Ursula aldana the impact of sierra sur for juntos beneficiaries

748 visualizações

Publicada em

This presentation is part of the programme of the International Seminar "Social Protection, Entrepreneurship and Labour Market Activation: Evidence for Better Policies", organized by the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG/UNDP) together with Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Colombian Think Tank Fedesarrollo held on September 10-11 at the Ipea Auditorium in Brasilia.



Publicada em: Governo e ONGs
0 comentários
0 gostaram
Estatísticas
Notas
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Sem downloads
Visualizações
Visualizações totais
748
No SlideShare
0
A partir de incorporações
0
Número de incorporações
331
Ações
Compartilhamentos
0
Downloads
6
Comentários
0
Gostaram
0
Incorporações 0
Nenhuma incorporação

Nenhuma nota no slide

Ursula aldana the impact of sierra sur for juntos beneficiaries

  1. 1. The impact of Sierra Sur for JUNTOS beneficiaries The case of Chumbivilcas, Cusco, Perú Ursula Aldana Tania Vásquez Johanna Yancari Victor Huamaní
  2. 2. Introduction Objetive of this research: • Gain knowledge on the impact of the productive project Sierra Sur for JUNTOS beneficiaries. • Important social impact because JUNTOS beneficiaries are poor and live in underdeveloped areas of the country. • The correct application of a productive project can help smooth the change in welfare when the transfer is removed.
  3. 3. The Sierra Sur project Components 1- Natural resource management (NRM) 2- Strengthening local markets (SLM). Subcomponents of NRM 1- Contests at the comunal and at the family level 2- Technical assistance Subcomponentes of SLM 1- Business Development: technical assistance and local development projects (internet) 2- Financial inclusion
  4. 4. The Sierra Sur project Selection process: The users, grouped in organizations, present their workplans. These workplans include their technical assistance requirements. First supply filter: The local office evaluates the workplans. In the case of BD there is a evaluation in the field.
  5. 5. The Sierra Sur project Second supply filter: The organizations present their workplans in a contest (CLAR). The individuals of the organizations that pass this second filter can: - Participate in the contests and in the technical assistance activity, in the case of the NRM component. - Participate in the technical assistance activity, in the BD sub component.
  6. 6. Methodology The treatment groups are given by households of the individuals that have participated in the CLAR contests (for NRM and/or BD) and that belong to JUNTOS. The control groups are given by JUNTOS households that live in the control area and would participate if SS were offered in their area. This potential participation is assessed through hypothetical questions.
  7. 7. Methodology To control for the first supply filter, we include as control variables the ones considered in this filter (experience and assets assessed on the field). Control groups The first control group is given by the hh were the person surveyed responded that she was willing to participate in SS and to pay at least the minimum amount paid in Chumbivilcas.
  8. 8. Methodology 80% of the surveyed persons passed this filter. In contrast, only 20% of the hh in Chumbivilcas participated in SS. It is likely that persons that say they are willing to participate will decide not to do so at the moment of really investing time and money. We check if the results persist if we shorten the control sample to include those that are willing to pay a higher amount.
  9. 9. Methodology Number of observations in the treatment and control groups Number of observations Pre-matching Post-matching Groups According to SS 382 321 According to organization survey 219 187 According to household survey 317 265 Did not pass the filter 30 - Passed the filter 388 366 WTP > 20th pctile 221 210 WTP > 50th pctile 125 117 Treatment groups Control groups
  10. 10. Treatment groups Three treatment groups: -Passed the first filter according to SS -Received training according to the survey + non benef -Received SS training according to the leader of the organization + non benef We also control for a group of socio-economic and socio-demographic characteristics using propensity score matching. Methodology
  11. 11. Results Impact on the implementation of new practices Treatment Genetic New pasture New tree Control groups groups improvement 1/ species 2/ species 3/ 0.180 *** 0.156 *** 0.157 *** 0.179 *** 0.181 *** 0.153 *** 0.180 *** 0.161 *** 0.114 *** 0.224 *** 0.159 *** 0.173 *** 0.220 *** 0.184 *** 0.168 *** 0.224 *** 0.155 *** 0.137 *** 0.191 *** 0.180 *** 0.157 *** 0.187 *** 0.207 *** 0.151 *** 0.190 *** 0.187 *** 0.115 *** Treated according to SS Passed the fi lter WTP > 20th pcti le WTP > 50th pcti le Passed the fi lter WTP > 20th pcti le WTP > 50th pcti le Treated according to organization survey Passed the fi lter WTP > 20th pcti le WTP > 50th pcti le Treated according to household survey 1/ The dependent is one if the household made genetic improvement for the first time after 2006, at least for one animal species 2/ The dependent is one if the household installed new pasture species for the first time after 2006 3/ The dependent is one if the household installed new tree species for the first time after 2006 4/ * Significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
  12. 12. Results Impact on organizational capital Treatment groups Control groups Activities with organization Remains in organization Passed the filter -0.002 0.012 WTP > 20th pctile -0.009 0.006 WTP >50th pctile -0.054 ** -0.035 Passed the filter -0.012 -0.014 WTP > 20th pctile -0.024 -0.029 WTP >50th pctile -0.027 -0.040 Passed the filter 0.005 0.023 WTP > 20th pctile 0.000 0.017 WTP >50th pctile -0.037 -0.011 Treated according to SS Treated according to organization survey Treated according to household survey 1/ The dependent is one if the household done any activity with the organization in the last 5 years 2/ The dependent is one if any household member belongs to an organization which became part in 2005 3/ * Significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
