as well as new and innovative measures: “(i) changes in

agricultural practices to improve soil fertility and enhance carbon sequestration; (ii)

changes in agricultural water management for more efficient water use; (iii) agricultural

diversification toward enhanced climate resilience; (iv) agricultural science and

technology development, agricultural advisory services, and information systems; and (v)

risk management and crop insurance.” Several measures are discussed that relate to

improved adaptation of the agriculture sector: focused investment; development of a

carbon trading system; improved property rights. Using the IMPACT model, the report

estimates that in order to reduce child malnutrition from the levels expected with

climate change to the levels expected without climate change, investment in agriculture

research, irrigation and roads in Asia and the Pacific would need to rise by $168 - $201

billion dollars between 2010 and 2050, over and above anticipated spending in these

areas. The report stresses the importance and challenge of financing the necessary


investments in climate change adaptation, as well as the importance of integrating

adaptation and mitigation.

Collier, P., & Goderis, B. (2009). Structural policies for shock-prone developing countries.

Oxford Economic Papers, 61(4), 703-726.

In this paper, Collier and Goderis discuss the types of structural policies that

governments can implement to help lessen the short term GDP growth reductions that

occur in response to adverse shocks such as commodity export price shocks and

natural disasters. The authors use data from 130 countries between 1964 and 2003.

They identify in the data episodes of significant drops in price of a country’s export

commodity, and then estimate the effects of these shocks on short-term growth. They

find that negative shocks do in fact decrease growth in the short term, with drops in

commodity prices having more of an effect on growth than natural disasters. They also

estimate the effects of other policy-related variables on growth to determine whether

any of these had shock-mitigating effects, but found that financial depth, financial openness, international reserves, and remittances did not. However, according to the

authors: “Our results show that regulations that delay the speed of firm closure

significantly and substantially increase the short-term growth loss from adverse price

shocks in commodity- exporting countries. In the case of natural disasters, on the other

hand, the negative effect on short-term growth is increased by labour market

regulations that prevent an efficient re-allocation of workers.” The authors find,

however, that the effects of price shocks on growth and the mitigating effect of ease of

firm exit apply only to minerals and not to agricultural commodities. The authors

conclude by suggesting that mineral-exporting countries or those prone to natural

disasters can implement the appropriate structural policies in advance of shocks, rather

than being forced to attempt to put measures in place during a crisis.

Dodman, D., Ayers, J., & Huq, S. (2009). Building resilience. Worldwatch Institute, State of the

world, 75-77.

Dodman et al. describe the growing risks from climate change and the importance of

adaptation and resilience. According to the authors, “Adaptation and resilience not only

can reduce the risks from climate change, they can also improve living conditions and

meet broader development objectives around the world.” The authors discuss the

meanings of vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience, and consider whether resilience is

desirable if it means returning the world to the same state where poverty and hardship

are so common. They suggest that resilience is best understood as a process allowing

individuals to ‘survive and thrive.’ They evoke the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework,

by emphasizing the importance of one’s assets in building resilience. The authors reflect

on the relationship between humans and the environment and the complex relationship

between social resilience and ecological resilience. They describe the particularly

vulnerable position of rural, small-holder farmers in developing countries, and discuss

the autonomous and institutional measures that have been and must be taken to

improve rural resilience. They also describe the vulnerability to climate change facing

urban dwellers, and provide examples of forward-thinking actions to build resilience that


have been taken in some cities. They provide an overview of the funding mechanisms

that currently exist for climate change adaptation and describe the challenge of achieving

the funding that is necessary for climate change adaptation worldwide. The authors

suggest that incorporating climate change mitigation into adaptation programs and

thinking will be to the benefit of developing countries. They conclude on an optimistic

note with a vision of the world “bouncing forward” to a better, more resilient state.

Fiszbein, A., Schady, N. R., & Ferreira, F. H. (2009). Conditional cash transfers: reducing present and

future poverty. World Bank Publications.

In this report, Fiszbein et al. provide a comprehensive overview of the literature

regarding conditional cash transfers (CCT). Of particular relevance to the Feed the

Future Learning Agenda on “Improving Resilience of Vulnerable Populations” is their

attention to the role and effectiveness of CCTs as a means of ameliorating the effects of

shocks on poor households. The authors point to examples of research that has shown

that CCTs have had consumption-smoothing effects in the face of shocks to poor households, including positive spillover effects for ineligible households that experience

a negative shock. However, they argue that CCTs are not the best instrument for

dealing with crises because of their long time frames and relatively high administrative

burdens that make it challenging to add new recipients who face transient poverty.

Regarding the effects of CCTs on households’ willingness to invest in higher-risk/higher-

return activities, the authors cite evidence from Mexico and Nicaragua that suggest that

CCTs have had the effect of increasing investment in productive activities. And with

regard to the effect of CCTs on human capital investments such as children’s schooling

and nutrition in response to negative shocks, the authors find evidence in the literature

that CCTs can help households continue to invest in these areas in the face of shocks,

but the effects differ depending on the circumstances. (Questions 1 and 5.)

Karlan, D. S., & Morduch, J. (2009). Access to finance. Ch. 2 in Handbook of Development

Economics, Volume 5. Eds. Dani Rodrick & Mark Rosenzweig.

In their chapter on financial services in the developing world, Karlan and Morduch

devote a section to insurance and risk management in which they provide a summary of

the literature regarding the risks and impact of shocks facing poor households and the

evidence regarding informal risk-sharing arrangements. Also, the authors provide an

overview of the literature regarding emerging formal insurance mechanisms in the

developing world, including partnership arrangements between insurance companies and

microfinance institutions and index-based insurance mechanisms. As an example of the

latter, the authors cite the study by Giné et al. (2007) from Andhra Pradesh, India,

where a rainfall-based insurance mechanism was offered but uptake was low amongst

farmers. Similar results were identified by Giné and Yang (2008) in Malawi. Also, the

authors discuss the evidence regarding a handful of health insurance programs available

to poor households in the developing world, and show also that uptake rates are low

and programs face extensive challenges. With many of the insurance mechanisms

described by the authors, moral hazard and adverse selection create challenges for

insurers (an exception being weather-based index insurance). It is clear from the


authors’ summary that formal insurance mechanisms have not yet developed to the

point where they provide for effective or widespread consumption-smoothing in the

face of shocks, however the authors remain optimistic that progress could be made with

further research and experimentation. (Questions 1 and 6.)

Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J., & Dohrn, S. (2009). Collective action for smallholder

market access. Food Policy, 34(1), 1-7.

