Sober presentation

Uploaded on


More in: Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Fitting the Facts and Capitalizing on New Opportunities to Redesign Rural Development in Latin America Alain de Janvry and Elisabeth Sadoulet University of California at Berkeley SOBER, Cuiabá, July 25-28, 2004 1
  • 2. I. Institutional lags and dysfunctionalities New Institutional Economics: Lags between institutional innovations and objective conditions can create costly dysfunctionalities (North, Akerlof). Example: Indian caste system based on a division of labor that no longer corresponds to the current economic structure. Thesis: Applies to rural development (RD): models pursued lag relative to current structure of poverty and opportunities. Reasons for lags and dysfunctionalities: Imperfect information (costly, asymmetrical). High sunken costs (path dependency). Coordination failures (multiple equilibria). Lack of commitment devices for compensations (farmers). 2
  • 3. Visible symptoms of dysfunctionalities in RD: •Lack of coordination between social and productive investments. •Priority to state-led sectoral and technological approaches (Ag-IRD). •Priority to CDD (Community-Driven Development, WB $2B/year) effective for local public goods, but weak for income generation. •Priority to improving asset endowments (necessary) at neglect of improving thequality of context where assets are used (necessary and sufficient). Thesis: Observe gains in the social conditions of the rural poor (although still lagging) but little progress in poverty reduction due to: • Insufficiently noticed changes in the qualitative nature of poverty. • Insufficiently noticed new opportunities to reduce poverty. 3 • Lack of coordination in pursuing a territorial approach to RD.
  • 4. Outline of presentation: 1. 2. 3. 4. Quantitative evolution of rural poverty: evidence of persistence Qualitative changes in the nature of rural poverty Emergence of new opportunities for RD Strategies for RD in a territorial perspective Evolution of ideas on territorial approaches to rural development Ricardo Abramovay, José Ely da Veiga, José Graziano da Silva Julio Berdegué and Alejandro Schejtman (RIMISP) Ruben Echeverria (IDB) Gustavo Gordillo (FAO) Rafael Echeverri (IICA) IFAD and Inter-Agency Group for Rural Development European experts (France, Spain, Italy, EU-LEADER). 4
  • 5. II. Quantitative evolution of rural poverty: a diagnostic of failure Four observed continental regularities: 1. The incidence of rural poverty has generally not declined and the number of rural poor has increased. 2. Rural inequality is exceptionally high and increasing. 3. Social development has improved, even though gaps between rural and urban social development remain large. 4. Urban migration has been the great escape valve in preventing a larger increase in rural poverty. Poverty has been displaced toward the urban environment. 5
  • 6. Rural indigence in Latin America, 1970-2000 70 Brazil 60 Chile Colombia Costa Rica 50 El salvador Guatemala 40 Honduras Nicaragua Mexico 30 Panama Peru 20 Uruguay Venezuela LA 10 LA pop weight 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 The incidence of extreme rural poverty has remained virtually constant over the last 30 years. 6
  • 7. Rural income inequality in Latin America, 1979-2000 0.55 0.5 Bolivia Brazil Chile 0.45 Colombia Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala 0.4 Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama 0.35 Venezuela LA pop weight LA 0.3 0.25 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Income inequality in rural areas has generally increased. 7
  • 8. III. Qualitative changes in rural poverty: four changes 1. There is increasing differentiation between two types of geographical areas for rural poverty: MRA (marginal rural areas) and FRA (favorable rural areas) MRA = areas with poor agro-ecological endowments and/or isolated from access to markets and employment centers • Geographical pockets of poverty, frontiers • Indigenous territories FRA = good agro-ecologies and good connections to dynamic product and/or labor markets. Poor are: • Individuals with low asset endowments (land, education, and social capital). • Individuals with asset endowments, but lacking opportunities to valorize these assets in the territories where they are located • Rural youth and elderly people for whom social assistance programs are needed. 8
  • 9. Half of the extreme rural poor are in Favorable Rural Areas (high economic potential and within 4 hrs-drive from Managua). Half in Marginal Rural Areas. Municipios with extreme rural poverty density >13 poor/ha are outlined in red Access time to Managua is shown by shading, close in brown ranging to remote in blue Source: Raine et al., 2004, World Bank 9
  • 10. 2. There are major changes in the structure of employment and sources of income for rural populations 2.1. Changes in employment patterns % of rural labor force employed in non-farm activities: Chile: 19% (1990)  26% (1998). Costa Rica: 48% (1990)  57% (1997). Honduras: 19% (1990)  22% (1998). Mexico: 35% (1989)  45% (1996). Brazil Northeast: increase by 95% 1981  1997 2.2. Changes in sources of income Mexico changes in sources of income rural population 1992  2002: Independent farming: 39%  13%. Agriculture wage labor: 12%  11%. Non-agricultural employment: 29%  42%. Public and private transfers, including remittances: 7%  17%. Other sources: 13%  17%. 10
