OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS OF NAADS 119
(about 9.5 percent) in the per capita consumption expenditure of Ugandans between 2002–03 and 2005–06 (Uganda, BOS 2006).
The detailed selected second-stage results presented in Tables A.10–A.12 show that different factors have contributed differently to changes in these outcomes, with differences across the different matched subsamples. Regard- ing change in access to food, for example, changes in gender of household head, size of household, income sources, and access to credit, roads, and markets were statistically significant factors. Regarding perception of change in nutritional quality of food, only changes in gender, household size, and access to credit and markets mattered. Perception of change in wealth was significantly influenced by changes in education and income sources.
Distribution of Program Effects and Factors Enhancing or Mitigating These Effects
In this section we present the results of the estimations done to examine the distributional effects of the NAADS program as well as assess the factors that have enhanced or mitigated the effects of the program. As presented in the methodology chapter, this was done by re-estimating the ATTs associated with the value of crop output per acre, the value of livestock output per TLU, and agricultural revenue per AE using both the grouping and interaction approaches presented earlier. For the grouping approach, the regression is estimated separately for subsamples of categories of the explanatory vari- ables, for example, male-headed and female-headed households (the results are presented in Table 5.28). The second approach includes in the regres- sion a term of interaction between the NAADS participation variable and each of the other explanatory variables (the results are presented in Tables 5.29–5.31). For the grouping approach (Table 5.28), a positive (or negative) coefficient means that the impact of program is greater (or lower) within the relevant subcategory of the factor. Similarly, the coefficients can be com- pared across the subcategories, particularly where they are of the same sign. For the interaction approach (Tables 5.29–5.31), the interpretation has to be done in conjunction with the initial estimates vis-à-vis how the initial effects without the interactions have changed. However, basically, a positive (or neg- ative) coefficient means that the impact of the program has been enhanced (or mitigated) by the change in the relevant factor. For both we used the Model III specification and matched subsamples based on three nearest- neighbor matches. For the interaction approach, however, we report only the
detailed results associated with the subsample of NAADSDIR and NAADSNON-3 households. As expected, different factors have contributed differently to enhancing or mitigating the effects of the program, which is shown by the differences in the signs, magnitudes, and levels of statistical significance
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 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192