PNPM Incidence of Benefit Study:

Transcription

1 PNPM Incidence of Benefit Study: Overview findings from the Household Social Economic Survey 2012 (SUSETI) Background PNPM-Rural programs for public infrastructure and access to credit have attempted to foster a more participatory, transparent and accountable decision-making processes for the use of community-level development funds. Recent quantitative research on the impact of PNPM-Rural has demonstrated positive impacts on key household welfare indicators such as consumption per capita, transition out of poverty and access to health and education services. While these findings indicate an average overall positive benefit among households residing in kecamatan receiving PNPM, they do not detail how these benefits are distributed within communities. Qualitative research on PNPM has investigated the perception of benefits from the program, showing that the needs and the interests of the poor with respect to PNPM infrastructure projects are sometimes in conflict with the interests of the local community. In areas where infrastructure gaps exist, the preferences of the poor over PNPM programs are largely aligned with communal interests to address such gaps. However, in villages where sufficient infrastructure is already available, the preferences of the poor tend to differ from those of the rest of the community. While the poor typically support standard roads/bridges/irrigation projects, which occupy about 70% of all block grant funds under PNPM, communal proposals often opt for skill and capacity building for employment, or for health/education service delivery. Moreover, the findings show that PNPM activities are frequently not perceived as poverty reduction programs: rather, PNPM is perceived as being targeted at the whole community, sometimes in counterbalance to household-based poverty programs. The findings above have significant potential with respect to the future impacts and targeting of PNPM. For instance, if the program were more effective in certain contexts such as in kecamatan with low levels of existing infrastructure, it could be targeted more heavily at those areas. However, the small sample size of these qualitative studies limits their generalizability. Objectives and methodology The Incidence of Benefit Study looks at patterns of benefit perception and targeting of PNPM using a large sample quantitative approach. In so doing, it aims to test the validity of the aforementioned qualitative results and to provide a more detailed understanding of the research question. This report presents the results of the Household Social Economic Survey (SUSETI), a survey fielded for the Incidence of Benefit Study in 2012 to assess the effectiveness of PNPM programs and to allow a more comprehensive investigation of the distribution of PNPM benefits in each community. The survey covers 600 villages (located in 3 provinces, 6 kabupaten, and 63 kecamatan) that were target by PNPM activities. While the survey consists of a household survey and a survey of government community organizations (Rukun Warga, Rukun Tetangga,

2 Villages), only results for the household survey are reported and analyzed in this overview report. Respondents include household heads, spouses of household heads, and other household members aged at least 18. Ten households were selected randomly in each village for the survey. The survey was implemented by Survey Meter and funded by the PNPM Support Facility (PSF). For the purpose of this report, the survey questions can be grouped into five categories. The first asks respondents about their awareness of PNPM programs and their participation in PNPM meetings; opinions on whether PNPM is useful in alleviating poverty are also surveyed. In the second group, households are asked whether they have benefited, in general, from PNPM programs. Groups three and four allow a more detailed analysis of perceived benefits of PNPM, as questions ask specifically about different kinds of activities (infrastructure vs. economic programs), and about what social groups are deemed to have benefited the most from such programs. Finally, the fifth group of questions invites respondents to express their opinions on whether PNPM programs match the needs of the local community as a whole, and to mention what exactly PNPM benefits entail, both for infrastructure and economic activities. 1. Awareness of PNPM and attendance to PNPM meetings At the beginning of the survey, respondents are asked about their awareness of PNPM activities and their participation to PNPM meetings. The survey data show that, although PNPM projects are known to most households in beneficiary communities, a considerable share of respondents is not aware of PNPM projects: an average of 67.25% of respondents reports knowing about PNPM, while the remaining 32.75% does not. The fairly low awareness rates, however, may result from how this question was formulated, as enumerators only mentioned the PNPM name to measure awareness, without any references to specific projects implemented in the respondent s community. As the next section shows, although surveyed households may not respond to PNPM as a name, they may still be aware of specific PNPM programs. As for attendance to PNPM meetings, participation rates are substantially lower, with only 26.26% of households reporting that they have attended meetings. Figure 1 below charts the breakdown of these results by consumption quintiles. Surveyed households were divided into five consumption categories based on their monthly per capita expenditure, which ranged from an average of Rp. 223,262 for the first quintile to Rp. 1,137,247 for the fifth. The graph shows that both awareness of PNPM and participation to PNPM meetings increase dramatically and monotonically over consumption groups. While only 56% of households in the poorest quintile report knowing about PNPM, in the richest quintile the percentage increases to 81%. Following a similar pattern, participation rates almost double from 18% in the first quintile to 34% in the fifth.