  • 11. 3. There are important demographic changes in the rural labor force •Aging: Mexico, share of the rural labor force more than 41 years: 32% (1992)  41% (2002). •Feminization of the rural labor force: Mexico, share of women in the rural labor force: 22% (1992)  32% (2002). •Ethnicization of the rural population due to selective migration. 11
  • 12. 4. Inequalities are high and rising due to pervasive mechanisms of local reproduction of social inequalities in spite of growth Local inequalities are nearly as high as national inequalities: Ecuador inequality, 86% within-community, 14% between community. Mechanisms through which local inequalities are reproduced: 1. Under-investment by the poor in the education and health of their children due to market failures (inheritance of poverty). 2. Use of child labor detrimental to child human capital due to lack of other risk coping instruments (short run gain at long run cost). 3. Land distribution has remained largely unchanged due to land and credit market failures. 4. Land rental markets are atrophied and socially segmented due to weakness of property rights. 5. Social networks in information and referral for non-agricultural employment are structured by social status. 6. Local political economy and clientelism make public projects 12 regressive.
  • 13. 1) Distribution of land rental transactions by living standard of tenant and landlord in communities with and without recent land occupations, Dominican Republic (Macours et al., 2004): Weak property rights segment land transactions within social classes. Living standard of landlord Living standard of tenant Low Regular High Communities with recent land occupations Low 52% 41% 7% Regular 21% 52% 27% High 7% 33% 60% Communities without recent land occupations Low 33% 48% 19% Regular 25% 45% 30% High 41% 36% 23% 13
  • 14. 2) Role of peer effects (social networks) in accessing off-farm nonagricultural employment for rural households in poor communities, Mexico: Peer effects reinforce local inequalities (Araujo et al., 2004) 7.00 High education 6.00 Landless Non-indig. Male 5.00 Smallholder 4.00 Indigenous Female Low education Participation Peer effect 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 8
  • 15. 3) Municipal public works projects funded by Federal deputies are inequalizing, especially where land inequality is high, but less so when there is more effective local participation through functioning social councils Return to public works projects in Brazilian municipalities (Source: Finan, 2004) 15
  • 16. IV. Emergence of new opportunities: Six new opportunities 1. Globalization and international market integration have led to: 1.1. A serious profitability crisis for small holders in traditional agriculture (technical change North, OECD farm subsidies) 1.2. Opportunities offered by the “new agriculture” High value crops such as vegetables, fruits, and animal products; quality foods required by urban distribution channels and exports (health standards, organic foods), standardized delivery in contracts with supermarkets, demands of agro-industry for nontraditional exports, labeling and certification of origin, postharvest value added in commodity chains, etc. 1.3. The industrialization of many rural areas 39% of the rural labor force is currently employed in non-agricultural activities, of which 2% are in mining, 21% in manufacturing, and 77% in services (25% in trade, hotels, and restaurants; 11% in construction). 16
  • 17. 2. Rural areas are increasingly integrated economically with urban areas. Convergence between rural and urban wages (Mexico): rural/urban wage ratio: 28% (1992) --> 40% (2002). Role of proximity to employment centers for rural employment growth in manufacturing and services: Annual rate of employment growth Annual rate of employment growth 7% 14% Municipalities with population in head less than 15,000 Municipalities with popu 6% 12% 5% 10% 4% 8% 3% 6% 2% 1% 4% Autonomous manufacturing 0% Autonomou 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2% s services -1% 0% -2% 100 150 Kilometers to closestquartiles of municipalities) manufacture 0 center50 Kilometers to 200 250 300 (vertical lines separate closest service ce (vertical lines separate quartiles of Figure 1. Annual rate of employment growth in manufacturing and services in rural and semi-urban municipalities by distance to an employment center in Mexico, 1990-2000 17
  • 18. Role of employment in non-agricultural activities for poverty reduction Marginality index Marginality index Municipalities with population2.0 head less than in Municipalities with populat 2.0 15,000 15,000 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 -1.0 -1.0 -1.5 -1.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percentagelines separate quartiles of municipalities) linesactive population em of active population employed in Percentage of separate quartiles of manufacture (vertical (vertical Figure 2. Rural non-farm employment and poverty levels in rural and semi-urban municipalities, Mexico 2000 Conclude: Bring rural areas “closer” to urban employment centers for rural poverty reduction. 18
