This document summarizes a study that evaluated the impact of providing working capital loans to farmer groups in Uganda. The study used a randomized controlled trial where some farmer groups received loans to make partial cash payments to farmers upon delivery of crops, allowing "cash on delivery." The goal was to evaluate if this increased the proportion of crops sold through the groups and the prices received by farmers by reducing the costs of selling to the groups. Data was collected through surveys before and after the intervention to assess the impact of the working capital loans on marketing outcomes for farmers.
"Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)," presentation by Babatunde Omilola at the 6th CAADP Partnership Platform. Birchwood Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa. April 21-23, 2010.
Just part of a program with Egypt. Fascinating challenges on the Nile Delta with so many people wanting and needing a part of it. (from Cairo June 2011)
"Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)," presentation by Babatunde Omilola at the 6th CAADP Partnership Platform. Birchwood Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa. April 21-23, 2010.
Just part of a program with Egypt. Fascinating challenges on the Nile Delta with so many people wanting and needing a part of it. (from Cairo June 2011)
Methods for studying gender dynamics in value chains beyond the production no...IFPRI-PIM
Ā
PIM Webinar recorded on Oct. 28, 2021. Presenters: Jessica Leight (IFPRI); Emily Gallagher (CIFOR); and Kate Ambler (IFPRI). More information at https://bit.ly/GDVCweb
Gender in monitoring, evaluation and impact assessmentILRI
Ā
Presentation by Jemimah Njuki at the FAO-ILRI Workshop on Integrating Gender in Livestock Projects and Programs, ILRI, Addis Ababa, 22-25 November 2011.
ReSAKSS-AfricaLead Workshop on Strengthening Capacity for Strategic Agricultural Policy and Investment Planning and Implementation in Africa
Safari Park Hotel, Nairobi, June 25thā 26th 2012
Presented by Pascale Schnitzer and Carlo Azzarri, IFPRI at the Africa RISINGāCSISA Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 11-13 November 2013
Developing the India smallholder dairy value chain impact pathway(s) ILRI
Ā
Presented by Michael Kidoido at the Workshop on Smallholder Dairy Value Chain Transformation in BiharāChallenges, Opportunities and the Way Forward, Patna, India, 1-2 August 2014
Methods for studying gender dynamics in value chains beyond the production no...IFPRI-PIM
Ā
PIM Webinar recorded on Oct. 28, 2021. Presenters: Jessica Leight (IFPRI); Emily Gallagher (CIFOR); and Kate Ambler (IFPRI). More information at https://bit.ly/GDVCweb
Gender in monitoring, evaluation and impact assessmentILRI
Ā
Presentation by Jemimah Njuki at the FAO-ILRI Workshop on Integrating Gender in Livestock Projects and Programs, ILRI, Addis Ababa, 22-25 November 2011.
ReSAKSS-AfricaLead Workshop on Strengthening Capacity for Strategic Agricultural Policy and Investment Planning and Implementation in Africa
Safari Park Hotel, Nairobi, June 25thā 26th 2012
Presented by Pascale Schnitzer and Carlo Azzarri, IFPRI at the Africa RISINGāCSISA Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 11-13 November 2013
Developing the India smallholder dairy value chain impact pathway(s) ILRI
Ā
Presented by Michael Kidoido at the Workshop on Smallholder Dairy Value Chain Transformation in BiharāChallenges, Opportunities and the Way Forward, Patna, India, 1-2 August 2014
VAT Registration Outlined In UAE: Benefits and Requirementsuae taxgpt
Ā
Vat Registration is a legal obligation for businesses meeting the threshold requirement, helping companies avoid fines and ramifications. Contact now!
https://viralsocialtrends.com/vat-registration-outlined-in-uae/
Falcon stands out as a top-tier P2P Invoice Discounting platform in India, bridging esteemed blue-chip companies and eager investors. Our goal is to transform the investment landscape in India by establishing a comprehensive destination for borrowers and investors with diverse profiles and needs, all while minimizing risk. What sets Falcon apart is the elimination of intermediaries such as commercial banks and depository institutions, allowing investors to enjoy higher yields.