3 Figure 1. Awareness of PNPM and a endance to PNPM mee ngs 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% % of Household respondents who know PNPM % of Households who a ended PNPM mee ngs 0% Consump on The survey also collects more fine-grained data about the determinants of participation, or lack thereof, to PNPM meetings. As the figures reported in Table 1 below suggest, the single most important factor that foster participation is being informed about, and invited to, PNPM meetings. Not being informed or invited is by far the most decisive factor for lack participation, mentioned by more than 37% of surveyed households. Another important factor, mentioned by an average of 5.56% households, is lack of time. As for the determinants correlated with attendance, simply being invited to attend is the reason for participation for an average of about 21% of the surveyed households. Additional frequently reported reasons include proposing projects (5.17%), gathering additional information about PNPM (7.36%), and supporting specific proposals (3.80%) Table 1. Reasons for attending and not attending PNPM meetings Reason attended in PNPM meetings Average Invited 20.96% 13.47% 18.66% 19.96% 23.24% 29.46% To propose a project 5.17% 2.73% 3.43% 4.57% 6.07% 9.06% Applying to be beneficiary 3.06% 1.76% 2.99% 2.99% 3.96% 3.61% Supporting one of the proposal 3.80% 1.94% 2.99% 3.69% 3.26% 7.12% Gathering more information 7.36% 5.19% 5.72% 6.68% 8.71% 10.47% Complaint 2.16% 1.23% 1.85% 1.76% 2.55% 3.43% Had to attend in regular meeting 3.70% 2.46% 3.35% 3.17% 3.70% 5.80% Participated since the planning process 3.08% 1.50% 2.20% 2.20% 2.73% 6.77% To get aid distribution 0.74% 0.88% 0.79% 0.79% 0.62% 0.62% Reason not to attend in PNPM meetings Average Not invited/informed 37.35% 34.95% 35.39% 36.94% 37.68% 41.78% Had no time/busy 5.65% 4.67% 3.52% 5.28% 6.25% 8.53% Represented by other household member 0.79% 0.88% 0.97% 0.62% 0.97% 0.53% The meeting is for men only 0.16% 0.00% 0.35% 0.18% 0.18% 0.09% The meeting is for women only 0.12% 0.26% 0.09% 0.18% 0.00% 0.09% The meeting is only for elites 2.43% 1.94% 2.02% 2.46% 2.90% 2.81% Finally, Figure 2 plots the results of a question for households who attended PNPM meetings. When asked if they benefited from attending meetings, about 98% of the respondents answered

4 affirmatively. Acquiring information about the program was the main benefit for 69% of the participants, while 24% mentioned that they had an opportunity to get aid or funds, and 5% reported that they benefited from networking with other participants. Figure 2. Benefits of a ending PNPM mee ngs Networking 5% No Benefit 2% Opportunity to get the aid/fund 24% Informa on about the program 69% A related question asks if respondents agree that PNPM is a program that could alleviate poverty. An average of only about 52% of surveyed households sees PNPM as a poverty alleviation program, a figure that compares with values well over 95% for poverty alleviation programs targeting households directly such as BLT, Askeskin and Raskin. 2. PNPM benefits and differences across consumption quintiles One of the goals of the survey is to identify how the benefits of PNPM activities are distributed across consumption/income groups. The first question that captures distributive patterns asks respondents whether their household benefited from PNPM. The average of respondents reporting that they benefited is very high at 92.41%, suggesting that the benefits of PNPM activities are broadly distributed. The share of households acknowledging benefits is thus much higher than the percentage reporting awareness of PNPM: this discrepancy is due to the fact that, while the awareness question only mentions PNPM as a name, in the question about benefits respondents were pointed to specific PNPM programs that took place in their community. Figure 3 below shows the average values of responses to this question across the five consumption percentiles. Differences among groups are not as marked as they are for awareness and participation, but the share of households reporting having benefited from PNPM still increases in higher consumption quintiles, growing from an average of about 89% for the poorest group to about 95% for the richest.

5 Figure 3.Perceived PNPM benefits 5 Consump on Yes No 1 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% % Households repor ng having received benefits from PNPM 3. PNPM benefits by activity The survey distinguishes between two main kinds of PNPM activities, namely infrastructure and economic activities, and asks respondents about benefits received from such activities in two separate questions. Figure 4 reports the answers about the distribution of PNPM benefits over consumption quintiles for the two activity groups. Two observations can be drawn. First, values for infrastructure activities are much higher across the board: while only about 39% of surveyed households reports receiving benefits from economic activities, the same figure for infrastructure activities is 76%. Second, while the distribution across quintiles for infrastructure activities mirrors the aggregate pattern outlined in the previous section, with richer households being more likely to report benefiting, the same does not apply to economic activities. As the chart shows, there are no substantial differences across quintile in perceived benefits for economic activities, as reported benefits rates are very similar (around 40%) for quintiles 2 to 5 and lower for the poorest quintile (34%).