  • 19. 3. There has been much progress toward decentralization of governance at the municipal level •Decentralization has been extensive, but incomplete for fiscal and financial capacity. •Bolivia, Colombia: decentralization induces changes in municipal budget allocation toward urban development, education, health, water management, communications, transport, water and sanitation (same as with CDD). •But decline in income generation expenditures: energy, industry, tourism, agriculture. --> Conclude: decentralization for income generation needs larger economic units: regional development, the missing dimension. 19
  • 20. 4. There has been much progress with local social capital formation, particularly the expansion civil society organizations Rapid expansion of CSO especially where: • • • • Descaling of the role of the state: Mexico, Brazil. Rising strength of indigenous movements: Ecuador, Bolivia. Decentralization of governance calling on local participation: Bolivia, Peru. Introduction of local development councils (Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Peru) and open town meetings (El Salvador, Honduras). Challenge: How to transform this “organizational revolution” into an an instrument for economic gains for the rural poor? 20
  • 21. 5. There are increasing demands for the provision of environmental services Market failures for environmental services compensated by payment schemes (PES): Watershed management, water quality, biodiversity conservation, carbon capture, landscape management. Examples: •Costa Rica: payments to forest owners. •Mexico: pilot scheme for forests in watersheds (80% of forests in ejido communities). --> Important new resource flows for RD. 21
  • 22. 6. Localized success stories exist, and they often have a territorial base, but they have lacked in scale to make a difference in the aggregate poverty figures Sectoral/technological approaches have worked where preconditions (assets, context) were in place (Green Revolution, titling, irrigation). Territorial approaches are needed when many pre-conditions are missing that need be put into place jointly: • LEADER program in European Union. • Community Empowerment Program of the USDA. • Petrolina-Juazeiro in the San Francisco Valley (Brazil). • Cajamarca (Peru): mesas de concertación & local ag. system. • Central Valley of Chile: Agro-exports. • Central Highlands of Guatemala: Non-traditional exports. • SEDESOL’s Micro-regions strategy in Mexico. 22
  • 23. Beyond institutional dysfunctionalities in RD: Move from prom positive to normative analysis, and quickly please!! 23
  • 24. V. Strategies for rural development from a territorial perspective MRAs: High poverty rate, low population density, low share of the rural poor. Poverty is geographically concentrated. Options for MRAs: 1. Migration toward FRA and cities: need prepare migrants by investing in social development (Progresa, Bolsa Escola). 2. Concentrate populations locally (purely voluntarily) in CECs for the delivery of social services: Mexico’s Micro-regions strategy. 3. Link MRA to FRA and urban centers through the construction of integrated regions and economic corridors. 4. Deliver environmental services (forestry, watershed management, in-situ conservation, eco-tourism). 24
  • 25. FRAs: Low poverty rate, high population density, most of the rural poor. Poverty is socially diffused. Five dimensions of a territorial approach to rural development for FRAs: Dimension 1: Define regions •Municipality for local governance and public goods. •Ad-hoc association of municipalities in pursuit of particular projects. •Regions as larger administrative units for economic projects. •Regions as functional economic units: natural resource (localized agricultural system), diversified employment basin, or social capital unit. 25
  • 26. Dimension 2: Institutional transformation of the region Element 1: Strengthen and modernize the capacity of local governments •Greater economic capacity: Fiscal and financial decentralization. •Improved administrative capacity and accountability. Element 2: Strengthen the capacity of local organizations Strengthen local civil society and private sector organizations. Element 3: Build institutions to plan and formulate projects for regional and local development •Institutions for consultation, coordination, and cooperation among public, private, and civil society. •Capacity for regional strategic planning and definition of projects. •Role of local universities for innovations, training, and technical assistance. •Regional institutions for promotion of the region. 26 •Coordination with national programs.
  • 27. Dimension 3: Productive transformation of the region Element 1: Regional projects for infrastructure and financial development (State-region contracts) •Public investments in infrastructure, link the region to dynamic national and international markets. Industrial parks and other public investments in support of private investment. •Development of local and regional financial institutions. Element 2: Promote the competitiveness of the region and local entrepreneurs (Region-driven development projects: RDD) •Investments in entrepreneurship training, technical assistance, and public business incubators. •Subsidies to investments that generate local positive externalities (decentralization, clustering). •Support to investments in the region’s comparative advantages: Promote the “new agriculture”. Promote the non-agricultural rural economy. 27 Capitalize on transfers and remittances.
