![Acknowledgements ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie The Benefit Incidence of Public Spending in Ethiopia
Ähnlich wie The Benefit Incidence of Public Spending in Ethiopia (20)
Mehr von essp2
Mehr von essp2 (20)
The Benefit Incidence of Public Spending in Ethiopia
- 1. The Benefit Incidence of Public Spending in Ethiopia Agricultural Extension, Drinking Water, and the Food Security Programme Tewodaj Mogues Preliminary results: Comments very welcome!
- 8. Average vs. Marginal Benefit Incidence From: Lanjouw & Ravallion (1999)
- 12. Public Spending Wealth Incidence of Ag. Extension (Benefit-to-Population Odds Ratio)
- 13. Public Spending Wealth Incidence of Ag. Extension (Benefit-to-Population Odds Ratio)
- 14. Concentration Curve of Extension Access
- 15. Incidence of Ag Extension, by Gender and Headship Status Total Women Men * Gender gap Total All extension 32.93% 24.70% 42.43% 0.58 Visit farm/home 22.90% 20.37% 25.82% 0.79 DA meetings 19.16% 11.12% 28.44% 0.39 Demo. plot/home 3.22% 1.08% 5.69% 0.19 FTC 0.79% 0.59% 1.02% 0.58 Heads of households All extension 39.44% 28.75% 42.38% 0.68 Visit farm/home 25.43% 23.75% 25.89% 0.92 DA meetings 26.06% 17.92% 28.29% 0.63 Demo. plot/home 5.03% 2.92% 5.61% 0.52 FTC 0.90% 0.42% 1.03% 0.41 Spouses of household heads All extension 23.66% 23.45% Visit farm/home 19.31% 19.33% DA meetings 9.34% 9.02% Demo. plot/home 0.64% 0.52% FTC 0.64% 0.64% Headship gap All extension 0.60 0.82 Visit farm/home 0.76 0.81 DA meetings 0.36 0.50 Demo. plot/home 0.13 0.18 FTC 0.71 1.52
- 16. Public Spending Incidence of Ag Extension, by Gender and Headship Status Benefit share B-P odds ratio Gender Women 41.97% 0.78 Men 58.03% 1.25 Total 100% — Headship status Spouse 29.98% 0.73 Head 70.02% 1.19 Total 100% —
- 17. Average and Marginal Odds Ratio for Agricultural Extension Q1 (poorest) Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Total Average odds 1.193 1.506 0.873 0.705 0.723 Marginal odds 1.081 *** 1.080 *** 0.828 *** -0.050 1.325 *** (0.100) (0.097) (0.150) (0.156) (0.192) Women Average odds 1.283 1.646 0.871 0.598 0.539 Marginal odds 1.029 *** 1.070 *** 0.671 ** -0.098 1.117 ** (0.082) (0.177) (0.275) (0.079) (0.556) Men Average odds 1.202 1.401 0.858 0.760 0.824 Marginal odds 1.225 *** 1.024 *** 0.888 *** 0.303 1.268 *** (0.152) (0.093) (0.139) (0.336) (0.124)
- 19. Public Spending Incidence of FSP (Benefit-to-Population Odds Ratio)
- 20. Public Spending Incidence of PW (Benefit-to-Population Odds Ratio)
- 21. Public Spending Incidence of DS (Benefit-to-Population Odds Ratio)
- 22. Concentration Curve of Access to FSP
- 23. Concentration Curve of Value of FSP receipts
- 24. Public Spending Incidence of FSP, by Gender All FSP BP odds ratio Public Works BP odds ratio Direct Support BP odds ratio Female-headed HHs 25.34% 0.89 18.45% 0.65 79.38% 2.78 Male-headed HHs 74.66% 1.04 81.55% 1.14 20.62% 0.29
- 25. Average and Marginal Odds Ratio for FSP Q1 (poorest) Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Total Average odds 1.454 1.360 0.658 0.699 0.831 Marginal odds 1.239 *** 0.861 *** 0.647 *** 0.768 *** 0.920 *** (0.127) (0.135) (0.139) (0.158) (0.189) Female-Headed HHs Average odds 0.916 1.150 0.827 1.078 1.102 Marginal odds 0.746 *** 0.924 *** 0.954 *** 0.809 *** 1.089 *** (0.259) (0.188) (0.252) (0.171) (0.113) Male-Headed HHs Average odds 1.765 1.459 0.647 0.644 0.758 Marginal odds 1.486 *** 0.914 *** 0.585 *** 0.807 *** 0.872 *** (0.211) (0.143) (0.155) (0.203) (0.206)
- 27. Time to Primary Water Source in Dry Season (minutes)
- 28. Time to Primary Water Source in Wet Season (minutes)
- 29. Access to Improved Water Sources in Both Seasons (%)
- 30. Gender Incidence of Water Supply Female-headed HHs Male-headed HHs Gender gap (ratio) Physical access to drinking water (minutes) Primary source in dry season One-way 29.0 24.3 1.20 Full trip 73.5 63.0 1.17 Primary source in wet season One-way 25.1 19.9 1.26 Full trip 62.8 50.5 1.24 Use of safe drinking water (per cent) Primary source in: Dry season 49.51% 33.68% 1.47 Wet season 48.53% 35.25% 1.38 Both seasons 48.04% 32.38% 1.48 All sources used in: Dry season 29.56% 24.77% 1.19 Wet season 29.56% 25.40% 1.16 Both seasons 28.08% 23.55% 1.19
- 32. The Benefit Incidence of Public Spending in Ethiopia Agricultural Extension, Drinking Water, and the Food Security Programme Tewodaj Mogues
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Table 10
- Table 10: Pro-poor access to extension
- Table 10
- Figure 2: Farm/home visits more likely to reach poor households
- Table 11: 1) Relatively high access 2) Gender gap is large; differentiated by extension type 3) Headship gap pertains; 4) Gender vs head
- Table 11
- Table 12: 1) Average odds shows pro-poor 2) But: Richest gain the most from expansion of service
- Table 13: Pro-poor access for FSP
- Table 13: Still pro poor
- Table 13: Not true for DS! Best-off gain the most 2) Driven by female results
- Figure 3: This is reflected in CC as well
- Figure 3: Even more pronounced when considering value of receipts
- Table 14: Overall, incidence slightly higher for men However, women gain most from DS
- Table 16: Poorest benefit less from expansion than they benefit on average (see Q1 and Q2).
- Table 17
- Table 17
- Table 18
- Table 19