Trust, membership in groups, and household welfare

This paper explores the relationship between group membership and trust. Specifically, the authors examine (1) the importance of trust in the decision to join groups, (2) the subsequent ability of groups to generate trust, and (3) the influence of group membership and trust on a measure of well-being, per capita household income. They use longitudinal data from KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa, allowing them to control for potential simultaneity and measurement-error problems in the estimation. They disaggregate groups into financial and nonfinancial and “trust in people” by type of agent or actor. They can thus examine whether different types of trust are important for participating in different types of groups and whether different types of group participation are important for generating different types of trust. The research finds that (1) trust in local agents is an important determinant of membership in financial groups but not for membership in nonfinancial groups, (2) membership in both types of groups generates trust in nonlocal agents but not local agents, and (3) membership in financial and nonfinancial groups leads to higher well-being. The first two results suggest that financial groups serve a role in expanding the radius of trust, while the first and third results suggest a role for trust in improving well-being.Community participation South Africa. ,Financial institutions South Africa. ,Trust. ,Group membership. ,

Mutual effects of land distribution and economic development : evidence from Asia, Africa, and Latin America

Land plays an important role in the economies of developing countries, and many theories connecting land inequality with different dimensions of economic development already exist. Even though efficacious land distribution allows societies to transition from poverty to a human capital-based developed economy, ongoing issues related to property rights, inequality, and the political economy of land distribution are unavoidable. The general objective of this paper is to explore the nexus between land distribution and economic development. The specific objectives are to: (i) identify which land distribution programs/activities contribute to economic development; (ii) investigate the role of stakeholders in land distribution programs that affect the growth of productivity; and (iii) assess the deficiencies of current land distribution policies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to explore how economic development theories contribute to decreasing income inequality. This paper provides an overview of land distribution history and the main economic development theories. It also highlights the links between land distribution and the main elements of economic development. Finally, it provides a comparative review of the most recent empirical works regarding the characteristics, limitations, and potential (mutual) effects of land distribution and economic development settings on developing countries worldwide

Engendering agricultural research

This paper makes a case for gender equity in the agricultural R&D system. It reviews the evidence on exactly why it is important to pay attention to gender issues in agriculture and why it is necessary to recognize women�s distinct food-security roles throughout the entire value chain�for both food and nonfood crops, marketed and nonmarketed commodities. The authors examine whether women are factored into the work of research institutions, and whether research institutions effectively focus on women�s needs. In short, are these institutions conducting research by and for women? The paper�s conceptual framework demonstrates the need to integrate gender into setting agricultural priorities; conducting the research itself; designing, implementing, and adopting extension services; and evaluating their impacts. It concludes with recommendations regarding how to make these suggested changes.Agriculture, extension services, Gender equity, nonmarket commodities, Priority setting, R&D, value chains,

Community Based Targeting for Social Safety Nets

This paper interprets case studies and theory on community involvement in beneficiary selection and benefit delivery for social safety nets. Several considerations should be carefully balanced in assessing the advantages of using community groups as targeting agents. First, benefits from utilizing local information and social capital may be eroded by costly rent-seeking. Second, the potential improvement in targeting criteria from incorporating local notions of deprivation must be tempered by the possibility of program capture by local elites, and by the possibility that local preferences are not pro-poor. Third, performance may be undermined by unforeseen strategic targeting by local communities in response to national funding and evaluation criteria, or by declines in political support.

Labor Migration and Social Networks Participation: Evidence from Southern Mozambique

This paper investigates how social networks in poor developing settings are af- fected if people migrate. By using an unique household survey from two southern regions in Mozambique, we test the role of labor mobility in shaping participation in groups and social networks by migrant sending households in village economies at origin. We find that households with successful migrants (i.e. those receiving either remittances or return migration) engage more in community based social networks. Our findings are robust to alternative definitions of social interaction and to endogeneity concerns suggesting that stable migration ties and higher income stability through remittances may decrease participation constraints and increase household commitment in cooperative arrangements in migrant-sending communities.International Migration, Social Capital, Networks, Group Participation, Mozambique

Property rights, collective action and technologies for natural resource management: a conceptual framework

Environmental management, Gender, Capacity,

Agent-based modeling for migration and modern slavery research: a systematic review

