48 lines
2.8 KiB
YAML
48 lines
2.8 KiB
YAML
|
author: Adam, C., Bevan, D., & Gollin, D.
|
||
|
|
year: 2018
|
||
|
|
title: "Rural-urban linkages, public investment and transport costs: The case of tanzania"
|
||
|
|
publisher: World Development
|
||
|
|
uri: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.013
|
||
|
|
discipline: development
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
country: Tanzania
|
||
|
|
period: 2001
|
||
|
|
maxlength:
|
||
|
|
targeting: explicit
|
||
|
|
group: rural workers
|
||
|
|
data: national Tanzania Social Accounting Matrix (SAM, 2001); national administrative survey Integrated Labor Force Survey (2001), Tanzania Agricultural Sample Census (2003)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
design: quasi-experimental
|
||
|
|
method: general equilibrium model
|
||
|
|
sample: 7
|
||
|
|
unit: household
|
||
|
|
representativeness: subnational, rural
|
||
|
|
causal: 1 # 0 correlation / 1 causal
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
theory: transport cost burden approach
|
||
|
|
limitations: can not account for population change (e.g. pop growth); causality based on model only
|
||
|
|
observation:
|
||
|
|
- intervention: infrastructure
|
||
|
|
institutional: 0
|
||
|
|
structural: 1
|
||
|
|
agency: 0
|
||
|
|
inequality: spatial; income
|
||
|
|
type: 1 # 0 vertical / 1 horizontal
|
||
|
|
indicator: 1 # 0 absolute / 1 relative
|
||
|
|
measures: income; consumption
|
||
|
|
findings: results depend on financing scheme, each financing scheme entails some households being worse off; rural households worse off when infrastructure is deficit-financed or paid through tariff revenue; rural households benefit most when financed through consumption taxes or by external aid
|
||
|
|
channels: movement of rural workers out of quasi-subsistence agriculture to other locations and sectors
|
||
|
|
direction: 1 # 0 neg / 1 pos
|
||
|
|
significance: 2 # 0 nsg / 1 msg / 2 sg
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
notes: there can be spatial differences to how connected regions within a country are to markets purely due to transport costs
|
||
|
|
annotation: |
|
||
|
|
A study modeling the effects of transport infrastructure investments in Tanzania on rural income inequalities and household welfare inequalities, modeled through consumption indicators.
|
||
|
|
Generally it finds that the results of public investment measures into transport infrastructure largely depend on the financing scheme used.
|
||
|
|
Comparing four financing schemes when looking at the effects on rural households, it finds that they are generally worse off when the development is deficit-financed or paid through tariff revenues.
|
||
|
|
On the other hand, rural households benefit through increased income from measures financed through consumption taxes, or by external aid.
|
||
|
|
The general finding is that there is no pareto optimum for any of the investment measures for all locations,
|
||
|
|
and that much of the increases in welfare are based on movement of rural workers out of quasi-subsistence agriculture to other locations and other sectors.
|
||
|
|
The study creates causal inferences but is limited in its modeling approach representing a limited subset of empirical possibility spaces,
|
||
|
|
as well as having to make the assumption of no population growth for measures to hold.
|