This study presents a new approach to evaluate the economic impact of development projects for cases where baseline and endline data for comparable treated and control samples are available. An important contribution is to bring together propensity score matching (PSM) and difference-indifferences (DID) techniques, commonly used in impact evaluation studies, with stochastic production frontiers (SPF) that have become well-established in the productivity literature. To illustrate our proposed framework, we use baseline and endline data from a rural environmental development program implemented in Nicaragua between 2012 and 2016. The results support the use of the approach proposed and reveal that selectivity from unobservables can be significant. The analysis shows that a severe drought over the period analyzed had significant negative effects on both control and treated farms. However, project beneficiaries enjoyed significantly better results, attributable to the project, compared to the control group. Overall, the results exhibit relatively low levels of technical efficiency with no significant variation across models, time, and treatment status.
Evaluating agricultural programmes requires considering not only the programmes' influence on input and output indicators, but also considering the relationship between these indicators as embodied in the production technology. This article examines the impact on production of an intervention in the Ecuadorian Sierra designed to improve returns to potato production through training and through linking smallholders to high-value markets. Critical to identifying the impact of the programme is the careful construction of a counterfactual and
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.