Samuel Benin, Research Fellow, DSGD, IFPRI, USA

1. Impacts of CAADP on
Africa’s Agricultural-Led
Development
Sam Benin, IFPRI

2. Impacts of CAADP on Africa’s Agricultural-Led
Development
Samuel Benin
Development Strategy and Governance Division
IFPRI Discussion Paper 01553
August 2016
Download at:
https://www.ifpri.org/publica
tion/impacts-caadp-africas-
agricultural-led-development
or send me email
s.benin@cgiar.org

3. Introduction and objectives
• Learned about growth and poverty reduction in
Africa in recent years, and CAADP is implicated
• Question: how has CAADP actually contributed to
these achievements? What are the impacts?
• Objective of study: assess impact of CAADP on:
 Government agriculture expenditure, agricultural
growth and productivity, income, and nutrition

4. CAADP Outcome
direct effect
Y
indirect effect
XCAADP XOUT
XCAADP&OUT
Total Effect = direct effect + indirect effect
(control for XCAADP, XOUT, XCAADP&OUT)
Key Assumption: Xi is known, observed, and used
Fundamentals of impact evaluation

5. CAADP country-level process
& conceptual framework
Joint sector review
& mutual
accountability
Launch of
CAADP
Financing and
implementation of
plan and programs
Analysis of growth
options, investment, &
capacity needs
Consultations with
stakeholders and
validation of results
Preparation of
investment plan &
programs
Preparation and
signing of compact
by all stakeholders
A
B
C
DE
F
G

6. CAADP country-level process
& conceptual framework
Joint sector review
& mutual
accountability
Launch of
CAADP
Financing and
implementation of
plan and programs
Analysis of growth
options, investment, &
capacity needs
Consultations with
stakeholders and
validation of results
Preparation of
investment plan &
programs
Preparation and
signing of compact
by all stakeholders
A
B
C
DE
F
G
Two definitions
of CAADP:
1.Whether
signed
compact
(0=no, 1=yes)
2.Level reached:
0=precompact
1=compact
2=NAIP
3=1 ext fund
4=>1 ext fund
Assumption
CAADP involves processes and
actions that take time to manifest.
The longer or more intensive a
country engages, the greater the
likelihood of success

7. Concepts and methods
• Identify factors that determine a country’s decision
to implement CAADP (d):
 whether it signs a CAADP compact (d1 = 1,0)
 level of implementation reached (d2 = 0,1,2,3,4)
• Controlling for above factors as well as those that
affect realization of outcomes, estimate impact of
implementing CAADP on annual change in:
 Agricultural performance: agriculture expenditure,
agricultural growth and land & labor productivity
 Broader outcomes: income (GDP per capita), nutrition
(prevalence of adult undernourishment)

8. Influential factors and hypothesis
Conceptual factor (expected) Variables and measures
Relevance of CAADP/
Importance of agriculture (+)
Share of agricultural value added in total GDP,
share of agricultural area in total area
Political will (+) Number of AU charters/treaties ratified by 2003
Peer pressure (+) Share of bordering countries at next stage of
CAADP implementation (physical or REC)
Negotiation posture (-) Total expenditure per capita, share of GDP in
Africa’s total GDP
Capacity of government (+) Cumulative years agricultural minister in place
Demand and capacity of
citizens (+/-)
Voice and accountability index (-2.5 to 2.5),
autocracy-democracy index (-10 to 10)
Pretreatment outcomes Lagged values of the outcome variables
Cross-country effects Population density, rainfall, AEZ-economic class
Global effects Financial crisis (0 up to 2008, 1 after 2008)

9. Data sources and estimation
• Data from various international and national
sources from 2001 to 2014
• Use panel-data regression methods to estimate
treatment effects of CAADP and deal with several
relevant econometric issues
• Use different model specifications to evaluate
sensitivity of results to different issues and
assumptions  generate greater confidence in
results

