citation: Adam2018
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
pubtype: article
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: simulation
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: 0 # 0 absolute / 1 relative
    measures: real consumption wage differences
    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
    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.