6 Figure 4. PNPM benefits by ac vity 90% 80% % Households repor ng benefits 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Infrastructure ac vi es Economic ac vi es 10% 0% Consump on s Figures 5 and 6 plot data for survey questions asking what specific aspects of infrastructure and economic activities benefited respondent households. In Figure 5, results for infrastructure activities are shown: the area in which such activities are most beneficial is in improving road conditions, a benefit perceived by 93% of respondents. Better drainage systems and improved landslide prevention are also frequently mentioned as benefits of infrastructure activities, with values above 70% for almost all consumption quintiles. The record for improvements in sanitation is more mixed, as only 51% of respondents report observing benefits.

7 Figure 6 charts the same question for economic activities. As expected, the percentages of household reporting benefits from PNPM tend to be lower in this category than for infrastructure activities, as values of perceived benefits are consistently below 30% for all items. The plotted lines show that improved access to capital, with an average of about 25%, is acknowledged as the main benefit in this area in all consumption quintiles, especially for quintiles 2 to 5. As for the second most broadly perceived benefit, there are differences across consumption groups: while poorer households (quintiles 1 and 2) tend to perceive reductions in their daily needs and consumption expenditures as an important benefit of PNPM, better-off households emphasize in their answers improvements in business activities. Finally, only a small number of respondents noticed a reduction in their workload as a benefit of PNPM economic activities. 4. PNPM benefits for various social groups The survey includes a few questions asking respondents to indicate what social groups they think benefit the most from PNPM programs. Figure 7 uses a bar chart to visualize answers regarding infrastructure activities. There is a strong consensus among respondents of all social consumption quintiles that households living near the location of PNPM activities are the group that benefits the most, with values ranging from about 62% for respondents in the lowest consumption quintile to an average of 75% for the fifth quintile. A much smaller share of respondents (8.18%) sees school-aged children as benefiting the most form PNPM infrastructure activities, while values for other social groups are even more modest. Figure 8 reports averages of responses to the same question asked about economic activities. The charts show that benefits from economic activities are perceived as being distributed among a number of social groups, especially the poor (with an average of 21.64% of the respondents believing that they benefit the most), women (15.82%), the non-poor (10.44%), the community around the activity location (7.67%), and the very poor (6.99%). There also appear to be some

8 cross-quintile differences in perceptions of benefit distribution. For example, poorer households (quintiles 1 and 2) are more likely to identify women as a social group that benefits the most, while richer respondents (quintiles 4 and 5), mention the very poor more often than respondents in lower quintiles. Figure 7. Social groups benefi ng the most from infrastructure ac vi es Community around the ac vity loca on School-aged children 5th Women 4th Female-headed HH 3rd Non-poor HH 2nd Poor HH 1st Very poor HH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% % households saying that social group benefits the most Figure 8. Social groups benefi ng the most from economic ac vi es Community around the ac vity loca on School-aged children 5th Women 4th Female-headed HH 3rd Non-poor HH 2nd Poor HH 1st Very poor HH 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % households saying that social group benefits the most

9 5. PNPM and community needs Several questions in the survey ask respondent about their opinion on whether PNPM programs benefit the whole community. When asked if PNPM activities meet community needs, surveyed households largely agree, with about 80% of respondents answer affirmatively for infrastructure activities, and 89% responding affirmatively for economic activities. Figure 9 below plots the breakdown of results over consumption quintiles, showing some interesting patterns. First, economic activities receive higher scores than infrastructure activities in all consumption quintiles. Second, while support for economic activities is fairly constant across consumption groups, there appears to be a correlation between consumption quintile and opinions on infrastructure activities. Richer households are more likely to think that infrastructure activities meet community needs, as the average of respondents agreeing with this statement increases from about 76% in the first quintile to almost 87% in the fifth. Finally, while households in the richest consumption quintile believe that infrastructure and economic activities equally meet community needs (with average values of 86.81% and 87.68% respectively), a strong preference for economic activities emerges in lower consumption quintiles, especially in quintiles 1 and 2. For instance, while about 89% of respondents in the poorest quintile think that economic activities meet community needs, only 75.62% of them express the same view about infrastructure activities. 100% Figure 9. Do PNPM ac vi es meet community needs? % Households answering "Yes" 90% 80% 70% 60% Infrastructure ac vi es Economic ac vi es 50% Consump on s Table 2 reports information on questions in which respondents are invited to assess specific ways in which communities may benefit from infrastructure and economic activities. As the table shows, the main benefits associated with infrastructure activities are improvements in access to infrastructures (73.67%) and fulfillment of the main needs of the community (39.23%). For economic activities, new economic opportunities are by far the most widely perceived community benefit (78.77%), although many respondents (19.80%) mention poverty alleviation as an additional benefit. Variation across consumption quintiles is consistent with the patterns analyzed for Figure 9.

