Table of Content s5

Table of Content

1. SHOCKS & COPING

2. NETWORK & TRUST

3. COLLECTIVE ACTION

SHOCKS & COPING

Survey shocks, as in 03/19/10 version of the questionnaire, plus coping strategy. I borrow a lot from the ERHS survey (IFPRI) which was prepared using a lot of local information.

In addition, participation in the public work program of the safety net intervention might be good (cf. ERHS, surveyed in coping, network and trust section). What do you guys think?

- Coping & what did the shocks result in: Dercon & Hoddinot did not distinguish these 2 things. I think trying to tease them out is not realistic. I suggest we remove the general coping question, as they did, but add one on whether they could rely on networks (family, saving groups, coop, church/mosque/cultural associations, farmers association, mehabir, iddir) for help. Could also add what type of support they received.

CODES FOR SECTION:

CODES Q.5: How widespread was shock? / CODES Q.6: What did these shocks result in / CODES Q.8: Could you rely on your relatives or associations you are a member of for help?
1. Only affected my household / 1. Loss of productive assets / 1. Relatives
2. Affected some households in this village / 2. Loss of household income / 2. Saving & Loan group
3. Affected most households in this village / 3. Reduction in household consumption / 3. Cooperative
4. Affected this village and other villages nearby / 4. Asset & income loss / 4. Farmers Association
5. Affected areas beyond this kebele. / 5. Asset loss & reduced consumption / 5. Church/Mosque association
6. Income loss & reduced consumption / 6. Sports/cultural association
7. Asset, income loss & reduced consumption / 7. LOCAL GROUPS TYPE IDDIR (ADD see below codes for group TB Developed)
9. Other effects not listed / 8. Other (please define)

Codes for Q.6: Let’s rely on the above (from ERHS) and add if we think it is necessary.

I moved the migration question out of the coping/consequences categories, because it’s pretty drastic and also may not be just coping to get remittances but that the area was super flooded, etc – forced displacement. So I preferred to move it and ask if they migrated as a coping strategy, e.g. to find work.

NETWORKS AND TRUST

Here I really found the IFPRI-ERHS to be the best instrument on networks that doesn’t veer onto the exhaustive network survey type led by Fafchamps and co.

- Is this too much on networks? It would if we were analyzing an existing institution and the role of networks in maintaining good coordination across members: instead, we’re trying to design one, and for this to understand the underlying mechanisms that underlie current CPR management. This is complicated to survey; a good way to make the instrument easier on farmers is too limit the number of CPRs to a minimum (they can only pick one/two in the list, and not provide an exhaustive list).

o Bandiera & Rasul (2006) or even Udry (pineapples) use a much simpler version of networks to link social learning to adoption patterns (whom do you know who’s adopted, how many of these people are part of your network)

That’s not valid for our purpose because we don’t care about who talks to whom as much as we care about the type of interactions they have (do they rely on each other, in which case deviating from coordination equilibrium is very costly in the medium run; do they monitor each other heavily; do they rely on shamming free riders as a credible punishment?)

CODES FOR SECTION:

CODES FOR TYPES OF GROUPS / Q.9: Do you have any other business relation with this person?
1. 1. Cooperative /

1. MONEY LENDING OR BORROWING

2. Farmers association /

2. WAGE WORK (HIRED IN OR OUT)

3. Saving & Loan group /

3. CROP BUYING OR SELLING

4. Church/Mosque association / 4. SHARECROPPING or LAND RENTING
5. Sportive/Cultural association / 5. OXEN-SHARING ARRANGEMENT
6. Iddir / 6. SHARE A PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE
7. Mehabir / 7. OTHER
8. Iqqub / > ADD MORE DURING PILOT PHASE
9. Labor Sharing Group
888. OTHERS (please specify)
> ADD MORE DURING PILOT PHASE

COLLECTIVE ACTION & CPR

General note: the questions asked on CPR and Group management are very similar, but I thought splitting would be less confusing to the respondents.

