Suchergebnisse

Cameroon is a lower-middle income country with social indicators and levels of poverty which are below those for comparator countries. Large and rising inequalities between north and south, inefficiencies in public resource allocation and an adverse business environment explain this. While insecurity due to Boko Haram activities and rapidly rising public debt constrain efforts at poverty reduction, there exists a huge potential for economic growth and poverty reduction. This potential remains mostly untapped. Realizing it will require far reaching reforms, particularly with respect to the business environment and public financial management, and require politically courage to accomplish. The remainder of this document explores how to achieve the twin goals of ending poverty and improving shared prosperity by 2030 in a sustainable manner. The document identifies a limited number of binding constraints which would need to be lifted to achieve the poverty objective. The next four chapters present background material to chapter six, which presents binding constraints to poverty reduction. The micro-foundations to poverty reduction are discussed in chapters two and three. Chapter two discusses poverty, equity and vulnerability. Chapter three discusses human capital and its role in poverty reduction. Chapter four considers poverty reduction from a macro-economic perspective. It discusses opportunities for growth and economic transformation as well as the status of various cross-cutting economic services. Chapter five, considers governance, fragility and the institutional environment. Binding constraints to sustainable poverty reduction are identified in chapter six.

This paper uses a large national household panel from 1999/2000 and 2007/08 to analyze the short-term effects of India's Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme on wages, labor supply, agricultural labor use, and productivity. The scheme prompted a 10-point wage increase and higher labor supply to nonagricultural casual work and agricultural self-employment. Program-induced drops in hired labor demand were more than outweighed by more intensive use of family labor, machinery, fertilizer, and diversification to crops with higher risk-return profiles, especially by small farmers. Although the aggregate productivity effects were modest, total employment generated by the program (but not employment in irrigation-related activities) significantly increased productivity, suggesting alleviation of liquidity constraints and implicit insurance provision rather than quality of works undertaken as a main channel for program-induced productivity effects.

Azerbaijan's performance on the twin goals has been commendable. The middle class has doubled in size and extreme poverty has almost been eliminated in the space of a decade. At the same time, regional differences persist, with significantly higher poverty rates in lagging regions, and Baku dominating overwhelmingly in terms of share of GDP. Disparities in welfare also persist between rural and urban areas as well as across social groups. As the share of the poor fell in the bottom 40 percent of the welfare distribution, the share of the vulnerable has increased. All of this suggests taking a closer look at the challenges facing Azerbaijan as it seeks to sustain and 'even out' progress on the twin goals.

The European Union (EU) Regular Economic Report (RER), is a semiannual publication of the World Bank Group and covers economic developments, prospects, and economic policies in the European Union. The report uses four sub-groups that share broadly similar development patterns EU : Central Europe comprises Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic and Slovenia; Northern Europe comprises Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden; Southern Europe comprises Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain; Western Europe comprises Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. While the report covers the European Union, it provides additional information on European countries which had historically a stronger operational engagement with the World Bank Group, in particular, Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland and Romania. The focus note of this RER covers "Welfare States and the Protection of the Poor in the European Union".

The connections between transport infrastructure and economic development have been extensively analyzed in previous research, but little is known about the cost of infrastructure investments in poor countries. This paper examines drivers of unit costs of construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure in low and middle income countries and documents that: (i) there is a large dispersion in unit costs for comparable road work activities; (ii) after accounting for environmental drivers of costs, residual unit costs are significantly higher in conflict countries; (iii) there is evidence that costs are higher in countries with higher levels of corruption; (iv) these effects are robust to controlling for a country's public investment capacity and business environment. Our findings have implications for governments aiming to increase connectivity in poor countries.

From 2004 to 2012, Zambia experienced a combination of good economic policies and high rates of growth not seen since the early years after its independence. While growth was mainly driven by rising copper prices, other factors contributed to Zambia's ability to take advantage of this growth. The international debt relief programs in 2004-2005 almost eliminated public debt and provided the fiscal space for selective, high-priority investments and expanded social programs. The privatization of the copper mines brought new investment in rehabilitation and expansion of production. The period also saw a substantial expansion of primary education and progress in dealing with the most pervasive public health problems. These positive developments set the stage for Zambia to tackle its pervasive poverty. In practice, however, sustained growth over the period has led to little poverty reduction, especially in rural areas of the country. The Bank Group and other donors provided critical support at the beginning of the evaluation period, when Zambia's debt level became unsustainable. The Bank provided substantial support for capacity development and better functioning institutions. The Bank's efforts to strengthen public administration and improve governance met with some partial successes in enhanced audit and procurement capacity, and the achievement of Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative compliance. However, despite nearly a decade of implementation, the Integrated Financial Management Information Systems (IFMIS), is still only partially operational. Further, the Zambian government has not followed through on its positive discourse regarding decentralization of government authority.