Buy Verified PayPal Account | Buy Google 5 Star Reviewsusawebmarket
Ā
Buy Verified PayPal Account
Looking to buy verified PayPal accounts? Discover 7 expert tips for safely purchasing a verified PayPal account in 2024. Ensure security and reliability for your transactions.
PayPal Services Features-
š¢ Email Access
š¢ Bank Added
š¢ Card Verified
š¢ Full SSN Provided
š¢ Phone Number Access
š¢ Driving License Copy
š¢ Fasted Delivery
Client Satisfaction is Our First priority. Our services is very appropriate to buy. We assume that the first-rate way to purchase our offerings is to order on the website. If you have any worry in our cooperation usually You can order us on Skype or Telegram.
24/7 Hours Reply/Please Contact
usawebmarketEmail: support@usawebmarket.com
Skype: usawebmarket
Telegram: @usawebmarket
WhatsApp: +1āŖ(218) 203-5951ā¬
USA WEB MARKET is the Best Verified PayPal, Payoneer, Cash App, Skrill, Neteller, Stripe Account and SEO, SMM Service provider.100%Satisfection granted.100% replacement Granted.
Cracking the Workplace Discipline Code Main.pptxWorkforce Group
Ā
Cultivating and maintaining discipline within teams is a critical differentiator for successful organisations.
Forward-thinking leaders and business managers understand the impact that discipline has on organisational success. A disciplined workforce operates with clarity, focus, and a shared understanding of expectations, ultimately driving better results, optimising productivity, and facilitating seamless collaboration.
Although discipline is not a one-size-fits-all approach, it can help create a work environment that encourages personal growth and accountability rather than solely relying on punitive measures.
In this deck, you will learn the significance of workplace discipline for organisational success. Youāll also learn
ā¢ Four (4) workplace discipline methods you should consider
ā¢ The best and most practical approach to implementing workplace discipline.
ā¢ Three (3) key tips to maintain a disciplined workplace.
Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit and TemplatesAurelien Domont, MBA
Ā
This Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit was created by ex-McKinsey, Deloitte and BCG Management Consultants, after more than 5,000 hours of work. It is considered the world's best & most comprehensive Digital Transformation and IT Strategy Toolkit. It includes all the Frameworks, Best Practices & Templates required to successfully undertake the Digital Transformation of your organization and define a robust IT Strategy.
Editable Toolkit to help you reuse our content: 700 Powerpoint slides | 35 Excel sheets | 84 minutes of Video training
This PowerPoint presentation is only a small preview of our Toolkits. For more details, visit www.domontconsulting.com
Enterprise Excellence is Inclusive Excellence.pdfKaiNexus
Ā
Enterprise excellence and inclusive excellence are closely linked, and real-world challenges have shown that both are essential to the success of any organization. To achieve enterprise excellence, organizations must focus on improving their operations and processes while creating an inclusive environment that engages everyone. In this interactive session, the facilitator will highlight commonly established business practices and how they limit our ability to engage everyone every day. More importantly, though, participants will likely gain increased awareness of what we can do differently to maximize enterprise excellence through deliberate inclusion.
What is Enterprise Excellence?
Enterprise Excellence is a holistic approach that's aimed at achieving world-class performance across all aspects of the organization.
What might I learn?
A way to engage all in creating Inclusive Excellence. Lessons from the US military and their parallels to the story of Harry Potter. How belt systems and CI teams can destroy inclusive practices. How leadership language invites people to the party. There are three things leaders can do to engage everyone every day: maximizing psychological safety to create environments where folks learn, contribute, and challenge the status quo.
Who might benefit? Anyone and everyone leading folks from the shop floor to top floor.
Dr. William Harvey is a seasoned Operations Leader with extensive experience in chemical processing, manufacturing, and operations management. At Michelman, he currently oversees multiple sites, leading teams in strategic planning and coaching/practicing continuous improvement. William is set to start his eighth year of teaching at the University of Cincinnati where he teaches marketing, finance, and management. William holds various certifications in change management, quality, leadership, operational excellence, team building, and DiSC, among others.