10 Table 2. PNPM activity benefits for the community, by type of activity and consumption quintile Benefits from PNPM infrastructure activities for the community Average Open up economy opportunity 11.47% 10.92% 10.56% 12.23% 11.53% 12.14% Improve access 73.67% 69.81% 69.98% 74.05% 75.53% 78.98% Fulfill main needs 39.23% 36.80% 36.44% 38.61% 38.29% 46.00% Help reduce poverty 7.53% 5.90% 5.72% 8.36% 8.27% 9.41% Benefits that community get from PNPM economic activities Average Open up economy opportunity 78.77% 74.69% 78.24% 79.93% 82.01% 78.99% Improve access 4.25% 4.12% 3.29% 4.97% 4.62% 4.27% Fulfill main needs 9.15% 11.93% 9.87% 9.77% 6.93% 7.27% Help reduce poverty 19.80% 19.96% 18.46% 23.45% 18.48% 18.64% Conclusions The main findings from this overview of findings report can be summarized as follows: There are very significant differences in awareness of PNPM and participation to PNPM across consumption quintiles. As being informed about PNPM and invited to meetings is by far the most important driver of participation, the gap between the rich and the poor most likely depends on how information about PNPM is disseminated rather than on factors more closely tied to income such as time and resources constraints. In aggregate figures, a very high share of surveyed households reports having benefited from PNPM. There are differences across consumption quintiles, as richer households are more likely than poorer households to report that they benefited from PNPM, but they are not as substantial as those for awareness and participation. In terms of the distribution of benefits within the community, an important distinction can be drawn between infrastructure and economic activities. First, infrastructure activities show consistently higher levels of perceived benefits than economic activities. Second, perceived benefits from economic activities appear to be independent from consumption quintiles. This suggests that cross-quintile differences observed in aggregate data are driven by perceived benefits of infrastructure activities. When asked what social groups benefit the most from PNPM infrastructure activities, most respondents identify households living in the proximity of the PNPM activity location. For economic activities, various social groups are mentioned, most notably the poor and women, and there are some differences across consumption quintiles. In all consumption quintiles, economic activities are perceived as addressing the needs of the local community better than infrastructure activities. This result appears to be in contrast with responses on household-level benefits, which show that infrastructure activities have consistently higher rates of perceived benefits than economic activities. Households in lower consumption quintiles are less likely to believe that infrastructure activities meet community needs. For this reason, the belief that economic activities are better at addressing community needs than infrastructure activity is stronger in lower than in higher consumption quintiles. The SUSETI dataset will be further analyzed to investigate key research questions in the Incidence of Benefits Study. Findings of such additional analysis will be reported separately.

