Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Se está descargando tu SlideShare. ×

Impact of electrification on the welfare of rural households in Ethiopia

Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio

Eche un vistazo a continuación

1 de 15 Anuncio

Más Contenido Relacionado

Similares a Impact of electrification on the welfare of rural households in Ethiopia (20)

Más de International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (20)

Anuncio

Más reciente (20)

Impact of electrification on the welfare of rural households in Ethiopia

  1. 1. Impact of electrification on the welfare of rural households in Ethiopia Dawit Mekonnen, Tiruwork Arega, Seid Yimam, and Claudia Ringler
  2. 2. www.cgiar.org Motivation In Ethiopia, more than half of the population has no access to electricity. In the last decade, the country has gradually expanded electricity to thousands of small towns and villages: e.g., National Electrification Plan (NEP1 &2) NEP1.0 launched in 2017 connected 33 % of the population with on-grid electrification (FDRE, 2019) However, the impact of electricity expansion on households' welfare is not fully documented Rural electricity is essential to stimulate economic activities (Khandker et al., 2009). Rural electricity can improve key human welfare indicators including education, health, and income (Kanagawa, 2008; Lipscomb et al., 2013; Aguirre, 2017; Kumar and Rauniyar, 2018). Studies in Africa are limited to broader context: Southern and Sub-Saharan region (Bernard, 2012; Peters and Sievert, 2016)
  3. 3. www.cgiar.org Objective Examine, quantify and document the gender- disaggregated impacts of rural electrification on education, market participation, income and health
  4. 4. www.cgiar.org Conceptual framework Shows the multifunctional benefits of rural electrification in addressing key development concerns Extended lighting- Children educational attainment (study time ) ) Change light sources from firewood & kerosene to electricity-Health outcomes • • Increase labor productivity • Reduced fuel collection time • Extended working hour for farm and non-farm activities • Expand income generation options Rural electrification Social development Economic development Environmental protection • Reduce deforestation Healthy and educated workforce Energy security
  5. 5. www.cgiar.org Data and methods Data sources Three rounds of panel data collected by ATA and IFPRI in Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and SNNP in 2012, 2016& 2019. Includes household and community surveys 126 kebeles at community level 1,899 households Method Descriptive analysis Difference-in-differences econometric approach Panel data econometrics
  6. 6. www.cgiar.org Descriptive results Electrification data from Household self reports Three community leaders per kebele Ethiopian Electric Power: universal electric access program 42% kebeles are connected to main grid according to community survey but not included in EEP data 36% of kebeles listed as electrified by EEP but are not connected according to community leaders Community survey and EEP electrification report agree on only 64% of kebeles Lack of reliable electrification data 2019 Community survey Electrification status according to EEP data Non-electrified Electrified Total Non- electrified 57.74 35.71 52.87 (1004) Electrified 42.26 64.29 47.13 (895) Total 77 (1479) 22(420) 1899
  7. 7. www.cgiar.org Descriptive results ….cont’d Household characteristics Electrified HHs are Older Head and spouses attend school Own more farmland& rooms in the housing unit Own more livestock Live near to marketplace (suggesting that easier reachable communities get electricity earlier or that roads are built together with electrification) Non-electrified Electrified dif p-value Gender of head (1=male) 0.839 0.83 0.009 0.424 Age of head 48.46 49.64 -1.181 0.010 Head education 3.21 3.77 -0.559 0.000 Spouse education 0.627 1.23 -0.606 0.000 Household size 5.50 5.68 -0.185 0.008 TLU 3.50 3.81 -0.308 0.044 Farm size (ha) 1.70 1.77 -0.082 0.113 Number of rooms 2.23 2.33 -0.104 0.004 Time to market (min) 82.09 49.91 32.179 0.000 3916 1377