Markelova et al. provide an overview of the literature, including the studies in the same

issue of Food Policy, regarding the growth of global agricultural markets, the challenges

facing smallholder farmers in accessing these markets, and the potential for collective

action and producer organizations to allow smallholders to overcome these challenges

and achieve market access. The authors provide examples of farmers banding together

in order to lower transportation costs and pooling resources to purchase needed

processing equipment. They suggest that the type of product matters in determining

whether collective action will be beneficial, e.g. high value horticultural products require storage or expertise that farmers can better achieve together, whereas collective action

in staple crops may not provide enough of an advantage to producers to justify the time

and effort needed to establish and maintain a producer group. The authors point out

that while they identify many successful examples of farmers achieving market access

through collective action, there is the possibility of publication bias whereby

unsuccessful efforts occur but are not written about as much. Furthermore, they point

out that while government and private entities can play an important role in promoting

farmer organizations, the argument has been made in the literature that to the extent

that governments and NGOs are involved in supporting producer organizations, the

priority must be the creation of successful business partnerships rather than the

reduction of poverty or else the enterprise will risk failure. (Question 3.)

Twigg, J. (2009). Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: A guidance note. Version 2.

November 2009. DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group. UK

Department for International Development: London.

This guidance note was developed by Twigg as a resource for governments and civil

society organizations, in order to demonstrate the characteristics of a disaster-resilient

community. It is based upon the Hyogo Framework for Action, which was created by

the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Twigg begins by describing three

important concepts: disaster risk reduction, resilience and community. The author

emphasizes the role of the community in building resilience: “A focus on resilience

means putting greater emphasis on what communities can do for themselves and how to

strengthen their capacities, rather than concentrating on their vulnerability to disaster

or environmental shocks and stresses, or their needs in an emergency.” The Guidance

Note lays out the characteristics of a disaster-resilient community in a series of tables,

organized by the five thematic areas from the Hyogo Framework: governance; risk

assessment; knowledge and education; risk management and vulnerability reduction; and

disaster preparedness and response. Within each of these themes there are very

detailed descriptions of the characteristics of disaster-resilient communities, and the


guidance note provides suggestions for how to go about using this framework in a

manageable way. Finally, there are several case studies that illustrate the processes

various communities have undertaken to introduce/implement the Characteristics.

2008

Barrett, C. B. (2008). Smallholder market participation: Concepts and evidence from eastern

and southern Africa. Food Policy, 33(4), 299-317.

Barrett describes the economic benefits of market participation and considers the

reasons that smallholders opt out of markets. The paper focuses on the question of

“what it takes to ignite increased smallholder market participation, with a focus on

staple foodgrains (i.e., cereals) in eastern and southern Africa.” The author develops a

conceptual model of household market participation, and then examines the empirical

evidence from the literature. The author identifies the following themes in the literature: “that many farmers are not net staple crop sellers, that net sales are positively

associated with asset endowments and favorable geography, and that transactions costs

exert considerable influence on crop marketing patterns.” With regard to interventions

aimed at increasing market participation, the author points to the challenges of designing

empirical studies that document the effects of interventions on market participation, and

the lack of such studies in the literature. The existing studies, some of which are

described by Barrett, focus on reducing transportation costs and developing farmer

organizations (which he argues have been shown to mainly impact producers already

integrated into markets). The author reaches the following conclusion: “The conceptual

and empirical evidence suggests that interventions aimed at facilitating smallholder

organization, at reducing the costs of intermarket commerce, and, perhaps especially, at

improving poorer households’ access to improved technologies and productive assets

are central to stimulating smallholder market participation and escape from semi-

subsistence poverty traps.” (Question 3.)

Bezu, S., & Holden, S. (2008). Can food-for-work encourage agricultural production? Food Policy,

33: 541–549.

Bezu and Holden explore the question of whether food-for-work (FFW) programs lead

to a disincentive effect in terms of agricultural production, or if, on the contrary, FFW

can help to ease liquidity constraints and contribute to agricultural production. The

authors undertake an empirical analysis of a FFW program in Ethiopia to determine

whether the program encourages the adoption of fertilizer. The authors utilize data

from a household survey conducted in June/July 2001, covering a random stratified

sample of 400 households of which 234 were FFW participants. Baseline data were not

available, but respondents were asked to recall data from one year prior. The authors

describe the public works projects of the FFW programs as follows: “FFW projects in

the research area mainly focus on natural resource rehabilitation and involve such

activities as construction of ponds, soil and water conservation structures, rural access

roads, area enclosures and afforestation. Furthermore, FFW is also used as a method to


implement development projects like investments in irrigation dams.” Using a Heckman

Selection Model, the authors find that FFW income has a positive and statistically

significant impact on fertilizer use. Interestingly, the authors found that irrigated plots

were negatively associated with the intensity of fertilizer use. The authors point to the

value in the future of also evaluating the effects of the public works projects that are

undertaken as part of the FFW programs, specifically as they relate to agricultural

production. (Question 5.)

Devereux, S., Sabates-Wheeler, R., Guenther, B., Dorward, A., Poulton, C., & Al-Hassan, R.

(2008). Linking social protection and support to small farmer development. Paper

commissioned by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Rome: FAO.

In this synthesis paper prepared for the FAO, Devereux et al. describe the evolving

relationship between social protection policies (such as emergency relief measures and

food aid) and agricultural policies, and suggest that social protection programs are increasingly being designed such that they promote agricultural development. The

authors describe many aspects of the relationship between social protection programs

and agricultural development, including the following: “types of instruments (cash, food,

inputs, or vouchers) and their likely impacts (e.g. improving food security, alleviating

liquidity constraints, multiplier effects); timing (with regard to seasonal agricultural

activities and food and cash flows); scale (the size and number of transfers have

threshold and multiplier effects affecting social protection and agricultural outcomes in

rural economies); policy complementarities and sequencing (between food security,

poverty reduction, and rural economic growth); predictability and risk-taking (e.g.

predictable social transfers or guaranteed social insurance encourages moderate risk-

taking in agriculture); targeting (including gender targeting); political economy of national

and international relations; and conflicts and synergies with informal social protection.”

For each of the aforementioned issues, the authors provide an overview of the evidence

from the literature. The authors also provide three case studies to illustrate these

issues: the fertilizer subsidy program in Malawi, the Productive Safety Net Programme of

Ethiopia, and the ‘LEAP’ conditional cash transfer program of Ghana. The authors

conclude with a set of general lessons drawn from the literature and the case studies for

ways to best conceptualize and design social protection policies that contribute to

agricultural development. (Question 5.)

Gilligan, D. O., Hoddinott, J., & Taffesse, A. S. (2008). The impact of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety

Net Programme and its linkages. IFPRI Discussion Paper 839. Washington, DC:

International Food Policy Research Institute.

Gilligan et al. describe the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP), a very large-scale

program implemented in Ethiopia in 2005 that consisted primarily of a public works

program with payment to participants for labor on public infrastructure projects.

