Ethiopia Development Research Institute (EDRI) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Seminar Series, August 20, 2010 Addis Ababa, EDRI Meeting Room
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!
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)
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
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
31.
32. The Benefit Incidence of Public Spending in Ethiopia Agricultural Extension, Drinking Water, and the Food Security Programme Tewodaj Mogues
Notas del editor
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).