B2B payments are rapidly changing. Find out the 5 key questions you need to be asking yourself to be sure you are mastering B2B payments today. Learn more at www.BlueSnap.com.
The world of search engine optimization (SEO) is buzzing with discussions after Google confirmed that around 2,500 leaked internal documents related to its Search feature are indeed authentic. The revelation has sparked significant concerns within the SEO community. The leaked documents were initially reported by SEO experts Rand Fishkin and Mike King, igniting widespread analysis and discourse. For More Info:- https://news.arihantwebtech.com/search-disrupted-googles-leaked-documents-rock-the-seo-world/
The key differences between the MDR and IVDR in the EUAllensmith572606
Ā
In the European Union (EU), two significant regulations have been introduced to enhance the safety and effectiveness of medical devices ā the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) and the Medical Device Regulation (MDR).
https://mavenprofserv.com/comparison-and-highlighting-of-the-key-differences-between-the-mdr-and-ivdr-in-the-eu/
Company Valuation webinar series - Tuesday, 4 June 2024FelixPerez547899
Ā
This session provided an update as to the latest valuation data in the UK and then delved into a discussion on the upcoming election and the impacts on valuation. We finished, as always with a Q&A
RMD24 | Retail media: hoe zet je dit in als je geen AH of Unilever bent? Heid...BBPMedia1
Ā
Grote partijen zijn al een tijdje onderweg met retail media. Ondertussen worden in dit domein ook de kansen zichtbaar voor andere spelers in de markt. Maar met die kansen ontstaan ook vragen: Zelf retail media worden of erop adverteren? In welke fase van de funnel past het en hoe integreer je het in een mediaplan? Wat is nu precies het verschil met marketplaces en Programmatic ads? In dit half uur beslechten we de dilemma's en krijg je antwoorden op wanneer het voor jou tijd is om de volgende stap te zetten.
3.0 Project 2_ Developing My Brand Identity Kit.pptxtanyjahb
Ā
A personal brand exploration presentation summarizes an individual's unique qualities and goals, covering strengths, values, passions, and target audience. It helps individuals understand what makes them stand out, their desired image, and how they aim to achieve it.
Kseniya Leshchenko: Shared development support service model as the way to ma...Lviv Startup Club
Ā
Kseniya Leshchenko: Shared development support service model as the way to make small projects with small budgets profitable for the company (UA)
Kyiv PMDay 2024 Summer
Website ā www.pmday.org
Youtube ā https://www.youtube.com/startuplviv
FB ā https://www.facebook.com/pmdayconference
Kseniya Leshchenko: Shared development support service model as the way to ma...
Ā
Improving market access of farmer groups in Uganda: evaluating the role of working capital
1. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Improving market access of farmer groups in
Uganda: evaluating the role of working capital
Ruth Vargas Hill and Eduardo Maruyama
May 9, 2012
2. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Outline
Impact evaluation
Introduction
RCTs
An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Introduction
Implementation
Results
Concluding remarks
3. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Why evaluate?
ā¢ Evaluating interventions (policies or programs) helps:
ā¢ Understand the actual rather than the anticipated eļ¬ects of
programs.
ā¢ Determine how to design new programs.
ā¢ Determine the most cost-eļ¬ective approach to achieve a
desired goal.
4. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Estimating impact: introduction
ā¢ When we conduct impact evaluation we assess how a program
aļ¬ects the well-being or welfare of individuals, households or
communities:
ā¢ Proļ¬tability of agricultural production
ā¢ Increased income or consumption (or other measures of
welfare) of rural households
ā¢ Poverty levels or growth rates at the community level
5. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Impact evaluation versus other M&E tools
ā¢ Impact evaluation is diļ¬erent from other M&E tools in that it
focuses on discerning the impact of the program from all
other confounding eļ¬ects.
ā¢ The focus of impact evaluation is providing evidence of the
causal link between an intervention and an outcome.