Quoting documentation from the Ethiopian government, the authors state that the

objective of the PSNP is the following: “ ‘… to provide transfers to the food insecure

population in chronically food insecure woredas (districts) in a way that prevents asset


depletion at the household level and creates assets at the community level’ as well as

bridging the food gap that arises when, for these households, food production and other

sources of income are insufficient given food needs.” The PSNP is complemented by the

Other Food Security Programme (OFSP), through which participants receive at least

one of the following benefits: “access to credit, agricultural extension services,

technology transfer (such as advice on food crop production, cash cropping, livestock

production, and soil and water conservation), and irrigation and water harvesting

schemes.” The authors utilize data from household surveys conducted in 2006 that

covered 3,700 households in four regions of Ethiopia, including beneficiaries and non-

beneficiaries, matched using a Propensity Score Matching technique. Respondents were

asked to recall information from up to two years prior because baseline data from

before program implementation were not available. The authors found that there was

little benefit for the overall group of beneficiaries in the public works project; there was

more significant impact, particularly in terms of food security, for participants in the

public works program who had received at least half of the intended benefits; and that

the most significant impacts were found for beneficiaries of both the public works component of the PSNP and the OFSP. According to the authors, beneficiaries of both

programs were “more likely to be food secure, to borrow for productive purposes, use

improved agricultural technologies, and operate their own nonfarm business activities.

For these households, there is no evidence of disincentive effects in terms of labor

supply or private transfers. However, estimates show that beneficiaries did not

experience faster asset growth as a result of the programs.” The authors were unable to

analyze in detail which components of the OFSP were most effective, which is

unfortunate given that it was the combination of the PSNP and the OFSP that provided

the greatest benefits to recipients. (Questions 1 and 5.)

Hoddinott, J. (2008). Social safety nets and productivity enhancing investments in agriculture. Paper

presented at the international conference, Convergence between Social Service

Provision (SSP) and Productivity Enhancing Investments (PEI) in Development Strategies.

Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Hoddinott considers the question of what long-term impacts safety net programs have

on productive activities and investments. The author makes the argument “that policy

makers in finance, agriculture and other ministries should see investments in safety nets

and agriculture as complements, not competitors.” He argues that safety net programs

can contribute to agricultural development in the following ways: “by helping create

individual, household and community assets; helping households protect assets when

shocks occur; by helping households cope with risk, they permit households to use their

existing resources more effectively; and by reducing inequality, they directly raise

growth rates.” The author provides examples from the literature to illustrate how safety

net programs operate in the aforementioned pathways. The author also addresses the

potential negative side-effects of safety net programs, including the possibility that the

programs create disincentives to work (for which he argues the evidence is thin) or

crowd out informal safety net arrangements (for which he suggests the evidence is

mixed). The author concludes that while safety net programs are not guaranteed to lead

to agricultural development, “Safety net interventions can contribute to agricultural and


economic growth through their impact on asset creation, asset protection, resource

allocation, and redistribution.” (Questions 1, 5, and 6.)

Keil, A., Zeller, M., Wida, A., Sanim, B., & Birner, R. (2008). What determines farmers’

resilience towards ENSO-related drought? An empirical assessment in Central Sulawesi,

Indonesia. Climatic Change, 86(3-4), 291-307.

The authors describe the increased prevalence of drought and resulting declines in crop

yields in Indonesia during the years of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The

objectives of the paper are the following: “(1) to investigate the ex-ante and ex-post risk

response strategies taken by farm households in the case of ENSO-related drought in a

rainforest margin area in Indonesia, (2) to measure household resilience towards these

drought periods, and (3) to identify factors which influence drought resilience in order

to derive policy recommendations.” The study focuses on the Central Sulawesi province

of Indonesia, where rice, maize, coffee, and cocoa are grown. In January and February

2003, the authors conducted structured interviews of 228 farm households in the region that were selected using a two-stage, stratified random sampling technique. The authors

construct a drought-resilience index, and use an asset-based livelihood framework to

identify the determinants of resilience. The authors found that there was substantial

reduction in income and consumption during drought years, including cutbacks in food

expenditures. The authors highlight the following findings and policy implications:

“Households’ drought resilience is strengthened by the possession of liquid assets,

access to credit, and the level of technical efficiency in agricultural production. The

results suggest a number of policy recommendations, namely improvement of the

farmers’ access to ENSO forecasts, the provision of credit and savings products to

facilitate consumption smoothing, and the intensification of agricultural extension in view

of low levels of productivity found in agricultural production.” (Question 1.) (Note that

this paper is also cited in the FTF Learning Agenda Annotated Bibliography on

Agricultural Productivity.)

2007

Boughton, D., Mather, D., Barrett, C. B., Benfica, R., Abdula, D., Tschirley, D., & Cunguara, B.

(2007). Market participation by rural households in a low-income country: An asset-

based approach applied to Mozambique. Faith and Economics, 50(1), 64-101.

Boughton et al. discuss the importance of market participation for the escape from

poverty for small-scale farmers in poor countries, and conduct an empirical analysis of

data from Mozambique to test the following questions: “(i) whether market access

depends fundamentally on households’ initial endowments, in which case market-based

development strategies may favor initially wealthier households unless policy

interventions simultaneously or previously provide asset transfers to poorer

households, and (ii) whether one can reasonably expect increased smallholder market

participation on the basis of increased provision of public goods and services, so that

even those with meager initial private asset endowments can be drawn into the market


through improved public goods provision.” They distinguish between participation in

spot markets, using the example of maize, where farmers face low barriers to entry but

high transactions costs (in identifying buyers, etc.) and relatively low returns, and

contract farming, with the examples of cotton and tobacco, which include higher

barriers to entry and higher risks for farmers, but higher returns. They use data from

the nationally representative rural household survey Trabalho do Inquerito Agricola (TIA),

which includes cross-sectional recall data from the 2001-2002 agricultural season.

According to the authors: “The paper's principal finding is that private household assets,

especially land, but also livestock, labor and equipment, are strongly positively associated

with crop market participation.” The authors also find that public assets are correlated

with market participation, as are the levels of household assets. The authors conclude

that this suggests that interventions seeking to increase market participation should

consider the interaction between public and private asset levels, and that policy-makers

should consider the effectiveness of seeking to incorporate the very (asset) poor into

markets versus focusing on those with somewhat higher asset levels who are closer to

being at the levels needed for market participation. The authors acknowledge that the data are such that they cannot determine causation, but only correlations. (Question 3.)

Frankenberger, T. R., Sutter, P., Teshome, A., Aberra, A., Tefera, M., Taffesse, A., ... &

Ejigsemahu, Y. (2007). Ethiopia: The Path to self-resiliency. Vol I: Final Report. CHF- Partners

in Rural Development, Canadian Network of NGOs in Ethiopia (CANGO).

