Do Different Implementing Partnerships Lead to Different Project Outcomes? Evidence from the World Bank Project-Level Evaluation Data

Shin, Wonkyu; Kim, Young-Wan; Sohn, Hyuk-Sang

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.033

Cited by 36 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results corroborate with previous findings regarding economic benefits of interventions in QPM (Gunaratna, Groote, Nestel, Pixley, & McCabe, ), OFSP (Cole et al, ), biofortified iron beans (Murekezi et al, ), bananas (Shimwela et al, ), crop‐livestock integration (Mottet et al, ), improved livestock breeds (Argent et al, ) and farmer capacity building (Davis et al, ) to sync sowing time with rainfall (Mottet et al, ), investments in sustainable soil and water management (Shikuku et al, ) and greater participation of non‐state actors (Shin et al, ).…”

Section: Conclusion and Policy Recommendationssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Common issues affecting multiple countries such as limitations in agriculture technology, human capacity, cross border biosafety, market access, agriculture policy and response to climate change can be best tackled by deploying a regional approach for enhanced shared prosperity (Ferede et al, ). Greater benefits and synergies are possible through a regional focus on agricultural research for development (World Bank, ), partnerships that involve host governments and non‐state actors (Orenstein & Shach‐Pinsley, ; Shin, Kim, & Sohn, ), and sustainable intensification in agriculture for shared prosperity (Ahlerup, Baskaran, & Bigsten, ; Rockström et al, ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…benefits and synergies are possible through a regional focus on agricultural research for development (World Bank, 2008), partnerships that involve host governments and non-state actors (Orenstein & Shach-Pinsley, 2017;Shin, Kim, & Sohn, 2017), and sustainable intensification in agriculture for shared prosperity (Ahlerup, Baskaran, & Bigsten, 2017;Rockström et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of the available evaluations include: "Health of people and environment in the Lake Victoria Basin Project in Uganda and Kenya" (Ghiron et al, 2014), "Gender, assets and agricultural development: lessons from eight projects" in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, India and Bangladesh (Johnson, Kovarik, Meinzen-Dick, Njuki, & Quisumbing, 2016), "Do different implementing partnerships lead to different project outcomes? Evidence from the World Bank project-level evaluation data" (Shin et al, 2017), and "Policy misfits, climate change and cross-scale vulnerability: how development projects undermine resilience in Tanzania and Mozambique" (Bunce, Brown, & Rosendo, 2010). Yet, impact evaluations are rare for regional agricultural projects, particularly those implemented across multiple neighboring countries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sustainable development in East Africa: impact evaluation of regional agricultural development projects in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda

Warinda

Nyariki

Wambua

et al. 2020

Natural Resources Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investments in agricultural technologies, capacity building and policy harmonization are needed to support sustainable development across Africa. Regional development projects can facilitate the adoption of agricultural technologies and innovations across nation‐state borders and generate benefits for shared prosperity. This paper uses panel data from 1,160 smallholder households including beneficiaries and non‐beneficiaries from five countries in East Africa ‐ Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. From a pool of over 90 projects implemented over a span of 15 years, 23 regional projects are included in this study. The major economic benefits to smallholder participants are higher crop productivity and income, access to adaptable technologies, access to markets, higher livestock and milk production, gender equality, enhanced food security, resilience and capacity building for uptake and scaling up of future innovation platforms. For example, the adoption of low‐cost tissue culture banana by the beneficiaries increased their incomes by 15% in Rwanda while the adoption of appropriate land and water management technologies increased the potato yields from 2.8 tons (USD 2,840/ha) to over 7.5 tons (USD 7,410/ha) in Kenya. The beneficiaries ensured value added to commodities like bananas (for export) and orange‐fleshed sweet potatoes (a nutrition‐sensitive intervention for enhancing domestic intake of vitamin A) in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. Additionally, milk production increased from 6 to 11 L per cow per day in Uganda and from 6 to 8 L per cow per day in Tanzania, with increases in sales generating USD 115 per cow per month above the non‐beneficiaries. These results are supported by previous studies on technology adoption, investments in agriculture and well‐being outcomes. Our findings with the higher farm income Difference‐in‐Differences (DiD) estimator for the female beneficiaries compared to male beneficiaries might have important implications for investing in regional development projects that will close the gender gap in agricultural productivity in Africa. Regional projects can also support post‐conflict development efforts for food security and peace in fragile contexts such as in Burundi. Our findings might serve as an input to the African Union's Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme, localization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals related to food security and agriculture in Africa and an input to monitoring, evaluation and learning.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Policy Recommendationssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sustainable development in East Africa: impact evaluation of regional agricultural development projects in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda

Warinda

Nyariki

Wambua

et al. 2020

Natural Resources Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In all of the regressions reported in Table 3, total project size is a positive predictor of the project ratings. Denizer et al (2013) find the opposite result, that larger projects receive less positive ratings, whereas Shin et al (2017) report a similar finding as here, that larger projects are more highly rated. Denizer et al (2013) study a much larger set of projects, going further back in history, whereas Shin et al (2017) study projects from a time period similar to the one studied here.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 70%

Too many cooks in the kitchen? The division of financing in World Bank projects and project performance

Matthew¹

2019

WIDER Working Paper

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The total funding envelope for World Bank projects is often divided among various state and non-state actors, each of which can have competing ideas about or interests in the project. How does the division of financing relate to overall project effectiveness? I argue that too many funding streams in a project can reduce project effectiveness by creating delays, increasing transaction costs, and blurring lines of accountability. I combine original data on the number and concentration of financial collaborators in World Bank projects with the World Bank's ratings of project performance, looking at within-country variation across projects to explore whether or not there is evidence of reduced aid effectiveness in projects with more participants. The results suggest that projects with significant cofinancing receive somewhat worse project ratings.

show abstract

Using foreign aid contracts to pursue participatory approaches to development within large foreign aid agencies

Harris

2023

Public Admin & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participatory development has become, ‘development orthodoxy’, receiving widespread proclamations of support from foreign aid agencies. Participatory development engages international development beneficiaries in making decisions about project activity selection and design. Yet, many foreign aid donors deliver project assistance through top‐down, highly controlled systems that may constrain the flexibility needed to delegate decision‐making power to project beneficiaries. This paper explores whether and under which conditions these foreign aid agencies delegate decision‐making power to project beneficiaries, focusing on the key mechanism for delivering foreign aid: government contracts. The analysis relies on a novel dataset of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) projects that incorporates contract specifications for beneficiary decision‐making during project implementation. Despite an expectation that delivery system constraints would prohibitively exclude contract specifications for beneficiary decision‐making, donors are found to commonly use contracts to delegate decision‐making power to beneficiaries, but within pre‐determined parameters. The results suggest that USAID is using contract specifications to engage in bounded delegation, providing some decision‐making power to beneficiaries, but using boundaries to ensure the right ‘fit’ with institutional goals and constraints. By focusing on contract specifications and variation within these specifications, this study identifies widespread use of a ‘middle ground’ in how donors motivate participatory development.

show abstract

Do Different Implementing Partnerships Lead to Different Project Outcomes? Evidence from the World Bank Project-Level Evaluation Data

Cited by 36 publications

References 30 publications

Sustainable development in East Africa: impact evaluation of regional agricultural development projects in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda

Sustainable development in East Africa: impact evaluation of regional agricultural development projects in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda

Too many cooks in the kitchen? The division of financing in World Bank projects and project performance

Using foreign aid contracts to pursue participatory approaches to development within large foreign aid agencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About