ā¢ This is why impact evaluation is a powerful too, but also what
makes it diļ¬cult to implement in practice.
6. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Impact evaluation versus other M&E tools
DIFFICULTYĀ OFĀ
Low High
SHOWINGĀ CAUSALITY
Inputs Outputs Outcomes Impacts
Example:Ā AĀ programĀ ofĀ providingĀ adviceĀ onĀ aĀ newĀ technologyĀ toĀ farmers
VisitsĀ byĀ
IncreasedĀ
extensionsĀ
KnowledgeĀ ofĀ UseĀ ofĀ theĀ yields,Ā higherĀ
agents,Ā
theĀ newĀ newĀ farmĀ profits,Ā
physicalĀ inputsĀ
technology technology improvedĀ
(suchĀ asĀ
consumption
seeds)
7. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Essential component: counterfactual
ā¢ Diļ¬culty is determining what would have happened to the
individuals or communities of interest in absence of the
project.
ā¢ We are interested in the diļ¬erence in an outcome for an
individual with and without the intervention.
ā¢ Problem: can only observe people in one state of the world at
one time
ā¢ The key component to an impact evaluation is to construct a
suitable comparison group to proxy for the counterfactual.
8. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Before and after comparisons
ā¢ Why not collect data on individuals before and after
intervention (the Reļ¬exive)? Diļ¬erence in income, etc, would
be due to project
ā¢ Problem: many things change over time, including the project
ā¢ The country is growing and proļ¬ts are rising. Is this due to the
program or would have occurred in absence of program?
ā¢ This is particularly a problem for agricultural interventions:
many factors aļ¬ect yield (weather, availability of inputs) and
prices in a given year.
9. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Comparison groups
ā¢ Instead of using before/after comparisons, we need to use
comparison groups to proxy for the counterfactual
ā¢ Two core problems in ļ¬nding suitable groups:
ā¢ Programs are targeted
ā¢ Recipients receive intervention for particular reason
ā¢ Participation is voluntary
ā¢ Individuals who participate diļ¬er in observable and
unobservable ways (selection bias)
ā¢ Hence, a comparison of participants and an arbitrary group of
non-participants can lead to misleading or incorrect results
10. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Randomizing to create a true comparison group
ā¢ We need a comparison group that is as identical in observable
and unobservable dimensions as possible, to those receiving
the program, and a comparison group that will not receive
spillover beneļ¬ts.
ā¢ Number of techniques:
ā¢ Randomized control trials (the gold standard)
ā¢ Careful matching techniques: IV, propensity score matching,
regression discontinuity design
11. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Randomized Control Trials (RCTs)
ā¢ In RCTs, participation in a policy (or usually eligibility to
participate in a policy) is randomly assigned.
ā¢ This is done to ensure that the only diļ¬erence between those
in and out of an intervention, is their participation, and as a
result any diļ¬erence between participants and
non-participants can be attributed to the program alone.
ā¢ Because participation (treatment) is randomized, the
non-treatment outcomes between those that are not treated
and those that are treated is equal.
12. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Households or groups of households
13. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Households or groups of households
C
T C
C
C
T T C
C T C
T
C
T C
T
C T
C C C
C
T T
T C T
14. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Does randomization create a true comparison group?
ā¢ We can test that they are equal by collecting data on the two
groups before the intervention and checking that the average
characteristics of the two groups are the same.
ā¢ For the treatment and control groups to be statistically equal
you need a large number of each. Cannot have one treated
household and one control household.
ā¢ Means that you cannot use this method to answer questions
about country policy changes (e.g. ļ¬scal policy changes).
ā¢ There are stragegies that can be used to ensure that the
treatment and control groups are equal (e.g. stratiļ¬cation).
15. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
How do we estimate impact by randomizing?
ā¢ Identify the outcome we are interested in (e.g. yields, amount
of output marketed, price received)
ā¢ Estimate the average of the outcome in the treatment group.
ā¢ Estimate the average of the outcome in the control group.
ā¢ Calculate the diļ¬erence of these averages and test to see if
the two averages are signiļ¬cantly diļ¬erent from each other.