Frankenberger et al. provide the final report on a study that sought to assess the factors

that contribute to the vulnerability and resilience of communities and households in

rural Ethiopia. According to the authors, “The overall purpose of this study is to provide

insights on how best to promote self-resiliency for the chronically food insecure, both at

the household and community levels. It is also intended to provide guidance on means of

improving the effectiveness and complementarity of the Productive Safety Net Program

(PSNP), Other Food Security Program (OFSP) and NGO interventions by employing a

sustainable livelihoods approach to examining the vulnerability and resilience of

beneficiary households and communities.” The authors use qualitative and quantitative

data from nine woredas (districts) in five regions of Ethiopia. The study also identifies

“livelihoods-specific criteria for PSNP and OFSP graduation, as well as thresholds for

achieving household resilience.” The report concludes with recommendations for

improving coordination of government and non-governmental food security programs.

Gilligan, D., & Hoddinott, J. (2007). Is there persistence in the impact of emergency food aid?

Evidence on consumption, food security and assets in rural Ethiopia. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 89: 1-18.

Gilliagan and Hoddinott consider the question of whether food aid can have long-term

welfare benefits by protecting assets and savings during a crisis, with a focus on the

programs instituted in Ethiopia in response to the 2002 drought. The response of the

Ethiopian government was the following: “the government expanded its two major food

aid programs, an emergency food-for-work program called the Employment Generation

Schemes (EGS) and free food distribution also known as ‘Gratuitous Relief’ (FFD).” To


study the impact of these programs, the authors use longitudinal data from household

surveys conducted in 1999 and 2004 from fifteen rural Ethiopian villages as part of the

Ethiopia Rural Household Survey (ERHS). In nine of the fifteen villages, more than 30%

of the respondents reported that they experienced the 2002 drought, and it was these

nine villages that received food aid. To estimate the impact of EGS and FFD (estimated

separately) on overall consumption, food consumption, and livestock holdings, the

authors use a difference-in-differences propensity score matching technique. The

authors find that between 1999 and 2004 consumption and food consumption did not

increase significantly for non-beneficiaries of the EGS program, but that increases in

consumption and food consumption were large and significant for those who

participated in the EGS program between 2002 and 2004. The authors also find that

participation in the EGS program had a negative effect on the growth rate of livestock

holdings relative to that of non-participants. The authors suggest this could be due to

the participants feeling that livestock holdings as a self-insurance mechanism are less

important. They also suggest that this is due to outliers, as the effect is no longer

significant after “trimming” the highest and lowest 2.5% of observations. Also, when disaggregating the data by income tertiles, the authors find that the benefits of the EGS

to consumption and food consumption are focused on the middle and highest income

tertiles. With regard to the FFD program, the authors find that FFD program recipients

show a significantly larger increase in food consumption relative to non-recipients

between 1999 and 2004, with the effect most pronounced for the poorest tertile.

Effects of FFD on general consumption and livestock assets were not significant. The

authors draw the following conclusion: “Overall, these results suggest that emergency

food aid played an important role in improving welfare, access to food, and food

security for many households following the drought in 2002. However, improved

targeting, especially in EGS, and larger, sustained transfers may be required to increase

benefits, particularly to the poorest households. The impacts of food aid identified here

indicate some persistence or accumulated effects of transfers on consumption growth

over time.” (Question 1.)

Skoufias, E. (2007). Poverty alleviation and consumption insurance: Evidence from PROGRESA

in Mexico. Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(4), 630-649.

In this empirical study of Mexico’s conditional cash transfer program, PROGRESA,

Skoufias examines the extent to which PROGRESA serves to insure household

consumption in the face of economic shock and whether the program displaces pre-

existing informal risk sharing arrangements. The author examines panel data collected

for the sake of program evaluation between 1997 and 1999, including both treatment

and control households. The author finds evidence of partial insurance and community

risk sharing (regarding food consumption but not non-food consumption) within the

communities, with no significant difference in the extent of this between treatment and

control villages. According to the author: “A comparison of the estimates between

villages covered and not yet covered by PROGRESA (treatment versus control villages)

suggests the program did not replace or reinforce any preexisting risk sharing among

households within villages or result in any substantial changes in how households cope

with shocks.” Finally, he shows that “The analysis also revealed that households eligible


for the PROGRESA benefits in the treatment villages were able to insulate their

consumption from fluctuations in income better than their counterparts in control

villages.” (Questions 1 and 6.)

World Bank. (2007). World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. New York:

Oxford University Press.

The World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, addresses three primary

questions: 1.) What can agriculture do for development?, 2.) What are effective

instruments in using agriculture for development?, and 3.) How can agriculture-for-

development agendas best be implemented? In response to the first question, the report

states that “Agriculture has a strong record in development” and “Agriculture has

special powers in reducing poverty.” Regarding the second question, the report

recommends the following instruments or strategies for ensuring that agriculture

contributes to development and poverty reduction: “improving the asset position of the

rural poor, making smallholder farming more competitive and sustainable, diversifying income sources toward the labor market and the rural nonfarm economy, and

facilitating successful migration out of agriculture.” Finally, in response to the last

question regarding how to best implement an agriculture-for-development agenda, the

report suggests that each country develop an agenda including the following objectives,

developed specifically to address the existing level of agricultural development: “Improve

access to markets and establish efficient value chains; enhance smallholder

competitiveness and facilitate market entry; improve livelihoods in subsistence farming

and low-skill rural occupations; and increase employment in agriculture and the rural

nonfarm economy, and enhance skills.” (Question 7.) (This report is also cited in the

FTF Learning Agenda Annotated Bibliography on Agricultural Productivity, although the

emphases of the summaries differ.)

2006

Alderman, H., & Haque, T. (2006). Countercyclical safety nets for the poor and vulnerable. Food

Policy, 31(4), 372-383.

Alderman and Haque provide an overview of the attributes needed in the design of

safety nets that serve an insurance function and help to maintain the purchasing power

of the poor in the face of negative shocks. They state that countercyclical safety nets

must have a flexible budget that can be increased when necessary; the targeting of

countercyclical safety nets must be such that those with transitory needs are targeted,

rather than simply the chronically poor; and they must have a flexible implementation

strategy. The types of programs considered by the authors include ex-post financing

from international donors, weather-based insurance mechanisms, food aid, and public

works programs. The authors provide examples of each of these types of programs;

however, in almost all cases they do not address the question of whether the programs

actually enable households to achieve asset or consumption smoothing in the face of

shock. This may be due in large part to the lack of available data to reflect these


outcomes. As the authors state in their conclusion: “from the point of view of risk

management, the efficacy of safety nets includes the degree to which assets are

protected or the speed at which the affected households return to the pre-shock level

of production or earnings. To be sure, the necessary data to evaluate a safety net from

this perspective often is not available.” (Question 1.)

