EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF FARMER GROUP PARTICIPATION ON RURAL LIVELIHOODS

1
EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF FARMER GROUP
PARTICIPATION ON RURAL LIVELIHOODS

• David M. Amudavi
• (PhD. Candidate)
• Department of Education
• Cornell University
• Ithaca, New York
• Presentation for the
•  SAGA PROJECT POLICY CONFERENCE
• Empowering the Rural Poor and Reducing Their
  Risk and Vulnerability
• February 10th , 2005, Grand Regency Hotel
• Nairobi, Kenya

2
Introduction
Sudden interest in the use of rural community
groups (RCGs) organizations as a mode of
reaching the resource-limited farmers and their
potential for scaling up extension outreach
Do groups matter in supporting household welfare?
3
Group Participation

• Community/Local Groups
• Community groups formed endogenously within a
  community of their own accord based on their own
  identified needs- E.g., women groups, self-help
  groups, youth groups, social groups, etc.
• Limited networks with external social actors
• Less linkage-dependent
• Supra Groups
• Formed exogenously by or in cooperation with
  external agencies (e.g., government, NGOs,
  private businesses) in response to some
  anticipated resource flow between external
  entities and the community- e.g. cooperatives,
  farmer associations (DGAK)
• Possess networks of contacts outside a
  community/village
• Linkage-dependent to some degree.
• Group participation
• Involvement by individuals in specific organized
  informal or formal organizations for purposes of
  realizing not only utilitarian rational
  self-interests, but also for attaining mutually
  collective interests.

4
Efficacy of Community Groups

• Promote economic well-being and offer buffers
  against natural and policy shocks, e.g., SAPs
• Facilitate low cost access to information
• Stimulate adoption of technology, practices,
  innovations
• Enhance contract enforcement
• Facilitate labor sharing at critical times
• Important in cooperative marketing, input supply,
  or savings and credit
• Enhance ones opportunity to locate the
  information, resources and influence necessary to
  advance economic welfare

5
Purpose of the Study

• Concerns establishing whether group participation
  substantially influences household
  welfare/well-being and whether this varies by
  group type and by the extent of group mediation
  of access to services

6
Research Objectives

• Identify the socio-economic factors that have a
  major influence on economic welfare.
• Investigate the effect of participation in
  different types of groups on economic welfare.
• Explore the effect of services accessed through
  different groups on economic welfare.

7
Study Sites
Vihiga in Western Province
Embu in Eastern Province
Rainfall 1800-2000 (mm) Altitude
1300-1500 (m) Pop Density 850 (persons/km2)
Rainfall 640-2000 Altitude 760-2070 Pop
Density 330
Baringo in Rift Valley Province
Rainfall 300-1200 Altitude 300-2100
Pop Density 26
8
Data

• Household Data (Survey)
• Household socio-demographic variables
• Crop production types and numbers of livestock
• Participation in community-based institutions
• Collective action and trust
• Data on Community Groups (Focus groups)
• Group formation group size
• Group orientation functions and benefits
• Group heterogeneity and synergies
• Group sustenance/stability

9
Dimensions of Well-being
Increased Income/ Livelihood Security
Improved Womens Lives
Increased Household Assets
Well-being
Healthy/ Sustainable Environment
Increased Nutritional Status
Decreased Morbidity
Control on Fertility
Decreased Mortality
10
Economic Well-being Measures
Asset index Computed from ownership of assets
via principal components analysis, as an
alternative diagnostic measure to income. Based
on information on key household items and the
condition of respondents dwellings. Annual
income Computed from crop and livestock
activities, non-farm activities and formal sector
employment.
11
Household Characteristics
12
Group Participation Patterns
13
Trend in Group Participation between 2000-2003
14
Factor Loading Patterns for High Group
Participation
15
Factor Loading Patterns for Low Group
Participation
16
Comparisons of Mean Service Access
The mean difference is significant at the
.05 level
17
Effects of Groups on Welfare

• So does the density of group memberships and of
  services access through groups measurably affect
  household welfare?
• This hypothesis was tested by using multivariate
  regression analyses with Asset Index and Log of
  income as dependent (response) variables.

18
Coefficients of Group Participation on Well-being
Statistically significant levels p lt
0.10 p lt .05 p lt .01
19
Group Effects On Well-being contd

• Household resource endowments level of
  education, size of livestock, and size of land
  with secure land tenure have the expected,
  significant, positive effects on the household
  asset index and on income.
• Significant positive effects associated with
  young, male-headed households and residence in
  Embu or Vihiga
• Density of participation in supra groups
  significantly and positively affects both
  measures of household welfare.
• Supra groups may raise the aggregate or average
  income in an area, but simultaneously depress the
  relative economic status of certain segments of
  the population in the community, particularly the
  poor

20
Conclusions

• Group participation matters in economic welfare.
  Social capital manifest in group participation
  matters materially to household welfare measures.
  
• Levels of group participation and associated
  access to services differ significantly across
  households and districts.
• Human, physical and natural capital holdings and
  gender are critical factors explaining variation
  in household wealth.

21
Conclusion contd

• The fact that supra group-mediated services
  access has additional positive effects on
  household wealth also indicates that supra groups
  offering a greater range of services are
  associated with the highest levels of economic
  welfare in the communities studied.
• The significant effects of supra groups on
  economic welfare suggests the need to expand
  their organizational and resource capacity to
  benefit more rural people by enabling more asset
  accumulation and higher asset productivity,
  thereby stimulating income growth.

22
Policy Implications

• Being realistic when considering the capacity of
  groups to undertake significant functions and
  responsibilities.
• Checking the formation and development of more
  groups against their capacity to leverage key
  services such as farm inputs, information,
  accessing markets and financial services.
• Increasing the services accessible through extant
  groups may be a more desirable course than
  fostering the emergence of new groups.
• Addressing the stark disparity across communities
  and districts in group participation rates and in
  the services available through community and
  supra groups requires attention.

23
Acknowledgments

• The Rockefeller Foundation for financial support
  of the entire program
• Cornell University for the education and training
• SAGA Project
• The Farmers who participated in the study
• Key Informants of agencies in the three
  districts- MOA, KARI, and other Government
  Departments, NGOs, CBOs
• Colleagues and many others

24

• Thank you for listening.
• Comments are welcome.
• da54_at_cornell.edu

25
Regression Coefficients of Endowment Factors on
Well-being
Statistically significant levels p lt
0.10 p lt .05 p lt .01
26
Benefits of Participation

• Participation in groups can offer several
  resource/benefits
• Material (increase in consumption, income or
  assets),
• Social (services such as schools, health clinics,
  water systems, improved and better roads), and
• Personal benefits such as self-esteem.
• The distribution of service access was estimated
  by summing up all possible services obtained from
  each type of group.