ā¢ Average Treatment Eļ¬ect
ā¢ Note: it is just diļ¬erences in the AVERAGE outcome that are
estimated.
16. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Challenges to estimating impact
ā¢ Sometimes the eļ¬ect of the program is small.
ā¢ Or there are many other factors aļ¬ecting the outcome of
interest that it is hard to see if a diļ¬erence is statistically
diļ¬erent between two groups.
ā¢ We try and control for this in two ways:
ā¢ Include a large number of households in treatment and control.
This increases our power to detect a small eļ¬ect.
ā¢ Collect data on characteristics of the household that may
inļ¬uence the outcome variable at baseline (including the
pre-intervention outcome of interest)
17. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Other challenges to estimating impact
ā¢ Are we sure that the intervention had no impact on the
control group? Are there no spillover eļ¬ects? (E.g. on prices)
ā¢ Was there any attrition as a result of the program that means
we miss capturing some of the impact? For example did
people migrate as a result of the program? If so, we will miss
capturing the eļ¬ect of the program on these people.
ā¢ We randomized to avoid selection bias, but some of it still
may remain:
ā¢ Did everyone in the treatment group participate as expected?
ā¢ Did anyone in the control group participate even if they were
not meant to?
18. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Selection bias
Not in
evaluation
Target
Population
Treatment Participants
group
Evaluation Random No-Shows
Sample Assignment
Non-
Control group Participants
Cross-overs
36
19. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Handling selection bias
ā¢ Intent to treat (ITT):
ā¢ Average impact of program in practice: treats all noncompliars
as treated, and treats all crossovers as remaining in the control
ā¢ Problem: power is reduced by noncompliance and does not
provide an idea of what the average impact of the program on
the treated is.
ā¢ Treatment on the treated (ToT):
ā¢ Instruments for take-up with assignment: gives an idea of the
average impact of the program for a speciļ¬c group
20. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Summary of advantages and disadvantages
ā¢ Powerful method to identify causal impact of a policy or
program.
ā¢ Careful design is needed to ensure you are able to detect
changes
ā¢ Can be expensive: baseline and follow-up, a large number of
participants (especially if it is to be representative)
ā¢ Only valid in some circumstances: randomization over a
number of units needs to be possible.
ā¢ Provides information on the average outcome.
ā¢ Internally valid, repetition and a theory of change needed to
make predictions from results (external validity).
21. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
External validity
ā¢ Tells us whether something worked in a speciļ¬c context,
understanding whether an intervention would work again in a
diļ¬erent setting, external validity, is very diļ¬cult to know.
ā¢ Great beneļ¬t of few assumptions, comes with great cost
ānarrowness of scopeā (Cartwright 2007).
ā¢ Any external validity involves some assumptions about the
project working in diļ¬erent conditions.
ā¢ Yet replicating a project is almost impossible, replicating
triggers of mechanisms that produce the change is often more
possible.
ā¢ Result: we need to repeat impact evaluations and also have a
theory of change to know what will work in the future, i.e. to
really learn.
ā¢ But better than an approach that is not internally valid.
Predictions cannot be made from this either.
22. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Other concerns in learning from results
ā¢ General equilibrium eļ¬ects.
ā¢ Corruption in implementing a large scale.
ā¢ Capacity to implement at a large scale.
ā¢ Overlap between new environment and old (example of
medicine)
ā¢ Not automatic to go from experiments to learning and policy
advice.
23. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Another approach
ā¢ We need a theory of change that guides us in going from
one-oļ¬ impact evaluation to general lessons. This means
make assumptions and, ideally, use experiments to test and
reļ¬ne these assumptions.
ā¢ When designing impact evaluation for this purpose, it often
looks quite diļ¬erent:
ā¢ Theory of change inļ¬uences the design of the impact
evaluation.
ā¢ Often identifying the diļ¬erential impact of diļ¬erent treatments,
rather than the impact of one treatment against baseline.
24. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Outline
Impact evaluation
Introduction
RCTs
An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Introduction
Implementation
Results
Concluding remarks
25. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Introduction
ā¢ Smallholder agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa is largely
exposed to pervasive market failures, translating into missed
opportunities and sub-optimal economic behavior.
ā¢ These failures are often rooted in the importance of
economies of scale in procuring inputs and marketing produce.
ā¢ By engaging in markets collectively through a farmers group,
smallholders can overcome economies of scale.
ā¢ Despite the renewed interest from governments and donor
agencies in farmers groups as a means to overcome these
market failures, evidence shows that they have so far had
limited success.
26. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Ugandan context
ā¢ The majority of Ugandan farmers sell their (unprocessed)
produce at harvest time to itinerant traders at the farm-gate.
ā¢ Survey of farmers groups engaged in some form of output
marketing revealed that:
ā¢ Farmers get a higher price when they sell collectively.
ā¢ Yet few farmers sell through the marketing group of which
they are a member (only 47% make sales through group)
ā¢ Farmers are less likely to sell collectively when they are
liquidity constrained and in need of emergency money.
ā¢ Groups that oļ¬er cash on delivery of produce (rather than
payment some days later) have a higher proportion of
members selling through the group.
27. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Key impact question
ā¢ Would providing working capital loans to farmers groups so
that they can provide cash on delivery, improve marketing
outcomes for farmers?
ā¢ We cannot infer this from the baseline data: good groups may
be better at collective sales and better able to access ļ¬nance
which allows payment on delivery.
ā¢ We would like to compare groups of similar quality and see if
working capital loans increase sales amongst those that
received them.
28. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Testing a theory of change
ā¢ Farmer groups can oļ¬er higher prices but because of the
waiting times involved in receiving payment, farmers ļ¬nd it
costly to sell though the group.
ā¢ Farmers are liquidity constrained and often sell coļ¬ee to meet
urgent ļ¬nancial needs, so even small delays in payment can be
problematic.
ā¢ Waiting for payment involves a high level of trust in the ability
of the group to market and transparency. There is a risk if the
groups cannot be trusted.
ā¢ Enabling groups to make payment on delivery through a
working capital loan will reduce the cost of selling through the
group.
ā¢ More farmers will sell through the group and receive higher
prices as a result.
29. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
The impact of working capital credit
ā¢ Randomized provision of working capital credit to farmers
groups that had already been engaged in output marketing:
ā¢ Provide selected groups with a fund to make partial cash
payments to farmers upon delivery of produce. Once the group
makes a sale the fund is replenished and farmers are given the
remaining balance. āCash on Deliveryā (CoD)
ā¢ Assess the impact of this credit on the proportion of produce
sold through the group and on the price farmers received.
ā¢ Understand why this worked?
ā¢ Did this work for farmers likely to face liquidity constraints, or
only in groups where trust was already high?
ā¢ Implement an intervention on improved transparency to
randomly selected groups to improve trust in some groups. Is
the working capital intervention just as eļ¬ective in those
groups with the transparency intervention?
ā¢ Information on Sales (IoS): SMS system to provide members
with speciļ¬c information about transactions made by the
group (ļ¬nal sale price, fees deducted, etc.), plus reinforced
training on book-keeping.
30. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Coļ¬ee/maize group marketing structure
ā¢ Farmers groups (āPOās for producer organizations) are
typically grouped under associations (DCs for district
committees).
ā¢ The PO handles bulking and coordination of transport with
members at the village level.
ā¢ The DC take care of collection and in some cases value
addition to the next stage of marketing.
ā¢ In most cases, a service organization oļ¬ers support to DCs
and POs through lobbying, access to extension and additional
marketing services.
31. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Implementation
ā¢ The study was carried out in 9 DCs marketing coļ¬ee and
maize, containing 165 POs under them.
ā¢ March 2010, Baseline survey:
ā¢ A 3-tiered survey which collected detailed information on DCs,
POs, and member households.
ā¢ Full roster of members for each PO, and a complete household
survey for at least 2 members of each group.