1. COLLECTIVE ACTION

· Groups: Survey affiliation to and knowledge of farmers associations, labor sharing group, savings & loans group, cooperatives, religious centers (church and mosque), other cultural groups, as well as the size of these groups. Amare will work with team to develop a list of the local groups (type iddir, mehabir, iqqub, etc) then revise the entire module to add these groups (in the network section as well, cf. CODE GROUPS in above sub-section).

Definition and framing of Q.1 needs work (what type of groups are we referring to? Not clear here)

Perhaps after we identify groups most present in the pilot, one could impose 1 or 2 types of groups of interest (as Dercon and Hoddinot did one, the iddir) – we then have a good sense of what that group does, and no variations in the type of groups which might get messy…

CODES FOR THIS SECTION

CODES FOR TYPES OF GROUPS /

CODE Q.3: Where are the members of the group located?

CODE Q.5: When do you contribute?

2. 1. Cooperative /

1. Same village only

1. REGULAR CONTRIBUTIONS (MONTHLY, WEEKLY, …)

2. Farmers association /

2. Some in same village, some in same kebele

2. WHEN DAMAGE NEEDS FIXING

3. Saving & Loan group /

3. Some in same village, some in another Kebele

3. REGULAR CONTRIBUTIONS PLUS EXTRA WHEN DAMAGE OCCURS

4. Church/Mosque association /

4. None in same village, some in same Kebele

4. DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE

5. Sportive/Cultural association /

5. None in same village, some in another Kebele

/ 5. OTHER (SPECIFY)______
6. Iddir / 6. Other (SPECIFY)
7. Mehabir
8. Iqqub
9. Labor Sharing Group
888. OTHERS (please specify)
> ADD MORE DURING PILOT PHASE / > ADD MORE DURING PILOT PHASE
Q.9: Is someone doesn’t contribute, what are the consequences? / Q.9 Group’s membership restrictions? / Q10 (last) Why do you not belong to such a group?
3. 1.Banned from sharing the resource in the future /

1. ONLY MEMBERS OF THE village

1. NO NEED

2.Needs to pay fine before can use the resource again /

2. ONLY MEMBERS OF THE SAME CLAN

2. CANNOT AFFORD TO JOIN

3. Becomes excluded from the social life in the community /

3. ONLY MEMBERS BELONGING TO CHURCH/MOSQUE

3. NOT ALLOWED TO JOIN

4. Is made to give up his land /

4. ONLY MEMBERS OF SAME ETHNICITY

4. OTHER ______

5. ONLY YOUTH

6. ONLY WOMEN

888. OTHER (SPECIFY) /

7. Only Men

888. OTHERS (SPECIFY)
> ADD MORE DURING PILOT PHASE / > ADD MORE DURING PILOT PHASE

2. Some in same village, some in same kebele

3. None in same village, some in same kebele

2. COMMON POOL RESOURCES

· Existing Common Pool Resources (CPRs): Survey existence of CPRs within the village and the groups surveyed above (e.g. communal land for grazing or cultivation, production tool such as pump or mill, micro dam/artificial fishing pond type micro dam, borehole or protected water source, etc).

Amare will work with the local team to develop a list of codes of the most plausible CPRs.

Feedback appreciated on how to frame the question and provide a simple definition of a CPR

Again, the idea is not to survey them exhaustively, but to get a sense of how some of them are managed.

The questionnaire asks simple questions about the management of these resources. I used some of the Dercon questions on Iddirs and also some examples from Ostrom (which I am still reading, some more might come…). Let’s think more about this together as we move forward with the questionnaire development.

CODES FOR THIS SECTION

TYPES OF COMMON POOL RESOURCES /

CODE Q.5: When do you contribute?

/ Q.8: If someone doesn’t contribute, what are the consequences?
1. Grazing land /

1. REGULAR CONTRIBUTIONS (MONTHLY, WEEKLY, …)

/ 4. 1.Banned from sharing the resource in the future
2. Arable, cultivated land /