11 Annex 1. Distribution of PNPM benefits for households based on consumption quintile Quintile Average HH got benefit from infrastructure activities of PNPM 76.13% 69.45% 71.83% 76.87% 78.79% 83.73% HH got benefit from infrastructure activities of PNPM a. Very poor HH 6.42% 5.90% 7.13% 5.19% 6.69% 7.21% b. Poor HH 11.03% 9.77% 10.56% 10.55% 12.59% 11.70% c. Non-poor HH 6.79% 6.78% 7.04% 6.51% 7.22% 6.42% d. Female-headed HH 0.93% 0.88% 0.53% 1.06% 0.97% 1.23% e. Women 1.80% 1.94% 1.50% 1.50% 2.02% 2.02% f. School-aged children 7.97% 7.92% 7.48% 7.83% 8.27% 8.36% g. Community around the activity location 42.13% 39.79% 38.03% 42.48% 42.61% 47.76% HH who benefit most from infrastructure activities a. Very poor HH 3.01% 2.55% 2.99% 2.64% 3.79% 3.08% b. Poor HH 4.93% 4.40% 4.49% 4.66% 5.02% 6.07% c. Non-poor HH 0.62% 1.14% 0.79% 0.79% 0.18% 0.18% d. Female-headed HH 0.04% 0.00% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% e. Women 0.91% 0.70% 1.14% 0.79% 1.14% 0.79% f. School-aged children 8.18% 7.57% 7.66% 8.27% 8.98% 8.44% g. Community around the activity location 67.60% 61.62% 62.50% 68.43% 70.16% 75.29% Benefit from infrastructure activities - Open up/improve access to transportation 66.00% 60.74% 63.03% 65.88% 68.49% 71.86% - Avoid flood/landslide 24.74% 22.62% 20.69% 26.03% 25.62% 28.76% - Cleaner environment 31.70% 26.76% 28.17% 31.40% 33.80% 38.35% - Easy access to sanitation 9.75% 7.75% 9.42% 10.47% 9.95% 11.17% - Become healthier 9.98% 8.80% 8.54% 11.08% 10.30% 11.17% - Reduce daily needs/consumption 3.89% 3.52% 3.52% 3.78% 4.31% 4.31% - Reduce workload 3.22% 2.90% 3.35% 3.69% 3.17% 2.99% - Improve business activities 4.84% 4.14% 4.05% 5.10% 5.19% 5.72% PNPM infrastructure activities met community needs 80.43% 75.62% 76.67% 80.83% 82.22% 86.81% Benefits from PNPM infrastructure activities for the community - Open up economy opportunity 11.47% 10.92% 10.56% 12.23% 11.53% 12.14%

12 - Improve access 73.67% 69.81% 69.98% 74.05% 75.53% 78.98% - Fulfill main needs 39.23% 36.80% 36.44% 38.61% 38.29% 46.00% - Help reduce poverty 7.53% 5.90% 5.72% 8.36% 8.27% 9.41% HH that got access 74.50% 68.31% 70.07% 74.93% 77.02% 82.15% Community that got access 74.59% 70.60% 71.13% 74.93% 76.50% 79.77% HH got benefit from economic activities of PNPM 38.63% 34.16% 40.40% 38.19% 40.92% 39.49% HH got benefit from economic activities of PNPM a. Very poor HH 20.07% 19.55% 18.65% 19.36% 21.78% 21.01% b. Poor HH 43.36% 43.62% 42.41% 43.87% 45.05% 41.86% c. Non-poor HH 34.64% 38.68% 35.65% 34.81% 35.64% 28.44% d. Female-headed HH 5.71% 7.61% 5.48% 6.22% 5.45% 3.79% e. Women 23.88% 27.78% 26.51% 23.09% 21.78% 20.22% f. School-aged children 0.36% 0.62% 0.18% 0.36% 0.17% 0.47% g. Community around the activity location 8.76% 8.85% 10.42% 6.93% 8.75% 8.85% HH who benefit most from economic activities of PNPM a. Very poor HH 6.99% 5.35% 5.85% 5.68% 9.24% 8.85% b. Poor HH 21.64% 21.19% 20.48% 23.45% 21.12% 21.96% c. Non-poor HH 10.44% 12.14% 10.24% 11.90% 9.57% 8.37% d. Female-headed HH 1.89% 1.65% 1.65% 1.95% 2.64% 1.58% e. Women 15.82% 17.28% 19.93% 13.50% 13.37% 15.00% f. School-aged children 0.11% 0.00% 0.37% 0.18% 0.00% 0.00% g. Community around the activity location 7.67% 6.79% 7.86% 6.39% 9.08% 8.21% Benefit from economic activities - Reduce daily needs/consumption 10.60% 12.55% 13.35% 10.12% 9.41% 7.58% - Reduce workload 3.13% 3.50% 3.84% 2.66% 2.97% 2.69% - Improve business activities 13.56% 10.49% 12.25% 15.99% 15.35% 13.74% - Get more capital for business 25.15% 18.72% 24.86% 25.93% 28.88% 27.33% Economic activities from PNPM met community needs 89.23% 88.89% 89.95% 89.52% 90.10% 87.68% Benefits that community get from PNPM economic activities - Open up economy opportunity 78.77% 74.69% 78.24% 79.93% 82.01% 78.99% - Improve access 4.25% 4.12% 3.29% 4.97% 4.62% 4.27%

13 - Fulfill main needs 9.15% 11.93% 9.87% 9.77% 6.93% 7.27% - Help reduce poverty 19.80% 19.96% 18.46% 23.45% 18.48% 18.64% HH that got access 35.74% 30.66% 38.03% 35.70% 38.78% 35.55% Community that got access 80.00% 75.93% 78.98% 81.35% 83.17% 80.57%