Social capital, agricultural innovation and the evaluation of agricultural development initiatives

194 Pages·2014·1.27 MB·English

Social capital, agricultural innovation and
the evaluation of agricultural development
initiatives

Fédes C. van Rijn
Thesis committee

Promotor
Prof. Dr E.H. Bulte
Professor of Development Economics Group
Wageningen University

Co-promotor
Dr M.M. van de Berg
Assistant professor, Development Economics Group
Wageningen University

Other members
Prof. Dr C. Leeuwis, Wageningen University
Dr J.H.M. Peerlings, Wageningen University
Prof. Dr D.P van Soest, Tilburg University
Dr H. De Groote, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center,
Nairobi, Kenya

This research was conducted under the auspices of the Wageningen School of
Social Science (WASS).
Social capital, agricultural innovation and
the evaluation of agricultural development
initiatives

Fédes C. van Rijn

Thesis
submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor
at Wageningen University
by the authority of the Rector Magnificus
Prof. Dr M.J. Kropff,
in the presence of the
Thesis Committee appointed by the Academic Board
to be defended in public
on Wednesday 14 May 2014
at 1:30 p.m. in the Aula.
Fédes C. van Rijn
Social capital, agricultural innovation and the evaluation of agricultural
development initiatives, 190 pages.

PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, NL (2014)
With references, with summaries in Dutch and English

ISBN 978-90-6173-909-4

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Social capital, agricultural innovation and development initiatives 9
Chapter 3 Social capital and agricultural innovation in Sub Saharan Africa 19
Chapter 4 The impact of agricultural extension services on social capital: an 43
application to the Sub-Saharan African Challenge Program in Lake
Kivu region
Chapter 5 Implementation of the IAR4D approach matters: A research on the 71
difference in impact of decentralized innovation systems in Africa
Chapter 6 Opening the black box of Social Capital: trust and group membership 91
in the Lake Kivu Region
Chapter 7 Trust and sustainable coffee projects: the relation between producers’ 119
trust and the uptake of training practices in sustainable coffee projects in
Vietnam
Chapter 8 Conclusion 147
References 159
Summary 173
Samenvatting 177
Acknowledgement 181

1
Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background
Agricultural development is considered an important, if not necessary, condition for alleviating
poverty around the world (e.g. Duflo and Kremer 2005; World Bank 2007; De Janvry 2010;
Diao et al. 2010; Christiaensen et al. 2011: 486). An estimated 75% of the world’s poor live in
rural areas and depend on agricultural or related activities for their livelihoods (World Bank
2007). Moreover, the agricultural sector is the backbone of many developing economies. In
2012, agriculture provided 30% of GDP in low income countries (World Bank 2012).
Considering the important contribution of small-scale producers to this sector, growth in GDP
from the agricultural sector might be more pro-poor than growth in other sectors. In fact,
Christiaensen et al. (2011) show that growth in agriculture is especially favourable for the
poorest of the poor.
Despite the importance of agriculture, Official Development Aid (ODA) invested in
agriculture has decreased dramatically since 1980. This change was mainly inspired by the “dual
economy” models where the development of the agriculture sector is viewed to come at the
cost of the development of a more productive, progressive and dynamic industrial sector
(Christiaensen et al. 2011). However, after the turn of the century agriculture was brought back
on the development agenda.
This increased interest in agriculture was mainly inspired by the increasing pressure
on the agricultural sector for increased food quantity and quality (Godfray et al. 2010). In fact,
in 2009 the G8 member nations agreed that the decrease in ODA investment in the
agricultural sector had to be reversed in order to address the persistence of food insecurity.
Even though official ODA spending is still lower than in the 1980s, the share of ODA spent
on agriculture has begun to increase again in 2007, as did the absolute share of government
spending in developing countries (Lowder et al. 2012). Consequently many development
agencies invest their resources in the agricultural sector.
Parallel to the revived investment in agriculture has been an increased interest in
measuring the impact of these investments, and of development aid more generally (Duflo and
Kremer 2005; Deaton 2009; De Janvry 2010). Two of the most apparent reasons why impact
2 | Chapter 1
evaluation takes place is to account for resources used and to generate knowledge to improve
the design and implementation of future programs (Mackay and Horton 2003). The literature
contains several suggestions to improve not only the quality of impact assessment but also its
usefulness in practice. First, more attention should be paid to differences in impact across
different groups and to gain insight into what determines these differences in impact (Deaton
2009). Second, impact evaluation should more explicitly state the pathways through which
impact is to be expected (Mackay and Horton 2003). Stating such impact pathways helps
forming beliefs about causal linkages between inputs, outputs and impacts, and the
mechanisms linking them. The mechanisms of impact can be adapted to other situations rather
than the exact outputs, outcomes or impacts as such (Hawkins et al. 2008; Deaton 2009).
Third, more attention should be given to address the institutional context in which
development initiatives are implemented (e.g. Mackay and Horton 2003; Raina 2003). This is in
line with the large literature that identifies institutions as a key factor in development (North
1990; Williamson 2000; Rodrik et al. 2004). Finally, impact should not be attributed to
individual agents, but rather to the characteristics of the network of agents involved (Ekboir
2003). This especially applies to initiatives that focus on agricultural development and
innovation. Therefore, to improve the quality and usefulness of impact assessment for
development interventions, it should be realized that impact results from a combination of the
mechanisms, the institutional context and the agents involved.
One of the factors that can be used to capture this complexity in impact evaluation is
social capital. Intuitively, social capital can be understood by the idea that the people around
you are an important asset that can be “called upon in a crisis, enjoyed for its own sake, and/or
leveraged for material gain” (Woolcock 2010). A large literature identifies social capital as a
factor conducive to growth and development at macro and micro level (Knack and Keefer
1997; Narayan and Pritchett 1999; Zak and Knack 2001; Fafchamps and Minten 2002;
Grootaert and Bastelaer 2002; Isham 2002; Karlan 2005; Ahlerup et al. 2009; Baliamoune-Lutz
and Mavrotas 2009).
From an early stage, social capital theory has been criticized for being an elusive
concept without clear guidelines for measurement (e.g. Mansuri and Rao 2004; Durlauf and
Fafchamps 2005; Poder 2011). Robison et al. (2002) conclude that many of these criticisms
arise from the fact that scientist have mixed up social capital with what it determines, where it
resides or what it can be used for. In “The rise and routinization of Social Capital, 1988-2008”
Woolcock (2010) argues that these criticisms might be inherent to the concept and we should