Seventy years after independence and more than a decade of political and institutional reforms, Indonesia has emerged as a stable democracy. Indonesia's achievements are now under stress, with a slowdown in its commodity driven economy, stagnant rates of poverty reduction, and rapidly rising inequality. The development policy review, completed in 2014, and the systematic country diagnostic (SCD), completed in 2015, explain the limited window of opportunity for Indonesia to reach high per capita income levels. This country partnership framework (CPF), covering the period FY2016-20, builds on the previous country partnership strategy (CPS) FY2013-15 and the long-term operational and policy-based support that has been a hallmark of World Bank Group's (WBG's) engagement with the Government of India (GoI) for the past decade. The CPF concentrates on areas of infrastructure necessary to better connect the economy, provide sustainable energy, help the country reap benefits from the rapid pace of urbanization, and improve equality of opportunity through better access of the poor and vulnerable to essential water and sanitation services. The CPF will seek to maximize synergies across the WBG and take advantage of all instruments in support of the CPF goals. The CPF will require a larger financing package than the previous CPS, although WBG's total contribution will still be a very small percentage of overall borrowing needs.

Peru's recent robust growth has raised its economic prospects and has been broadly shared. The next step in development - high-income status - is challenging for all middle income countries and requires sustained growth. Raising productivity growth is key to sustaining Peru's high growth rates of income per capita, including in the context of a less favorable external environment. This report looks at Peru's principal challenges and opportunities to maintain strong and inclusive growth through higher productivity. It will require a reduction of inefficiencies by reaping more benefits from international trade and an improved innovation framework. The report has five parts. Part one analyzes the sources of Peru's recent strong growth. Part two examines more closely the dynamics and challenges to Peruvian firms' productivity growth. Part three analyzes elements that will increase the efficiency of Peru's labor and capital resources - regulation, labor markets, and human capital. Part four is focused on further opportunities to reduce misallocation while at the same time speeding up within-firm productivity through expanding Peru's technological possibilities, particularly through innovation and the spillovers from international trade. Part five concludes.

Pakistan's trade indicators reflect low outward orientation, concentration on low value added activities and an undiversified product mix which out of line with the fastest growing areas of world demand. The export share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has remained low and falling—fro