10. Distribution of countries (46)
Signed CAADP compact in: Level implementation reached by end of 2014
2007–
2009
(13)
2010–
2012
(16)
2013–
2014
(8)
Not
signed
(9)
Level 0
(9)
Level 1
(8)
Level 2
(8)
Level 3
(9)
Level 4
(12)
Benin
Burundi
Cape Verde
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Liberia
Mali
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
S. Leone
Togo
Burkina Faso
Cent Afr Rep
Congo, D.R.
Côte d’Ivoire
Djibouti
Guinea
G-Bissau
Kenya
Malawi
Mauritania
Mozambique
Senegal
Swaziland
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Angola
Cameroon
Chad
Congo, R.
Lesotho
Madagascar
Sudan
Zimbabwe
Algeria
Botswana
Egypt
Eritrea
Mauritius
Morocco
Namibia
S. Africa
Tunisia
Algeria
Botswana
Egypt
Eritrea
Mauritius
Morocco
Namibia
S. Africa
Tunisia
Angola
Chad
Congo, R.
Lesotho
Madagascar
Sudan
Swaziland
Zimbabwe
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Cent Afr Rep
Congo, D.R.
Djibouti
Guinea
G-Bissau
Mauritania
Burundi
Gambia
Liberia
Mali
Niger
S. Leone
Togo
Uganda
Zambia
Benin
Burkina Faso
Côte d’Ivoire
Ethiopia
Ghana
Kenya
Malawi
Mozambique
Nigeria
Rwanda
Senegal
Tanzania

11. Determinants of CAADP implementation
Signed compact (logit) Level reached (ologit)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Importance of agriculture 0.57 *** 0.48 *** -0.01 0.02
Political will 0.70 ** 0.63 ** -6.69 -6.38
Peer pressure 0.06 *** 0.11 *** 0.00 0.02 ***
Negotiation posture -1.49 ** -1.56 ** 1.47 1.56
Government capacity 3.71 *** 5.38 *** 2.11 *** 2.27 ***
Citizens’ demand&capacity 0.58 0.80 0.63 0.16
Financial crisis 23.24 *** 4.86 ***
Population density 0.03 *** 0.02 *** 0.06 * 0.11 ***
Intercept -75.72 *** -65.06 *** n.a. n.a.
Chi-square statistic 58.85 *** 81.28 *** 803.2 *** 769.0 ***
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively

12. Determinants of CAADP implementation
Signed compact (logit) Level reached (ologit)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Importance of agriculture 0.57 *** 0.48 *** -0.01 0.02
Political will 0.70 ** 0.63 ** -6.69 -6.38
Peer pressure 0.06 *** 0.11 *** 0.00 0.02 ***
Negotiation posture -1.49 ** -1.56 ** 1.47 1.56
Government capacity 3.71 *** 5.38 *** 2.11 *** 2.27 ***
Citizens’ demand&capacity 0.58 0.80 0.63 0.16
Population density 0.03 *** 0.02 *** 0.06 * 0.11 ***
Financial crisis 23.24 *** 4.86 ***
Intercept -75.72 *** -65.06 *** n.a. n.a.
Chi-square statistic 58.85 *** 81.28 *** 803.2 *** 769.0 ***
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively
• Regarding compact signing, variables representing:
 Role of agriculture, political will, peer pressure,
government capacity, and financial crisis have positive
and statistically significant influence
 Negotiation posture has negative influence, likely due to
alternative (non-agriculture) sources of development
 Citizens’ demands and capacity are not significant
• For level of implementation reached:
 Only peer pressure (stage of implementation of neighbor)
and government capacity (how long minister of
agriculture has been in place) are important

13. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14)
Annual change in: Signed
compact
Level of implementation achieved
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Ag expenditure as %
of total expenditure
-3.6 -4.0 -5.1 6.3 -23.0***
Ag expenditure as %
of ag value added
-1.9 -5.0 -7.8 -2.3 -20.1**
Agricultural value
added per hectare
-6.5 12.9** -7.0* 8.3** 16.5***
Agricultural value
added per worker
-4.1 8.7* -9.0** 3.6 11.6***
Agricultural value
added
4.9 8.6** 7.4** 10.8** 16.7***
GDP per capita -0.6 -1.3 -0.3 -0.2 1.5
Prevalence of adult
undernourishment
1.3 1.1 1.1 3.0 -0.1
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively
Interpretation: percentage change
in the outcome in countries that are
implementing CAADP, compared to
the general trend in countries that
are not implementing CAADP

14. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14)
Annual change in: Signed
compact
Level of implementation achieved
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Ag expenditure as %
of total expenditure
-3.6 -4.0 -5.1 6.3 -23.0***
Ag expenditure as %
of ag value added
-1.9 -5.0 -7.8 -2.3 -20.1**
Agricultural value
added per hectare
-6.5 12.9** -7.0* 8.3** 16.5***
Agricultural value
added per worker
-4.1 8.7* -9.0** 3.6 11.6***
Agricultural value
added
4.9 8.6** 7.4** 10.8** 16.7***
GDP per capita -0.6 -1.3 -0.3 -0.2 1.5
Prevalence of adult
undernourishment
1.3 1.1 1.1 3.0 -0.1
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively
Nosignificantimpacts
Largestsignificantimpacts
Puzzling impacts

15. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14)
Annual change in: Signed
compact
Level of implementation achieved
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Ag expenditure as %
of total expenditure
-3.6 -4.0 -5.1 6.3 -23.0***
Ag expenditure as %
of ag value added
-1.9 -5.0 -7.8 -2.3 -20.1**
Agricultural value
added per hectare
-6.5 12.9** -7.0* 8.3** 16.5***
Agricultural value
added per worker
-4.1 8.7* -9.0** 3.6 11.6***
Agricultural value
added
4.9 8.6** 7.4** 10.8** 16.7***
GDP per capita -0.6 -1.3 -0.3 -0.2 1.5
Prevalence of adult
undernourishment
1.3 1.1 1.1 3.0 -0.1
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively
Nosignificantimpacts
Largestsignificantimpacts
Puzzling impacts
• Signing a compact alone has no significant impact
• Negative impact on expenditure  substitution effect,
largest for level 4, which has more than one external
sources of funding
• Positive impacts on agricultural value added:
level 4=17%; level 3=11%; level 2=7%; level 1=9%
• Mixed impact on land and labor productivity: positive,
but negative for level 2 (small number of countries)
• General insignificant impact on income and nutrition 
positive gains in production/productivity yet to translate
into broader positive outcomes

16. Est. impacts of CAADP, % change (2001-14)
Indicator
Year of compact
Level of implementation achieved
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
GDP per capita
2007-2009
2010-2014
-0.8
-1.4
-0.6
0.2
-0.5
0.2
3.7
0.0
**
Undernourishment
2007-2009
2010-2014
1.7
-1.1
**
***
2.0
0.0
* 4.8
0.9
** 2.4
-0.9
*
**
*, **, and *** = statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively
• Strongly positive impact on income for early implementers at
level 4  broader benefits of reforms take time to manifest
• Counterintuitive impact on nutrition reflects weaker
emphasis on nutrition in early NAIPs compared to later
NAFSIPs (FS = food security)

17. Overall implications
• Because CAADP is a framework for inclusive participation,
ownership, evidence-based policy making, and donor
alignment for an agricultural-led development
 it takes time to gain buy-in from all stakeholders to safeguard
successful implementation
 as such, finding a shortcut is unlikely
• We can expect (greater) benefits from processes that
include a systematic effort to
 identify strategies that are likely to work (as expected of the growth
options and investment and capacity requirements analyses)
 articulate those strategies in a plan that is adequately funded and
implemented accordingly
 to monitor and evaluate progress to continuously refine the
investments and programs