Carter, M. R., & Barrett, C. B. (2006). The economics of poverty traps and persistent poverty:

An asset-based approach. Journal of Development Studies, 42(2), 178-199.

Carter and Barrett discuss the challenges of understanding the nature of poverty,

particularly whether and how individuals move in and out of poverty over time. Because

cross-sectional and even panel data of income and/or expenditures do not provide

sufficient insight into whether movements from poverty to non-poverty are structural

or stochastic, the authors develop an asset-based approach. With this, the authors

illustrate a model whereby movements in and out of poverty are considered stochastic

if the asset levels do not change but income or expenditure levels do change, and structural if movements in and out of poverty occur along with changes in asset levels.

To further understand the long-term persistence of structural poverty, the authors seek

to identify a dynamic asset poverty threshold. This is meant to provide insight into the

following questions: “how many of the structurally poor are likely to be structurally

mobile over the long term? Alternatively, how many are caught in a long-term trap of

persistent poverty? Similarly, how many of the structurally non-poor are actually in a

sustainable situation?” The authors conclude with a discussion of ways to empirically

study poverty traps, as well as the implications for poverty reduction strategies if

poverty traps are determined to exist.

De Janvry, A., Finan, F., Sadoulet, E., & Vakis, R. (2006). Can conditional cash transfer programs

serve as safety nets in keeping children at school and from working when exposed to

shocks? Journal of Development Economics, 79(2), 349-373.

De Janvry et al. consider the question of whether conditional cash transfer (CCT)

programs have the effect of keeping children in school and/or keeping children from

entering the workforce in the face of negative shocks, with a particular focus on

Mexico’s CCT program, Progesa. The authors analyze panel data from a census of

52,719 poor households conducted twice a year between November 1998 and May

2000, beginning after Progresa’s introduction to the surveyed localities in May 1998. The

authors find that unemployment or illness of the household head reduces the probability

of the child’s enrollment by 1.7%, but that Progresa fully or completely offsets this

reduction. Natural disasters reduce the probability of child enrollment by 3.2%, but this

is also completely offset by Progresa. Illness of siblings and droughts are not shown to

reduce child schooling, and the authors suggest that in the case of the latter this may be

because droughts occur frequently enough that households adjust their planning in

anticipation. Other shocks included in the analysis reduce child schooling less

substantially and are also offset by Progresa. For children in the control villages the

authors observe that shocks significantly reduce school enrollment and that this effect

can be long-lasting. Regarding children’s work, the authors find that children in the


Progresa villages are less likely to work, but in control villages children’s tendency to

work actually decreases in response to droughts, whereas children’s work is unaffected

by drought in the Progresa villages. For most other shocks, child labor tends to increase

and this is not offset by Progesa. The authors conclude that CCTs can have the effect of

protecting human capital development in the face of shocks, and thus their safety net

role as such should not be overlooked. (Question 1.)

Dorward, A., Sabates-Wheeler, R., MacAuslan, I., Buckley, C., Kydd, J., & Chirwa, E. (2006).

Promoting agriculture for social protection or social protection for agriculture: Policy and

research issues. Future Agricultures Consortium, Brighton: Institute of Development

Studies.

In this paper, the authors recognize the inherent riskiness of agriculture as well as the

importance of agriculture in overcoming poverty, and seek to describe the relationships

between social protection policies and agricultural development. The authors begin by

describing the risks and uncertainties facing the rural poor, and how these factors affect their decision-making. The authors identify three types of risks facing agricultural

producers: physical risk, price risks, and transactional risks. They describe the potential

for households to engage in low return activities in order to reduce risk, yet point out

that risk management interventions might not provide sufficient impetus for households

to engage in higher return activities if other conditions are not met. The authors

provide an extensive review of the various types of interventions that relate to social

protection and agricultural development, and describe what is known about their

effects, with acknowledgement of the point that interventions have different effects

depending on the context in which they are implemented. (Question 5.)

Gertler, P., Martinez, S., & Rubio-Codino, M. (2006). Investing cash transfers to raise long term

living standards. Policy Research Working Paper 3994. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

The authors describe Mexico’s conditional cash transfer program, Oportunidades, and

consider the question of whether the program leads to government dependency on the

part of program beneficiaries or if the income enables beneficiaries to overcome

liquidity constraints and engage in productive activities that they would not have

otherwise. The study focuses on the following: “the probability of engaging in micro-

enterprise, of using land for productive purposes, and of owning production and draft

animals.” The authors use data from the Encuesta de Evaluación (ENCEL), which is a

panel dataset covering over 24,000 households in treatment and control communities,

surveyed six times between 1998 and 2003. They also use data from a 1997 (pre-

intervention) census of the same households, and data from Oportunidades about the

size and timing of transfers that went to these households. The authors find that

treatment households are 33% more likely to engage in micro-enterprise than control

households (43% for “female-like” micro-enterprise activities). Furthermore, the authors

find that when comparing domestic work, which does not require substantial capital

expenditures, and handcrafts, which requires substantial capital upfront, treatment

households experience a more pronounced increase for handcrafts, suggesting that the

transfer worked to overcome liquidity constraints. Regarding agricultural production,


they find the following: “treatment households are 14.5% more likely to own draft

animals and 5% more likely to own production animals than control households. There

is no significant effect in the probability of land usage.” Overall, the authors conclude

that the transfer had the effect of increasing rather than discouraging productive activity.

The authors do not discuss the conditions in Mexico that enabled the cash transfers to

work in this way, however, attention to this question is critical before assuming that

cash transfers would have similar effects in different settings. (Question 5.)

Poulton, C., Kydd, J., & Dorward, A. (2006). Overcoming market constraints on pro-poor

agricultural growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Development Policy Review, 24(3), 243-277.

Poulton et al. review the challenges to pro-poor agricultural intensification in Sub-

Saharan Africa, including both supply- and demand-side constraints. The authors

describe the challenges to supply-chain development, whereby “thin” input, output, and

finance markets combine to create a risky environment, such that investment in one

element of the chain will fail unless coupled with investments and development throughout the chain. They describe ways to increase efficiency of African agricultural

commodity markets, including national and regional markets. They also discuss

important steps that can be taken to encourage small-scale farmers to invest in

agricultural intensification: “reducing the fluctuations in the prices that producers

receive for their produce; stimulating the markets for indigenous food products;

improving the quality of support services offered to producers; and giving producers

greater security in their access to remunerative output marketing channels.” (Question

3.)