ā¢ November 2010 September 2011, implemented intervention
in randomly selected groups:
ā¢ Provided working capital credit to randomly selected POs.
ā¢ Provided SMS information on deliveries to randomly selected
POs.
ā¢ October 2011, Follow-up survey.
ā¢ Collected detailed information on POs and member households.
ā¢ Collected administrative data from the DC records to obtain
more reliable delivery data.
32. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Randomization strategy
ā¢ We randomized the interventions at the PO level stratifying
the sample by DC, since the sample size is not large enough
at the DC level and the risk of spill-overs is too high at the
household level.
ā¢ POs in each DC are randomly assigned into 4 groups: (1)
CoD, (2) IoS, (3) CoD + IoS, and (4) none.
ā¢ The fund for the CoD was managed by the DC, and vouchers
were given to treated POs so their members could request
immediate partial payments for output deliveries.
ā¢ For the IoS intervention, a DC staļ¬ member was selected to
send the messages to key farmers in the treated POs.
33. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Are control and treatment groups equal?
Control CoD IoS Both
(mean)
Members 24.256 2.194 4.558 1.597
(3.106)āāā (4.365) (4.289) (4.339)
Years since foundation 4.400 1.039 0.460 1.014
(0.526)āāā (0.739) (0.731) (0.739)
Marketing services 0.825 -0.020 -0.081 -0.093
(0.066)āāā (0.093) (0.092) (0.093)
Output bulked (kgs.) 854.025 -240.708 -192.862 -325.440
(236.818)āāā (332.863) (329.018) (332.863)
Female leader 0.250 -0.006 -0.064 -0.030
(0.067)āāā (0.094) (0.093) (0.094)
Leaderās age 52.200 -4.639 -2.153 0.190
(1.874)āāā (2.634)ā (2.604) (2.634)
Leaderās schooling 8.025 0.073 0.208 -0.562
(0.460)āāā (0.647) (0.639) (0.647)
POs 40 41 43 41
34. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
ā¢ Implementing the interventions represented a major challenge:
1. The POs in our study are spread over many regions in the
country.
2. Implementation needed to be done by a 3rd party, to avoid
service organizations and DCs contaminating the PO-level
randomization strategy.
3. In order to avoid undesired heterogeneity in implementation,
training, and monitoring of the interventions, a single
implementing agency was favored over several regional
organizations.
4. Training and distribution of vouchers within the PO was
delegated to PO leaders in some DCs.
ā¢ Our own monitoring activities as well as the follow-up survey
indicate implementation was problematic.
ā¢ Some cross-over and no-shows for CoD intervention
ā¢ Overall implementation of IoS intervention.
35. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Empirical strategy
McKenzie (2011) shows that using baseline data on the outcome
variable of interest, allows more power to detect impact.
Therefore, for our analysis we estimate:
Yi,1 = Ī± + Ī³j Di,j + ĪøYi,0 + Īµi,1
j
36. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Results
Table 2.1: Impact of interventions on produce
deliveries
PO Household
Kgs. P(Delivery) Kgs.
CoD only 747.826 0.186 162.700
(325.294)āā (0.079)āā (88.400)ā
IoS only 355.764 0.089 62.660
(320.386) (0.078) (87.060)
Both -584.566 0.101 122.000
(455.073) (0.077) (86.280)
Observations 165 244 243
R2 0.422 0.269 0.084
37. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Results
Table 2.2: Impact of selling through PO
on transaction features
Price Days
between
sale and
payment
Sold through PO 0.858 -6.540
(instrumented) (0.477)ā (21.170)
Observations 193 192
R2 0.704 0.210
38. Impact evaluation An application to farmers groups in Uganda
Concluding remarks
ā¢ Despite implementation problems, the CoD intervention has a
signiļ¬cant impact on group marketing.
ā¢ CoD increases the probability a household will sell through the
group, how much each household will sell, and the total
amount sold by the group.
ā¢ By encouraging farmers to sell through the group, CoD has an
eļ¬ect on increasing the price they receive.
ā¢