Abstract

Rigorous impact evaluations on agricultural interventions in the developing world have proliferated in research of recent years. Whereas increased care in causal identification in such analyses is beneficial and has improved the quality of research in this field, much of the literature still fails to investigate the costs needed to achieve any benefits identified. Such understanding, however, would be crucial for drawing policy and programmatic conclusions from the research and for informing the allocation of public investments. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) subjects both the cost side and the effects side of agricultural and rural interventions to technical scrutiny and unifies both sides in order to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of different modalities of a programme, of efforts to reach different target groups, or of efforts to achieve different outcomes. CEAs, while present in the health and education sectors, remain rare in agricultural and rural development research. This study contributes to filling the knowledge gap by conducting CEAs in a particular type of programmatic work in the agricultural sector—namely, interventions conducted as field experiments that bring a gender lens to community-based advisory services in African rural areas. Specifically, we consider two such programmes—one in Mozambique in which such advisory services aim to improve sustainable land management (SLM) practices in agricultural production, and the other in Tanzania to advise farmers on their land rights. Using CEA methods combined with econometric analysis based on randomised controlled trials, we find that the gendered modality is consistently more cost-effective than the basic modality when considering varied outcomes and target groups. However, for any given modality, it is more cost-effective to improve outcomes for men than for women. The structure of costs in the agricultural extension programme further allowed for a simulation of how cost-effectiveness would change if the programme were scaled up geographically. The results show that expansion of the basic modality of the SLM programme leads to improvements in cost-effectiveness, while the gendered modality displays nonlinear changes in cost-effectiveness along the expansion path, first worsening with initial scale-up and subsequently improving with further expansion.

Highlights

  • We provide detailed discussion of the Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) methodology employed in these advisory services contexts, including results based on differing assumptions and simulation under scale-up scenarios

  • In the case of CGLAS, cost data were submitted by Mama’s Hope Organisation for Legal Assistance (MHOLA) to the research team every three months, while in the case of CGAAS data were obtained from the project after project completion

  • We take first steps to address another concern of major import for policy makers, namely, how cost-effectiveness may change as programmes such as these are scaled up

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Rigour in causally identifying the impact of agricultural interventions and programmes on farmers’ productivity and welfare, among other outcomes, has increasingly been able to influence the direction of public investments made by international agencies and developing-country governments in support of the agricultural sector and rural areas. Academic impact evaluations in agricultural development, careful in identifying the cause-and-effect relationship between agricultural interventions and development outcomes, have mostly been silent on the costs required to achieve the benefits. Systematic reviews of the presence of cost-effectiveness or other careful cost analysis of agricultural impact evaluations do not exist to the best of our knowledge. This review finds that of 2,000 such studies, fewer than 5 per cent include any meaningful cost data pertaining to these public initiatives [2]

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.