2005

Maluccio, J. A. (2005). Coping with the ‘coffee crisis’ in Central America: The role of the Nicaraguan

Red de Protección Social. Discussion Paper 188, Food Consumption and Nutrition

Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Maluccio conducts an empirical analysis of the effects of a conditional cash transfer

program, the Red de Protección Social (RPS), in Nicaragua during the downturn in coffee

prices known as the “coffee crisis.” The objectives of the paper were to address the

following questions: “How have households in coffee-growing areas without the

program fared over the period 2000–2002? Were households in coffee-growing areas

with the program better able to protect household expenditures (particularly on food)

and educational and nutritional outcomes than their counterparts in coffee-growing

areas without the program? That is, how effective was RPS as a social safety net during

the downturn? Were labor supply and the mix of coffee, noncoffee agricultural, and

nonagricultural activities within the household different among households in coffee-

growing areas with and without the program? That is, did RPS enable different labor

responses to the downturn?” The authors use data from a household survey conducted

for the sake of RPS program evaluation, that covered beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries

in 2000 (baseline), 2001, and 2002. For administrative reasons, the 2000 survey was


conducted in August/September, whereas the follow-ups were conducted in October,

presenting some challenges of seasonality. The authors use difference-in-differences

techniques, and find that the RPS did serve a safety net function by protecting

beneficiaries from downturns in expenditures. Interestingly, Maluccio considers the

coffee crisis to be an example of an economic downturn rather than a “shock” per se.

(Question 1.)

Pingali, P., Alinovi, L., & Sutton, J. (2005). Food security in complex emergencies: Enhancing food

system resilience. Disasters, 29(s1), S5-S24.

Pingali et al. describe the Twin Track Approach taken by the FAO’s Anti-Hunger

Programme (AHP): “one track creates opportunities for the hungry to improve their

livelihoods through policy reform and investment in agricultural and rural development.

The other track equips the poor and hungry to take advantage of these opportunities by

enhancing immediate access to food thereby increasing their productive potential.” The

authors argue that this approach can be applied to crisis or post-conflict situations in order to rebuild the resilience of food systems. According to the authors, this sort of

effort should be based on the following principles: “strengthening diversity; rebuilding

local institutions and traditional support networks; reinforcing local knowledge; and

building on farmers’ ability to adapt and reorganise.” The authors provide

recommendations for actions to be taken in the short-term and in the long-term when

looking to rebuild food systems in response to crises.

Yamano, T., Alderman, H., & Christiaensen, L. (2005). Child growth, shocks, and food aid in

rural Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(2), 273-288.

Yamano et al. consider the notion that food aid is often provided in response to shocks

such as drought, with the hopes of preventing child nutrition - the effects of which can

be significant and long-lasting. The authors provide an empirical analysis of food aid in

Ethiopia and analyze the effects of food aid that is allocated to the community (not the

household per se) on child growth. Data for the study were merged from three

different surveys: the Welfare Monitoring Survey (which covered information on

children’s anthropometrics), the Food Security Survey (covering receipts of food aid),

and the Annual Agricultural Sample Survey (which includes information on plot sizes and

crop damage due to drought). Their analysis reveals the following: “while harvest failure

leads to child growth faltering, food aid affected child growth positively and offset the

negative effects of shocks in communities that received food aid. However, many

communities that experienced shocks did not receive food aid.” (Question 1.)

2004

Barrett, C. B., Holden, S. & Clay, D. C. (2004). Can food-for-work programs reduce

vulnerability? In S. Dercon (ed.) Insurance Against Poverty. UNU-WIDER Studies in

Development Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Barrett et al. describe food-for-work programs as potentially able to respond to both

short-term crises and longer-term development and consider the following points: “The

central question about FFW is therefore whether it helps individuals, households and

communities in times of stress and whether it (also) facilitates the desired transition

from relief to development, i.e. whether FFW reduces vulnerability in the short-term,

the long-term, both, or neither.” To evaluate these questions, the authors synthesize

the evidence from previous research, with a focus on FFW programs in Ethiopia and

Kenya. The authors point to evidence that supports the following: “FFW commonly

generates pro-poor transfers; FFW relieves liquidity constraints; and FFW projects can

produce valuable public goods.” However, they also point to shortcomings that suggest

that successful implementation of FFW programs are not a foregone conclusion: there

can be targeting errors; timing errors; inappropriate levels of compensation; poor

choice, quality or upkeep of public works investments; crowding-out of private

transfers; or disincentives to labor or own-farm production. The authors conclude with

lessons for design of FFW programs, and suggest that FFW should be part of a broader

portfolio of government actions and that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is not feasible. While the paper provides a useful overview of the factors that lead to success (or not)

of FFW programs, the authors point to a lack of evidence regarding “the extent to

which accurately timed and targeted FFW transfers prove sufficient to pre-empt

potentially injurious coping behaviours, including liquidation of productive assets,

longdistance migration, and sharply reduced food consumption that increases the risk of

irreversible injury, illness or death,” which is of particular relevance to the FTF Learning

Agenda. (Question 6.)

Dorward, A., Fan, S., Kydd, J., Lofgren, H., Morrison, J., Poulton, C., ... & Wobst, P. (2004).

Institutions and policies for pro-poor agricultural growth. Development Policy Review,

22(6), 611-622.

The authors report the findings of a study that sought to identify the critical

components of policies to promote pro-poor agricultural growth. The methodology

included a literature review of historical experiences with attempts to stimulate pro-

poor agricultural growth, including case studies from Malawi, Zimbabwe, and India;

empirical analysis of the effects of government spending on poverty and growth in India;

and modeling of the effects of policies on the poor in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Based on

the literature review, the authors conclude that a set of conditions were needed for

green revolutions in the past: “appropriate and high-yielding agricultural technologies;

local markets offering stable output prices that provide reasonable returns to

investment in ‘improved’ technologies; seasonal finance for the purchase of inputs;

reasonably secure and equitable access to land, with attractive returns for operators

(whether tenants or owners); and infrastructure to support input, output and financial

markets.” They propose a three-step process beginning with the establishment of the

initial conditions needed for agricultural growth, then government intervention to

enable a broad-based section of the farming population to participate in the process,

followed by withdrawal of the government from direct intervention in the market. The

authors suggest that even in countries or areas where the agro-ecological conditions are

too poor to support pro-poor agriculture-led growth, the government should support


the agricultural sector enough to prevent the collapse of rural livelihoods and the

natural resource base. (Question 7.)

Dorward, A., Kydd, J., Morrison, J., & Urey, I. (2004). A policy agenda for pro-poor agricultural

growth. World Development, 32(1), 73-89.

Dorward et al. examine the role of agriculture in poverty reduction and economic

growth by reviewing the empirical evidence in the literature. Based on existing

literature, the authors argue that compared to non-farm growth, growth in the

agricultural sector (particularly cereal cultivation) has higher potential for poverty

reduction. However, the authors compare the current conditions, particularly in Sub-

Saharan Africa and Asia, with the conditions that faced the Green Revolution countries.