  8. 8. www.cgiar.org Econometric results Girls’ and boys schooling Electricity connection is positively & significantly associated with girls’ schooling Girls’ school year significantly increased in 2019 compared to 2012 Spouse’s education positively affects boys schooling Male headship adversely influences boys’ & girls’ schooling The influence is more pronounced for girls Boys’ schooling Girls’ schooling VARIABLES Coef. SE Coef. SE Survey year =2016 -0.067 0.045 -0.002 0.041 Survey year =2019 0.020 0.054 0.084* 0.051 Household electrification status (1=connected) 0.111 0.090 0.161* 0.083 Farm size (ha) -0.035* 0.020 -0.017 0.019 Spouse education 0.022** 0.010 -0.010 0.010 Head education 0.014** 0.007 0.010 0.006 Distance to market (minute) 0.009 0.033 -0.015 0.034 Age head (years) 0.242 0.170 0.388** 0.165 Gender head -0.265** 0.133 -0.502*** 0.142 Family size 1.215*** 0.100 1.484*** 0.103 Observations 3,924 3,880
  9. 9. www.cgiar.org Econometric results…cont’d Market participation Access to electricity significantly improves farmers’ market participation Farm households market participation improves over time relative to 2012 Larger families and educated spouses positively affect market participation Longer distance from homestead to marketplace negatively influences market participation Market participation Coef. SE Survey year =2016 28.819*** 0.692 Survey year =2019 28.714*** 0.768 Household electrification status (1=connected) 6.203*** 1.846 Farm size (ha) 0.308 0.362 Spouse education 0.447*** 0.169 Head education 0.010 0.104 Distance to market (minute) -1.344** 0.553 Age head (years) -0.990 2.205 Gender head (1=male) 0.709 1.998 Family size 4.080*** 1.216 Observations 5,163
  10. 10. www.cgiar.org Econometric results…cont’d Nonfarm income Access to electricity is positively related to nonfarm income earning The impact is not significant due to the lack of productive uses of electricity in rural Ethiopia Farm households' nonfarm income was higher in 2016 compared to 2012 Larger family size positively influences off- farm income generation Older heads appear to earn less non-farm income Nonfarm income VARIABLES Coef. SE. Survey year =2016 0.504*** 0.122 Survey year =2019 -0.278** 0.133 Household electrification status (1=connected) 0.434 0.309 Farm size (ha) 0.101* 0.052 Spouse education 0.028 0.033 Head education -0.013 0.017 Distance to market (minute) -0.032 0.091 Age head (years) -1.622*** 0.399 Gender head (1=male) 0.561* 0.321 Family size 0.631*** 0.211 Constant 7.570*** 1.596 Observations 5,655
  11. 11. www.cgiar.org Econometric results…cont’d Health Access to electricity positively related to health improvement, but the impact is not signficant Overall health situation of farm household worsens over time compared to 2012 Owning larger farm size has positive influence on improved health condition VARIABLES Health Coef. SE Survey year =2016 -0.291*** 0.016 Survey year =2019 -0.307*** 0.017 Household electrification status (1=connected) 0.006 0.024 Farm size (ha) 0.019*** 0.006 Spouse education -0.004 0.003 Head education -0.002 0.002 Distance to market (minute) 0.018* 0.011 Age head (years) 0.030 0.044 Gender head (1=male) -0.031 0.037 Family size -0.002 0.023 Constant 0.255 0.177 Observations 5,655
  12. 12. www.cgiar.org Concluding remarks There is a disconnect between local statements on electricity access and connections and data available at EEP; bad data can affect other investments in these communities There are some early indications of welfare impacts linked to electricity access, including girls’ schooling; household market participation; and off- farm income To further strengthen welfare outcomes, electricity access should be linked to additional productive uses, such as electrified injera baking or irrigation pumps
  13. 13. www.cgiar.org Future works Evaluation of solar mini-grid project (supporting Duke University) Implementing in 9 mini grid sites at four regions: three sites in the Blue Nile basin Work on the productive uses of electricity for irrigated agriculture Baseline data collection is underway in collaboration with Duke University Data is being collected at household and community levels in the mini grid sites and similar number of control sites We will conduct midterm and endline surveys Hopeful to do more rigorous work using the mini grid data
  14. 14. www.cgiar.org Future works …cont’d Groundwater governance We are working on the preliminary assessments of groundwater challenges in the Tana Beles sub basin based on stakeholder discussion and literature We are exploring groundwater governance tools that can be applied in the Tana Beles sub basin
  15. 15. Thank you

×