International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI). Conference on "Towards what works in Rural Development in Ethiopia: Evidence on the Impact of Investments and Policies". December 13, 2013. Hilton Hotel, Addis Ababa.

1. ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The Impact of Productive Safety Net
Program (PSNP) Community Assets
on Yield Growth
Feiruz Yimer, Mekidim Dereje, Alemayehu seyoum Taffesse,
Fanaye Tadesse and Bethelhem Koru
IFPRI ESSP-II
Hilton
December 13, 2013
Addis Ababa
1

2. Introduction
•Addressing persistent food insecurity remains a major
problem in many parts of Ethiopia
•To address such problem the government of Ethiopia in
collaboration with others introduced the Food Security
Program (FSP) in 2005.
•The program combines a safety-net component that aims at
closing the household food gap and at eliminating distress
assets sales with food security interventions to bring
households out of chronic insecurity
•It includes providing food or cash for work and also direct
support to households who are not able to participate in the
public works.
2

3. Objective
• Assess the impact of community assets built by PSNP,
particularly road construction and soil and water
conservation, on the yield growth of both beneficiary and
non-beneficiary households.
3

4. Data
• Ethiopian Food Security Survey (EFSS) of four year
longitudinal data (2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012); including both
• Household level data
• Community level data
• Sampling is done in multiple stages
– Woredas were chosen from each of the four regions
– Kebeles with active PSNP are randomly selected (which serve as
enumeration areas (EA))
– In each EA, 15 beneficiary and 10 non-beneficiary households, for a
total of 25 households are selected
- The number of households for this study are 2,545 in 2006
and 3,702 in the rest of the rounds; we only use those who
produce cereals, pulses and oilseeds
4

5. Methodology
• Descriptive statistics
• Econometrics analysis:
 Fixed effect estimation
5

6. Descriptive Statistics
• The study areas are known for prevalence of chronic poverty and
for being drought prone.
Prevalence of rainfall shock and crop damage in the last 12 months
6

7. Prevalence of shocks relate to input and output prices, lack of
input access, crop disease or pest damage in the last two years
• Significant percentage of households that faced input price increase and
lack of input access in 2008 and 2010.
• More than 30% of households have also faced crop disease/pest damage
7

8. Prevalence individual and natural shocks in the last two years
•The incidence of drought in the areas is reported by more than 50% of
households in the first three year.
8

9. Yield values by crop categories
• The average yield level of the top five cereals has declined from 2006 to
2010.
• The average yield level of the other cereals have also shown decline in
the four rounds
Crop categories
Top 5 cereals
Other cereals
Pulses
Oil seeds
Statistics
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
2006
5091
3953
5879
4249
8782
5900
8089
4776
Year
2008
4753
3704
5619
4317
5813
4461
4178
2480
2010
4303
3323
3835
2677
6086
3956
4100
2641
2012
4898
3704
2966
238
6638
4334
5792
2365
9

10. Growth rate of yield
• The average aggregate yield value shows an 8 percent increase in 2012
from 2010
• In 2012 the growth rate of yield is positive in value unlike the previous
two rounds.
Year
Statistics
Mean
Real yield value Median
Mean
Growth rate of
real yield value Median
2006
2008
2010
2012
13,169
11,537
9,814
12,100
8,971
8,396
6,739
8,277
-5%
-9%
8%
-2%
-9%
8%
10

11. Value of yield growth rate by PSNP beneficiary status
•The PSNP beneficiaries have lower yield growth in 2012 and no
difference in 2010
•In 2008 PSNP beneficiaries have slightly better growth rates than their
non- beneficiary counterparts.
Year
2006
Mean
2008 Median
Mean
2010 Median
Mean
2012 Median
Public work
Direct
Direct
nonPublic work support non- support PSNP non- PSNP
beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary
-5%
-4%
-9%
-8%
9%
8%
-3%
1%
-9%
-9%
6%
6%
-4%
0%
-9%
-8%
9%
8%
-7%
-9%
-9%
-12%
0%
3%
-5%
-3%
-9%
-7%
11%
9%
-4%
0%
-9%
-10%
5%
5%
11

12. Percentage of households benefitting from road and Soil and
Water Conservation (SWC) constructions by PSNP
• Market access benefit from road construction through PSNP work is
higher in 2008 and 2010.
• Those who benefited productivity gain from SWC construction is the
highest in 2012
Year
2006
2008
2010
2012
% of households that benefitted from improved market access through
road construction
Household %age
12.9
22.2
24.3
18.7
% of households that benefitted from improved productivity through SWC
construction
Household %age
10.5
20.9
26.4
27.9
12

13. Estimation Result
Dependent variable is yield growth rate
Lag of ln (yield real value)
Benefited from road construction
Model I
-0.099***
-0.009
Model II
-0.116***
-0.012
Benefited from SWC
0.023**
0.020**
-0.006
0.002
-0.010*
-0.001
0.001***
0.001
1.032***
DS beneficiary
PW beneficiary
Log (fertilizer per ha)
Hired labor
Constant
0.872***
-SWC (soil and water conservation)
-DS beneficiary (Direct support beneficiary
-PW beneficiary (Public work beneficiary)
- *** stands for 1% level of significance; ** stands for 5% level of significance and * for 10 % level of significance
13

14. Robustness Check
Lag of ln (Yield real value)
Benefited from road construction
Model III
-0.117***
-0.011
Model IV
-0.130***
-0.011
Model V
-0.133***
-0.012
Benefited from SWC
0.020**
0.020**
0.021**
DS beneficiary
PW beneficiary
Log (fertilizer per ha)
Hired labor
Rainfall shock
Crop diseasepest damage
Death
Input price shock
Output price shock
Constant
-0.010*
-0.001
0.001***
0.001
-0.051**
-0.001
-0.01
-0.001
0.001***
0.011
-0.055**
-0.003
-0.003
1.087***
1.201***
-0.011*
-0.001
0.001***
0.013
-0.055**
-0.001
0.000
0.011
-0.061
1.237***
14

15. Discussion
• The effect of road construction through market access
benefits is not statistically significant on yield growth.
• Communal asset of soil and water conservation
positively changes the yield growth through
productivity gain.
• The inclusion of fertilizer use, labor and different
shocks in the model changes the result only slightly.
15

16. Conclusion
• The soil and water conservation (SWC) activities such as the
building of bund and terracing, tree planting, and irrigation help
rehabilitate the soil and water resources within the community.
• Communities that have implemented SWC projects may have
lower level of flooding and erosion hazards.
• They also benefit from increased biodiversity and carbon
sequestration resulting from forestry activities.
• As the areas under study are characterized as drought prone
areas, the works on soil and water conservation in particular
might have greater impact on productivity gains.
16