They find that many of the conditions that were in place during the Green Revolution

are not currently met, and that some of these conditions are not being pursued given

the current trends toward liberalization. While acknowledging the challenge of

successfully achieving conditions conducive to pro-poor agricultural growth, the authors suggest that the cost of not pursuing these conditions must be considered. (Question 7.)

2003

Dercon, S., & Krishnan, P. (2003). Food aid and informal insurance. World Institute for

Development Economics Research. Discussion Paper No. 2003/09.

Dercon and Krishnan provide an empirical study of the impact of food aid on poor

households in Ethiopia, addressing the questions of how food aid is allocated and how it

impacts consumption, with particular attention paid to the interaction with informal

risk-sharing arrangements. The authors utilize three rounds of panel data collected in

1994 and 1995 as part of the Ethiopian Rural Household Survey, which covered 1450

households in 15 villages. They report that during the time period covered by the

survey, negative shocks were common amongst the households. The descriptive

statistics suggest that more than half of the households receiving food aid were not poor

and that the households affected most by shocks were less likely to receive food aid.

They find using regression analysis that there is some evidence of targeting free food aid

within the villages, but weak evidence of targeting food-for-work. The authors also find

that the amount of food received both as free food aid and food-for-work is higher for

the better off households. The authors develop a theoretical framework that suggests

that if there is risk sharing amongst village households, then poor targeting will have less

of an effect since food aid even to the “wrong” households would be shared with other

households in need. However, the authors do not address the possibility that risk

sharing arrangements exist between households of similar economic status, which would

lessen the extent to which food aid to wealthier households would reach poorer

households in the village. In the authors’ empirical test of the effects of food aid on

consumption, they find that food aid does have a positive effect on consumption both at

the individual and village levels, suggesting that food aid is shared in risk-sharing

arrangements to some extent. However, by testing the interaction variable between


food aid and idiosyncratic shocks, the authors find that the following: “the coefficient on

the interaction term of crop shocks with food aid is positive and significant at 7 percent,

i.e. that there is a larger effect of idiosyncratic crop shocks in these communities than in

those without food aid… This supports the proposition that food aid crowds out local

arrangements for insuring idiosyncratic risk.” The authors conclude with suggestions for

ways to design food aid or safety net policies more generally to reduce the extent to

which they crowd out informal risk-sharing arrangements. (Questions 1 and 6.)

Page, S., & Slater, R. (2003). Small producer participation in global food systems: Policy

opportunities and constraints. Development Policy Review, 21(5‐6), 641-654.

Page and Slater address the obstacles to participation in agricultural markets facing small

producers and discuss possible routes to market access. The authors identify four

important conditions that enable producers to achieve market access (adequate

understanding of the market, proper organization of the firm, sufficient communication

and transportation links, and an appropriate policy environment), and suggest that

interventions to enable market access for small producers should address deficiencies in

any or all of these areas. The nine types of interventions identified by the authors that

can enable market access are the following: foreign direct investment, interventions by

large direct private buyers, initiatives by developing country producers, alternative trade

companies, export promotion agencies, import promotion agencies, aid programs,

targeted technical research, and agencies promoting small production. However, the

authors do not provide specific details about the extent to which these types of

programs in fact benefit small-scale producers. And while the authors begin the paper’s

abstract with the following statement: “Access to markets is increasingly seen as an

essential element in providing a route out of poverty, especially for small producers of

food crops in rural areas,” they do not discuss the extent to which these types of

initiatives affect the well-being of the poor. (Question 3.)

Ravallion, M. (2003). Targeted transfers in poor countries: Revisiting the tradeoffs and policy options.

Policy Research Working Paper, 3048, Washington DC: World Bank.

Ravallion considers the negative perceptions about income transfers in poor countries,

such as the assumptions that they create labor or savings disincentives, leak to non-

target groups, and carry excessive administrative costs. On the other hand, the author

considers the argument that “certain redistributive policies may then be good for

growth, by providing insurance or helping credit-constrained poor people be productive workers or take up productive opportunities for self-employment.” He also questions

the presumption that there is a trade-off between economic growth and lower

inequality. In reviewing the evidence on the effects of uninsured risk on the poor,

Ravallion finds the following: “Some of the evidence suggests large long-term costs to

the poor from uninsured risk, but some does not. Of course, there are still welfare

costs of uninsured risks facing poor people; the classic risk-aversion case for insurance

remains even if risk is not a cause of chronic poverty.” He then provides an overview of

the evidence regarding the effects of transfer programs, and concludes that there is


evidence that suggests that these programs can help to overcome market failures that

contribute to chronic poverty. (Question 5.)

Skoufias, E. (2003). Economic crises and natural disasters: Coping strategies and policy

implications. World Development, 31(7), 1087-1102.

In this article, Skoufias provides an introduction to and an overview of twelve papers

presented at a 2001 conference entitled “Crises and Disasters: Measurement and

Mitigation of their Human Costs.” The topics of the papers include ex ante and ex post

strategies that households undertake to deal with crises and disasters, as well as ex ante

and ex post actions that governments can take to reduce the impacts of crises and

shocks on their populations. The author describes several strategies employed at the

household level such as income diversification, participation in informal insurance

groups, and sale of assets in response to shocks. Skoufias argues that a solid

understanding of the actions that households take in response to crises is critical for

well-designed government responses. Regarding government actions, the author discusses several issues which are covered in the conference papers and in the broader

literature, such as targeting, choice of recipient (e.g. women versus men), and the

possibility of undertaking government action ex ante rather than ex post. The author

concludes with recommendations for the design of effective government policies to

respond to crises and disasters. (Question 6.)

2002

Dercon, S. (2002). Income risk, coping strategies, and safety nets. The World Bank Research

Observer, 17(2), 141-166.

Dercon provides a review of the strategies that households use to smooth consumption

in the face of risk, based on the author’s data from Ethiopia and empirical evidence from

the literature with a focus on households in Africa and Asia. The author describes the

distinctions between idiosyncratic and common shock, as well as ex ante risk

management strategies versus ex post risk coping strategies, with examples of each.

According to the author, the accumulation of assets such as livestock as a means of self-

insurance is common, yet because of the lumpiness of this type of asset and the

common covariance of incomes and asset prices, this strategy is problematic. Dercon

suggests that policies such as development of savings accounts and sound

macroeconomic policies can help facilitate this process. He describes income-smoothing

strategies such as income diversification and income skewing (favoring low risk, low

return activities) that can lower productivity and average income. He also describes

risk-sharing arrangements such as informal risk-sharing networks, as well as the possible

crowding out effect that state-sponsored safety nets could have on informal

arrangements, if for example some members of an informal group decided to opt out of

the informal arrangement to the detriment of remaining members, who may not be able

to access the public program. In conclusion, Dercon summarizes what is known about

the strategies households take to manage risk, the challenges and shortcomings to these


strategies, and the subsequent implications for public policies to improve well-being in

the face of risk. (Question 6.)