  13. 13. Average impact Results There is an important average impact (btw 10 and 20%) on: – Genetic Improvement – Use of new vaccines – Use of new antiparasites – Installation of terraces – Installation reservoirs – Installation of pasture – Installation of trees
  14. 14. Results • We found no impact on organizational capital. • We found no robust evidence of impact on gross income. • In the case of net income the estimated impact is negative, even though not always statistically significant.
  15. 15. Results Diferentiated impact on the quantity index of productive assets 1/ Quantity index of productive assets in 2005 HH Dependency ratio 2006/07 Popoulation of the village 2006/07 Average years of education (hh head and partner) -64.779 506.822 -81.021 957.982 *** *** *** -63.949 742.752 -85.077 971.023 *** *** *** -38.426 937.218 -127.709 1,569.174 *** *** -52.758 761.097 -120.178 1,571.593 *** *** -71.135 689.349 -83.336 1,087.663 *** *** *** -78.735 742.557 -87.701 1,090.643 *** *** *** Group Treated according to SS Treated according to organization survey Treated according to household survey Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile 1/ Change in the value of productive assets between 2005 and 2013, in soles 2/ Thousands of new soles 3/ * Significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
  16. 16. Results Diferentiated impact on the quantity index of productive assets 1/ Time to the nearest city (minutes) Elderly dependency ratio in the village 2006/07 Time to the nearest city*popoulation of the village Intercept -56.880 -703.073 0.550 5,487.65 *** *** *** -69.445 -112.129 0.630 5,592.66 *** *** *** -87.340 -1,968.103 0.839 7,018.63 *** *** *** -95.994 8,482.992 0.853 6,841.24 *** *** *** -53.407 1,610.785 0.533 5,346.13 *** *** *** -68.523 2,825.410 0.635 5,978.84 *** *** *** Group Treated according to SS Treated according to organization survey Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Treated according to household survey Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile 1/ Change in the value of productive assets between 2005 and 2013, in soles 2/ * Significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
  17. 17. Results Diferentiated impact on gross income 1/ Quantity index of productive assets in 2005 HH Dependency ratio 2006/07 Popoulation of the village 2006/07 Average years of education (hh head and partner) 0.004 0.024 -0.000 0.073 ** *** 0.004 -0.020 -0.000 0.081 ** *** 0.013 0.030 -0.000 0.076 *** *** 0.012 0.044 -0.004 0.080 *** * *** 0.004 0.025 0.000 0.071 ** *** 0.003 0.092 -0.002 0.065 * *** Group Treated according to SS Treated according to organization survey Treated according to household survey Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile 1/ In logs. The original variable is in soles 2/ Thousands of new soles 3/ * Significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
  18. 18. Results Diferentiated impact on gross income 1/ Time to the nearest city (minutes) Elderly dependency ratio in the village 2006/07 Time to the nearest city*popoulation of the village Intercept 0.003 1.405 -0.000 -0.538 *** ** * *** 0.002 1.850 -0.000 -0.643 * *** *** 0.005 -0.341 -0.000 -0.766 *** ** *** -0.000 2.787 0.000 -0.659 * ** 0.003 2.038 -0.000 -0.583 ** *** *** 0.000 1.379 0.000 -0.385 Group Treated according to SS Treated according to organization survey Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Treated according to household survey Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile 1/ In logs. The original variable is in soles 2/ * Significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
  19. 19. Results Diferentiated impact on net income 1/ Quantity index of productive assets in 2005 HH Dependency ratio 2006/07 Popoulation of the village 2006/07 Average years of education (hh head and partner) 28.527 -100.526 1.414 289.528 ** *** 19.738 -150.768 0.066 330.885 ** *** 66.225 63.856 -5.426 288.549 *** *** 38.150 123.387 -14.771 384.744 * *** 27.401 -144.729 2.284 278.819 ** *** 15.059 -4.914 -7.223 267.334 * *** Group Treated according to SS Treated according to organization survey Treated according to household survey Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile 1/ Only considered daily wages paid. In soles. 2/ Thousands of new soles 3/ * Significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
  20. 20. Results Diferentiated impact on net income 1/ Time to the nearest city (minutes) Elderly dependency ratio in the village 2006/07 Time to the nearest city*popoulation of the village Intercept 13.033 6,939.041 -0.081 -3,482.38 *** ** * *** 2.209 11,154.358 -0.008 -3,704.34 *** *** 14.621 -1,122.090 -0.063 -3,886.14 ** *** -5.107 14,125.526 0.096 -3,907.09 * *** 10.881 9,962.124 -0.084 -3,262.39 * *** *** -5.455 10,859.951 0.046 -2,321.09 *** ** Group Treated according to SS Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Treated according to organization survey Treated according to household survey Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile Passed the filter WTP > 20th pctile 1/ Only considered daily wages paid. In soles. 2/ * Significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%
  21. 21. Conclusions • We have found an important impact on the implementation of new technologies. • Have not found impact on investment or income • The educational level mediates the impact on new technologies, investment and income. • This could be related to a better understanding of the training or to a higher access to liquidity

×