Transformation and Vulnerability in Ethiopia Symposium 2016

1. 30/05/16 1
Identifying the impact of the PSNP on household’s
vulnerability and resilience to drought
Erwin Knippenberg and John Hoddinott, Cornell University
ESSP Symposium on:
“Transformation and vulnerability in Ethiopia: New evidence
to inform policy and investments”
May 27, 2016, Getfam Hotel, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

2. Outline
 Motivation and objectives
 Vulnerability and Resilience – some conceptual issues;
 Impact the PSNP on vulnerability and resilience
 Approach – measurement and impact;
 Data;
 Findings;
 Some Observations

3. Motivation and Objectives
 Rigorous and regular evaluation since 2006 – learn,
adjust, redesign;
 Regular evaluation dimensions:
 Process – targeting, payments, implementation capacity, …
 Outcomes – food insecurity (food gap, food expenditure), asset
accumulation (TLU, house quality),
 Other evaluation dimensions:
 Nutrition (child anthropometry, household diet diversity);
 Productivity;
 Local economy (general equilibrium) effects;
 Vulnerability and resilience – key targets;

4. Motivation and Objectives
 Questions:
 What is the impact of the PSNP on the recovery of
households after drought shocks?
 Is it possible to distinguish between poverty, vulnerability
and resilience?
 Objectives:
 additional insights on PSNP;
 empirical proof of concept for a resilience based approach
to impact evaluation – data collection and analysis;

5. Vulnerability and Resilience – Concepts
 Multiple conceptualisations of resilience and
vulnerability;
 Opt for an ex-post approach:
 a recovery trajectory following a specific shock.
 a distinction between resilience and vulnerability;
 “the capacity that ensures adverse stressors and shocks
do not have long-lasting adverse development
consequences”;

6. Vulnerability and Resilience – Concepts

7. PSNP, vulnerability, and resilience
 Data
 The last three rounds of PSNP panel data-set for the
‘highlands’ (2010-2014);
 Empirical Specification:
β β
β β β
γ ε
− −
= =
− − − − − −
∆ = ∆ + ∆∑ ∑
+ ∆ ∗ + ∆ ∗ + ∆ ∗ +
+ ∆ + ∆
1 2
3, , , 3, 1 , 1 , 1 3, 2 , 2 , 2
( ...)
t L t L
it l il l il
l t l t
t i t i t t i t i t t i t i t
it it
Y T S
T S T S T S
X
Y= (-1)*Food gap;
T=PSNP transfers, S= Shocks; β2t = Vulnerability without T;
β2,t-L = Resilience without T; β3t = Vulnerability impact of T;
β3,t-L = Resilience impact of T;

8. PSNP, vulnerability, and resilience
Findings - resilience
Recovery
protracted
Resilience an
issue

9. PSNP, vulnerability, and resilience
Findings – Impact (instrumental variables approach)
PSNP transfers improve vulnerability and resilience
reduce food gap by one third of a month – ‘poverty’;
reduce the expected food gap, given a drought has occurred,
from 4.6 months to 1.7 months (60 %) – vulnerability;
reduce food gap by a further 1.75 months after a drought
(beneficiaries recover after no more than 2 years, rather
than taking up to four years) – resilience;
Robustness Check – Climate data

10. PSNP, vulnerability, and resilience
Findings – PSNP transfers improve vulnerability and
resilience

11. Some Observations
 With the appropriate approach and data, it is possible
to assess the impact of social and other programs on
vulnerability and resilience;
 PSNP transfers influence vulnerability and resilience
of beneficiary households;
 Current drought – impact, design (increased PSNP
transfers accelerate recovery??);
 Further research on the role of other factors;

12. 12
Thank You