Devereux, S. (2002). Can social safety nets reduce chronic poverty? Development Policy Review,

20(5), 657-675.

Devereux describes the common perception that social safety nets are unaffordable and

ineffective, and argues that “the potential of safety-net transfers to the poor to raise

living standards is greater than is generally acknowledged.” The article looks specifically

at the effects of social safety net programs on asset creation and investment behaviors

and the subsequent effects on poverty. The author provides the example of the

Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra, India, where the insurance effect of the

program has been shown to enable farmers to plant higher-yielding crop varieties,

rather than favor lower risk, drought tolerant varieties. He develops case studies that

illustrate these effects by reviewing the previous research on “three social safety-net

interventions in Southern Africa – cash transfers in Namibia (social pensions) and Mozambique (cash payments to urban destitutes), and public works in Zambia.” In the

cash-for-work program in Zambia, he cites findings from the literature that showed that

beneficiaries used income from the program to hire labor for weeding and plowing on

their farms. He also shows that in Zambia, beneficiaries who received higher payments

used the income to buy productive assets such as “farm tools and fertiliser, livestock,

even an ox-cart.” It should be noted that the program in Zambia also resulted in

unintended negative consequences for women and male/female relationships. Devereux

reports that there was some evidence of the safety net programs “crowding out”

informal transfers to program recipients, but characterized this development as

generally positive given that the informal transfers tend to come from individuals or

households that are also poor, and thus they are relieved of this burden. (Questions 5

and 6.)

2001

Barrett, C. B., Bezuneh, M., & Aboud, A. (2001). Income diversification, poverty traps and policy

shocks in Côte d’Ivoire and Kenya. Food Policy, 26(4), 367-384.

Barrett et al. consider the question of whether policy shocks to poor households

contribute to income diversification and whether this subsequently constitutes “an

important means by which smallholders self-insure against risk, seize income earning

opportunities, or accumulate capital for investment.” The authors examine the effects of

a currency devaluation in Côte d’Ivoire as well as a food for work (FFW) program in

Kenya. The data from Côte d’Ivoire are from the farm management and household

survey (FMHS) conducted by the West African Rice Development Association

(WARDA). The authors’ analysis of the longitudinal data from 1993, 1994, and 1995

show that a 1994 currency devaluation had the effect of increasing returns to tradable

products, including some agricultural goods. They found that income diversification

decreased, with more households engaging in agriculture, but with the gains mainly going


to relatively well-endowed, well-educated and well-positioned (in terms of market

access) farmers. In Kenya, the authors use their own cross-sectional data from the

Baringo district, where most people are agropastoralists, with high poverty rates. The

wealthier households tend to engage in more livestock trade, whereas the poorer

households depend more upon consumption of their own crops and unskilled wage

labor. The authors found that participation in the FFW program reduced livestock sales

amongst poor households, suggesting that households were able to maintain rather than

deplete livestock kept as a means of self-insurance. They also found that farm and skilled

non-farm income of poorer households that participated in FFW increased, suggesting

that FFW reduced liquidity constraints and allowed households to invest in higher

return activities. For all but the second income quartile, the increased income of FFW

households was significantly higher than the value of the received food. The authors

conclude that in order to contribute to poverty alleviation, policies must address

liquidity constraints and low asset endowments, as occurred in Kenya but as was

neglected in Côte d’Ivoire. (Questions 1, 5, and 6.)

Sadoulet, E., de Janvry, A., & Davis, B. (2001). Cash transfer programs with income multipliers:

PROCAMPO in Mexico. World Development, 29(6), 1043-1056.

In this paper, Sadoulet et al. consider the question of whether cash transfers have the

effect of relieving liquidity constraints in poor households and lead to investments in

productive activities, thus creating an income multiplier effect. The authors examine the

effects of Mexico’s program PROCAMPO, which was instituted to offset the declining

prices for agricultural goods that negatively affected farmers in the wake of NAFTA.

They use panel data covering 958 ejido households collected in 1994 and 1997. Based on

their analysis of income changes experienced by different segments of the ejido

population, the authors find that PROCAMPO effectively compensated “larger

landholders and households with low labor, education, and migration assets” but was

not successful in “compensating for the fall in income in the North-Pacific region, where

agriculture is more technological and diversified.” Regarding income multipliers, they

find that there is an income multiplier effect valuing between 1.5 and 2.6, with the effect

varying amongst different sectors of the population. This corresponds with survey

results which showed that the majority of respondents reported using PROCAMPO

income for agricultural inputs. However, it should be noted that the multiplier effect

mainly occurred for medium and large landholders, particularly in the Center and Gulf

regions, but not small landholders. The authors point out that for the income multiplier

effect to occur, certain conditions must be met such as pre-existing liquidity constraints

as well as capacity to utilize the program funds productively. The authors conclude that

the important indirect effects of the program should not be overlooked in analyses of

the program’s benefits. (Question 5.)

2000

Lustig, N. (2000). Crises and the poor: Socially responsible macroeconomics. Economia, 1(1), 1–

19.


In this article, Lustig considers the effects of macroeconomic crises on the poor in Latin

America and the Caribbean, and argues that because macroeconomic crises can have

disproportionate and lasting effects on the poor, efforts to avoid such crises and to

mitigate their impacts are important for poverty alleviation. She discusses three types of

responses to macro-economic crises and considers ways in which they can be designed

to best benefit the poor: adjusting the macroeconomic policy mix, changing the

composition of fiscal adjustment, and implementing safety nets. With regard to

macroeconomic policy adjustments, the author argues that if the solution that is optimal

for the economy as a whole is not the same as that which is optimal for the poor, then

this should be acknowledged and the poor should be compensated via safety nets. Also,

regarding fiscal decisions, the author argues that during macroeconomic crises, spending

on the poor should be protected. Finally, with regard to safety nets, the author states

the following: “There are examples inside and outside Latin America of good practices

in the case of safety nets that can work well. The ideal safety nets are those which

provide a consumption floor and, at the same time, protect the human capital accumulation of the poor or contribute to expanding the social and physical

infrastructure for the poor.” Interestingly, the author uses the example of conditional

cash transfers, which others have argued are not the most effective means of responding

to crises given that that is not what they are designed to do. The author also provides

the example of workfare programs to provide income to the poor during downturns.

Finally, the author argues that an important feature of counter-cyclical safety nets is that

they be implemented before crisis occurs. (Question 1.)

Feed the Future Learning Agenda Annotated Bibliography ... · was prepared by Jill T. W. Bernstein...

Documents

Transcript of Feed the Future Learning Agenda Annotated Bibliography ... · was prepared by Jill T. W. Bernstein...