403
Stephen Devereux, Rachel Sabates-Wheeler, Mulugeta Tefera, and Hailemichael Taye, “Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme— Trends in PSNP Transfers within Targeted Households: Final Report” (Sussex, UK: Sussex University, Institute of Development Studies, 2006).
Targeting assessment and impact • PSNP is well targeted. Households that receive direct support from the PSNP have lower average income and asset values, and owned and cultivated less land, than households participating in PSNP public works. • PSNP recipients of cash wages report higher current asset values to “food only” and mixed “food plus cash” beneficiaries. • PNSP beneficiaries have retained or increase their assets more than nonbeneficiaries. • 71% of nonbeneficiaries reported experiencing a food shortage but were excluded from the PSNP. This indicates that the coverage of the PSNP is limited in relation to the level of need.
Quantitative methods: • Household survey covering about 1,000 households. • Community and market surveys. Qualitative methods: • Interviews.
Quantitative methods: Impact of PSNP on food security Daniel Gilligan, John • For households that received at least half of the amount of transfers it should have • Propensity score matching (PSM) Hoddinott, and using data from 2006 survey. In received, the study finds that PSNP improves two measures of household food Alemayehu PSM a probit model predicts the security: it reduces the likelihood of a household having a very low caloric intake SeyoumTaffesse, “The probability of each household and it increases mean calorie availability. Impact of Ethiopia’s receiving the PSNP as a function • For households that received any payment for undertaking work on PSNPProductive Safety Net of observed household and comsupported public works and also received any component of the OFSP, the study Programme and Its munity characteristics using a finds that these households are more likely to be food secure, and more likely to Linkages,” IFPRI Discussion sample of PSNP beneficiaries and borrow for productive purposes, use improved agricultural technologies, and Paper 00839 (Washington, nonbeneficiaries. operate nonfarm own business activities. DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2008).