  • 28. Dimension 4: Social transformation of the region Rural development programs (social and productive expenditures) in support of the social incorporation of the poor •Improve the asset position of the rural poor: Access to land: redistributive land reform and subsidies to land purchase. Human capital formation: conditional cash transfer programs for education and health. Social capital formation: promote membership to organizations. •Combat the reproduction and deepening of social inequalities to insure broad sharing of the benefits of local/regional development. •Safety net programs to support risk-taking by the poor. 28
  • 29. 1) Access to land reduces poverty Probability of being poor and access to land in Mexican rural communities (each point represents 137 observations). Source: 29 Finan et al., 2003.
  • 30. 2) But the effectiveness of access to land in reducing poverty depends on: 2.1. Complementary assets held by the household: education 2.2. Quality of context where land is used: availability of roads (FRA) vs. unavailability (MRA) Marginal welfare value of land by farm size across groups and areas in Mexico. Source: Finan et al., 2003. 30
  • 31. 3) Conditional Cash Transfer programs (Progresa) can be effective in raising educational achievements Continuation rate (%) 100 Lower secondary school Progresa villages Primary school 90 76% 80 70 Control villages 60 Secondary 1 64% Upper secondary school 43% 50 PROGRESA INTERVENTION 40 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 S1 Entering grade S2 S3 S4 Impact of Progresa on school continuation rates of poor children in marginal rural communities (+12% points). It erases the difference in educational achievement between poor and non-poor, Mexico. 31 Source: Sadoulet et al., 2002.
  • 32. 4) The value of education depends on the context where it is used. Education in MRAs has low value compared to education in FRAs and urban environments (migration). Life time earnings (pesos/month) 2500 ) Migration 2000 1500 1000 Ag. wage Self-employed 500 Non-ag. wage 0 Primary Secondary 1 Secondary 2 Secondary 3 Higher than secondary 3 Returns to education for children from marginal rural communities, Mexico. Source: Sadoulet et al., 2002. 32
  • 33. 5) Conditional cash transfers programs (Progresa) are good to keep children at school when parents have an income shock, avoiding use of child labor as a risk coping instrument with irreversible long run consequences on their human capital. Source: de Janvry et al., 2004. Impact of state dependency, shocks, and Progresa on school attendance (Dynamic model with child fixed effects) Dependent variable: Pr(Child at school) State dependency: Child at school last semester Head of household unemployed * Progresa Head of household ill * Progresa 1 Drought severity in locality * Progresa 1 Natural disaster severity in locality * Progresa Number of observations 0.164 -0.018 0.012 0.168 0.173 0.171 -0.017 0.020 0.001 -0.005 65,716 72,752 72,264 33 -0.032 0.040 72,332
  • 34. Dimension 5: Implementation of territorial rural development as a national strategy requires: •Auditing and impact analysis for accountability. •Results-based management for participatory learning and improvement, based on monitoring and just-in-time impact analysis. •Continuity beyond the political cycle and initial leadership (fails in Cajamarca, Cuatro Pinos Guatemala): importance of broad social participation in the region and national/international visibility beyond the regional level (Progresa). •Scale through coordination to shift to new territorial equilibrium: Big Push approach to territorial development. 34
  • 35. With all five dimensions in place: time to experiment!! 35
  • 36. VI. Summary and conclusion •Past approaches to RD have been insufficient to reduce rural poverty and stabilize rural populations. •The qualitative nature of poverty has changed and new opportunities have emerged that both require and allow to redesign RD. •Sectoral/technological approaches have been effective where preconditions (assets, context) were in place. •Territorial (regional-local) approaches can be effective where more comprehensive interventions are needed. •Localized success stories exist, but they need to be scaled up for impact on poverty/retention. 36
  • 37. Lessons learned with territorial approaches to rural poverty reduction suggest the following approach: •Distinguish between MRAs and FRAs. •Define regions (integrate secondary cities, link MRAs to FRAs). •Promote regional development through the institutional and productive transformation of the region (state-region projects, RDD). •Promote rural development to assist the rural poor to participate to the benefits of regional development (assets, link poor to non-poor). •Successful implementation requires: Accountability, Learning, Continuity, Coordination for scale. 37
  • 38. Thank you for your attention!38