AbstractThis systematic review aims to synthesize how agent-based modeling (ABM) has been used in migration and modern slavery research and provide the basis to model development for social science researchers exploring the use of ABM. We searched five bibliographic databases using two terminology categories: (1) migration or modern slavery terminology; (2) complex system methods terminology. Two reviewers conducted independent article screening. Peer-reviewed articles presenting original migration or modern slavery ABMs were included. Data extraction included model development steps and model characteristics. The dataset was synthesized and compared across studies. We identified 28 articles for inclusion. Many of the ABMs tested theories and about half were based on empirical data. Model development varied considerably and reported methods were extremely opaque. Only five studies used a structured development framework. The most common model involved agents deciding whether and where to migrate and attempting migration. Climate change was a common exogenous scenario modeled. Most of the ABMs did not undergo any sensitivity analysis or validation.ABM has a greater capacity to account for heterogeneous and dynamic decision-making than more frequently applied methods in research on migration and modern slavery. However, there is still a paucity of studies adopting ABM methods. These reviewed ABMs highlight gaps in the reporting and implementing of model development. ABM is a promising technique to address many urgent and complex questions in research on migration and modern slavery to better support decision-makers, but addressing current methodological gaps is a critical first step.</jats:p

Production of Innovations within Farmer–Researcher Associations Applying Transdisciplinary Research Principles

Small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan West Africa depend heavily on local resources and local knowledge. Science-based knowledge is likely to aid decision-making in complex situations. In this presentation, we highlight a FiBL-coordinated research partnership between three national producer organisations and national agriculture research bodies in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Benin. The partnership seeks to compare conventional, GMObased, and organic cotton systems as regards food security and climate change

Labor Migration and Social Networks Participation: Evidence from Southern Mozambique

There is a large literature pointing to community participation and social networks as salient components of household well-being in developing settings. Yet, there are few insights into whether people mobility affects incentive problems associated with social networks, or whether labor migration displaces social informal institutions in village economies at origin. This paper directly tests the role of international migration in shaping participation in groups and social networks by migrant sending households in village economies at origin. By using an original household survey from two southern regions in Mozambique, we find that households with successful migrants (i.e. those receiving either remittances or return migration) engage more in community based social networks. Our findings are robust to alternative definitions of social interaction and to endogeneity concerns suggesting that stable migration ties and higher income stability through remittances may decrease participation constraints and increase household commitment in cooperative arrangements in migrant-sending communities.International Migration, Social Capital, Networks, Group Participation, Mozambique

The impacts of IFPRI's global research program on the sustainable development of less favored areas:

"This report assesses the impact of IFPRI's Global Research Program on The Sustainable Development of Less-Favored Areas ("GRP-5"). Initiated in 1998, the stated objectives of the research program were (a) to provide empirical evidence on appropriate development strategies and public investments for improving the well-being of individuals living in less-favored areas (LFAs); and (b) to assess the appropriate targeting of various public investments to favored versus less-favored areas. The program's research activities generally were confined to addressing the first of these objectives. The GRP-5 research was primarily undertaken in Ethiopia, Honduras, and Uganda, using quantitative livelihoods and bio-economic modeling approaches to studying constraints and opportunities for poor households in less-favored areas (LFAs). In the first section of the report, we place this research program in the context of the body of work conducted within the CGIAR that has investigated the appropriate allocation of various public investments between favored and less-favored agroecological zones. The second section of the report provides a brief overview of the program's research activities within each of the three countries of emphasis, along with the various research outputs. These research activities extended work on resource degradation and land management that IFPRI had been involved in prior to the initiation of GRP-5. Major workshops held in each country were the principal venues for dissemination of the research findings. A primary goal of these workshops was to influence individuals in positions of authority to act upon those findings, either in terms of instituting formal policies or programs, or fostering follow-up research more directly geared to implementation. The workshops were, however, by no means the only outputs from the program. Besides the workshop papers a wide range of publications was generated by the program including dissemination briefs, research reports, papers in journals (including special editions containing a series of papers generated by the project and related research), and a book published in 2006 entitled Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands (Pender, Place, and Ehui 2006a). The third section of the report briefly reviews the extent to which the GRP-5 research program achieved its stated objectives. In Honduras, the operational approach concentrated exclusively on LFAs and was therefore incapable of addressing the basic issue of the appropriate allocation of resources and development effort between favored and less-favored areas. The research in both Uganda and Ethiopia did include areas of both high and low agricultural potential, and produced some results comparing the impacts of similar interventions in different agroecological domains; but the primary emphasis remained on LFAs. In part, this was no doubt related to financial constraints limiting the geographic extent of the projects' fieldwork. But additionally, it may well reflect the practical difficulties of reconciling research themes of general interest within the CGIAR and the broader donor community (i.e., geographic allocation of research and investment funds) with exigencies of engaging local policymakers whose interest lay in understanding the opportunities and constraints conditioning the appropriate development strategies for different types of less-favored lands. The report's fourth section discusses the study team's findings, based on field visits to Ethiopia, Honduras, and Uganda, regarding perceptions of the influence and impact of the GRP-5 research activities. There was general agreement that IFPRI's approach to the research was rigorous, well-conceived and well-executed, and that the information generated is highly useful as a description of the realities of agricultural households in LFAs. IFPRI researchers were uniformly praised for the care with which data collection efforts were undertaken and the rigor with which those data were analyzed. The training aspect of the research was generally acknowledged by those involved in the programs. This included both the formal graduate training and interaction with students and faculty staff at local academic institutions. Finally, there was widespread sentiment that the research had succeeded in drawing attention to, and contributing to policy debates surrounding, poverty issues in LFAs. IFPRI's research is widely held to have established important baseline information for use in monitoring changes that may occur if and when policy initiatives are undertaken in the future. Some shortcomings were identified as well. Concerns about analytical methods were expressed by some (primarily non-economists). Others indicated that there was insufficient follow-up for the wider policy community or the general public after the high-profile summary workshops that presented the research findings, and that the academic nature of the research outputs was not directly relevant to policymakers. Finally, significant concern was expressed about substantial lags—upwards of three years—between the time the research was completed and the time the main research reports were published. The final sections of the report discuss tangible indications of impact on policy in the countries of emphasis. The GRP-5 work's primary contribution was as a benchmark. There is a widespread sentiment among those with experience of the GRP-5 research program in the participating countries that it generated a useful and much-needed description of the socioeconomic conditions within which poor households operate in less-advantaged regions. This information has been of value in subsequent follow-on research in terms of problem definition, research focus, and (in some cases) site selection. It has also been useful in the design and implementation of some rural development projects as well. There was considerable variation in the extent to which the research program had a direct impact on policy or related programs. In the case of Uganda, the preliminary findings of IFPRI's research were, at least for a time, fairly closely linked to the government's agricultural priority-setting process. In the case of Ethiopia, in the early years of the research work there was a close relationship between the research team, a local university and the regional Bureau of Agriculture. As a result, research findings did inform state level policies and programs. But, as these relationships weakened over time, and particularly once the research work was completed, this influence waned. In Honduras, the high degree of collaboration between IFPRI researchers and their PRONADERS partners appeared to have set the stage for translating research results seamlessly into government policy. Unfortunately, the change in government midway through the data collection phase of the project altered the situation irrevocably. A number of factors are identified as contributing to the difficulty of translating the research findings into actionable policies and policy outcomes. First, there are several different audiences for research of the sort reviewed here, including the broader research and donor communities, the in-country policy community, and field practitioners. The information demands for each group are by no means the same, and in some cases there may in fact be little overlap. Second, the intellectual culture at IFPRI favoring academic research suitable for publication in scholarly journals can limit the relevance of the research to policy makers (and also to field practitioners). Third, limited on-site representation significantly restricts IFPRI's ability to influence policy debates. In summary, the assessment team was left with the conclusion that the sort of research conducted under GRP-5 has significant potential usefulness to other follow-on research, as well as for the design of projects aimed at improving the well-being of smallholders in LFAs. But, it is far more difficult to see clear links to policymakers who approach their jobs with their own particular agendas. This in no way diminishes the value of the research per se, but it certainly calls into question its sustained influence on the policymaking process." from Author's AbstractImpact assessment, Sustainable development, Less favored areas, Land management,