EMPIRICAL RESULTS 45
the acquisition of irrigation facilities and water equipment, which address a major production constraint in that zone.
A comparison of male- versus female-headed beneficiary households showed no significant difference in incomes before or after the project. Income changes for female-headed beneficiary households were significantly greater than those for female-headed nonbeneficiary households for the unclustered standard-error case but were not significant for the clustered standard-error case.
Similarly, in the unmatched sample, the change in incomes of female- headed beneficiary (compared to nonbeneficiary) households was not signifi- cant at 10 percent (Table 5.8). These results suggest that Fadama II had little impact on the short-term incomes of vulnerable beneficiaries. The results are consistent with those we observed for individually owned productive assets. We found that the project significantly increased income for male-headed beneficiary (relative to nonbeneficiary) households, with a higher estimated percentage and absolute value of ATT for male- than for female-headed households. We found comparable results for the unmatched sample (see Table 5.8). The results suggest male-headed households experienced a much larger short-term impact on their incomes than did female-headed households. Concerning the effects of Fadama II on the three asset terciles, only those Fadama II beneficiaries in the second tercile increased their incomes significantly more (at p = 0.05) than the nonbeneficiaries in that tercile. The percentage and absolute value increases for the second tercile were the larg- est of the three terciles. This finding indicates that the project had less of an immediate impact on poverty reduction among the poorest households than on others. However, the magnitude of the estimated impact on incomes of the poorest asset tercile is large (45 percent, although it is statistically in- significant, reflecting the high variance of this estimate).5 Comparable results for the unmatched sample show that the incomes of beneficiaries in the poor- est tercile increased significantly by 45 percent, while the middle- and upper- tercile income changes increased but the increase was not significant at 10 percent. Still, the incomes of the poorest asset tercile appear to have been affected less than those of the second tercile, possibly because of the initial investments that the poor had to make to participate in the project. Such investments could have crowded out short-term investments for the poorest, most liquidity-constrained households that could have otherwise increased
5 The lack of statistical significance of impacts in the estimation subsamples was partly caused by reduced sample size, which depresses statistical power, and does not necessarily mean that Fadama II had no impact in those cases. A larger survey sample would have been required to identify impacts with statistical confidence in such subgroups.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93