This report presents the synthesis of household level surveys in five intervention countries (Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) of the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) project designed and implemented by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and national research and extension institutions in 13 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In each of the study countries, two districts were randomly selected provided that the districts fall in predetermined categories (20-40%) of probability of failed season (PFS). A total sample of 1108 households was randomly drawn with sample sizes varying country to country. The report has different sections that focus, in order, on description of the sample households, extent and determinants of poverty and inequality among the sample population, characteristics of maize production, perception and management of drought risk, and determinants of likelihood and intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties. The distribution of the age of the sample population shows that the population below the age of 16 years is 54% in Zambia, 47% in Malawi and more than 42% in the other three countries. Most of the sample households in each of the countries are headed by males. Only, Malawian sample has about one third of the households headed by women. The literacy level of household heads is considerably high by African standards. The proportion of literate household head ranges from 67% in Angola to 97% in Zimbabwe. The details of the literacy level show that about 48% of Zimbabweans have attended secondary school or higher followed by 32% in Zambia and to 28% in Angola. Most of the literate household heads in Malawi and Mozambique fall in the primary school category. The farming systems in the study areas are predominantly traditional and semi-subsistence oriented. The plough culture is an important feature of the systems and hence the traction power of draft animals is indispensable. Nonetheless, only Zambian (44%) and Zimbabwean (42%) farmers use draft animals. No sample household in Angola and Malawi owns a draft animal. The livestock owned per household, in tropical livestock units (TLU), ranges from 0.41 in Malawi to 2.9 in Zambia. Accordingly, the current value in US$ of the livestock owned by a typical household ranges from 102.7 in Malawi to 1051 in Zambia. The average farm land holding is highest in Mozambique where a typical household owns nearly 8 hectares of land, followed by Zambia at 6.63 hectares, and Zimbabwe at 3 hectares. The smallest average farmland was observed in Malawi with a typical household owning 1.25 ha. Wealth indices were computed based on asset holdings to look into the relative welfare distribution of the sample communities. Forty four percent of the sample households in Angola have negative wealth index. The households with negative indices can generally be considered as poor. Nearly 55% Malawian, 57% Mozambican, and 54% Zambian sample households do have negative wealth indices. Sixty two percent of the sample households in Zimbabwe have negative wealth indices, which is higher than any other country in the study.Asset wealth based rough classification of the households has shown that most of the sampling households are poor. A more detailed analysis of poverty and inequality was done based on reported income and expenditure. Household level determinants of poverty were identified using quantile regression. Generally, sample households in Mozambique and Zambia were found to be poorer than the sample households in Angola and Malawi. The poverty profiles show that the absolutely poor households in four of the countries (Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia) do have significantly smaller family size, smaller number of illiterate household members, less number of important assets such as phones and radio, livestock and smaller farm sizes. An important observation is that the proportion of total land allocated to maize by absolutely poor households is significantly higher than that of better-off households. The study has also detailed the extent and determinants of poverty and inequality in the countries. The importance of maize technology use and resource allocation to the crop in determining magnitude of poverty and inequality is an important finding in view of the fact that the sample population is essentially semi-subsistent with limited market orientation. This finding also justifies the effort being exerted on development and deployment of maize and maize related technologies in rural communities of the study countries. Maize production in the region has peculiar characteristics with important distinctions across countries. The land allocated to maize ranges from 45.9% in Mozambique to 69.8% in Malawi of the whole farmland. In Angola, Malawi and Mozambique, most of the maize land is covered with land races; whereas in Zambia and Zimbabwe, hybrid maize covers most of the maize area. All the sample farmers in Zimbabwe are aware of the difference between improved Open pollinated varieties (OPVs) and hybrid maize varieties. On the contrary, about 95% of the sample farmers in Angola do not know the difference between OPV and hybrid maize. Most of the sample farmers in Malawi (72.0%), Mozambique (98.0%), and Zambia (78.0%) are in fact aware of the difference between OPVs and hybrid maize varieties. Regarding recycling of hybrid seeds, it was found out that Zimbabweans hardly recycle, whereas Mozambicans do on average recycle 1.5 times. This pattern of recycling also applies to improved OPVs. Despite considerable number of farmers depending on the market to fetch maize seeds, 90.7% of the farmers in Angola purchased and planted only local maize varieties. Malawian and Zambian farmers, followed by Mozambicans and Zimbabweans, do mostly purchase and grow improved seeds. In terms of the proportion of seed types used, Zimbabwe stands out well-above others with 94.6% of the seed used being improved, followed by Zambia (64.3%) and Malawi (24.8%). In Malawi, the most preferred varieties, in order of preference are: local, MH36, Kanyani, and Makolo. In Mozambique, Ndau ou Chindau, Matuba, SC513, Laposta, and Pan 67 were indicated to be the most preferred varieties in that order. In Zambia, the four most preferred varieties were identified to be Gankata, SC513, Pool 16, and Obatampa. In Zimbabwe, SC513 is the most preferred variety followed by ZM521 and the local Heckory King variety. Drought was reported to be the most important challenge on the livelihoods of people in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, whereas it was indicated to be second, next to sickness and mortality of a family member, in Angola and Mozambique. Maize varieties in general and improved OPVs and hybrids in particular are being considered very risky in terms of predictability and reliability of yields. Given the importance of maize and the vulnerability of the farming communities in the region, drought and risks associated with it will have paramount and potentially irreversible consequences on the poor sections of the region. The decisions regarding level and intensity of improved maize adoption have also been investigated to show that gender based intra-household division of labor was an important factor considered in deciding to adopt or not improved maize varieties. Asset endowments such as farm size and livestock wealth were found to be important determinants of level and intensity of adoption in the region. Similarly, membership in social groupings and engagement of off-farm activities influenced adoption decisions. Access to extension services has universally been identified as an important factor in determining the level and, when relevant, the intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties in the region. As important as this service is, however, the extent to which farmers are getting the service is not that encouraging according to respondents. It is, therefore, imperative to underline again the need for investment in the agricultural extension system and the effort that shall be exerted in enabling the private sector to engage in generation and deployment of agricultural information. In designing and implementing any intervention that aims at contributing to the risk coping ability of farmers, it is essential to take into account heterogeneity of the farming communities. Due consideration of this heterogeneity shall be made while assessing the importance of drought risk and while analyzing the effectiveness of the contributions to be made with the intention of strengthening drought risk coping strategies. The trait preferences of farmers are for instance an important indicator of the heterogenous demand structure. This study has shown that despite the fact that yield size is among the most preferred traits, farmers' strong reference to maize as a risky crop urges refocusing breeding activities to generation of germplasms with reliable yield distribution. Farmers have also shown strong interest in traits such as drought tolerance, early maturity, and good performance under poor rainfall implying the need for multi-trait focused breeding schemes. Public agricultural extension institutions and public mass media are by far the two most important sources of agricultural information in the region. Despite the political importance of agriculture in general and maize in particular, there is always a lack of incentive in publicly owned institutions to deliver the information as timely and as adequately it is needed. Agricultural extension efforts in the region should in fact be accompanied by comprehensive microfinance institutions to relieve farmers of the seasonal cash shortage which almost all of them experience every year. So far, except in Zimbabwe, access to rural credit and finance seems to be farfetched.

The videos and speeches of the Bradley prize winners are up. My video here (Grumpy in a tux!), also the speech which I reproduce below. All the videos and speeches here (Betsy DeVos and Nina Shea) My previous interview with Rick Graeber, head of the Bradley foundation. Bradley also made a nice introduction video with photos from my childhood and early career. (A link here to the introduction video and speech together.) And to avoid us spending all our talks on thanking people, they had us write out a separate thanks. That seems not to be up yet, but I include mine below. I am very thankful, humbled to be included in such august company, and not so boorish that I would not have spent my whole talk without mentioning that, absent the separate opportunity to say so. Bradley prize remarks (i.e. condense three decades of policy writing into 10 minutes): Creeping stagnation ought to be recognized as the central economic issue of our time. Economic growth since 2000 has fallen almost by half compared with the last half of the 20th Century. The average American's income is already a quarter less than under the previous trend. If this trend continues, lost growth in fifty years will total three times today's economy. No economic issue — inflation, recession, trade, climate, income diversity — comes close to such numbers.Growth is not just more stuff, it's vastly better goods and services; it's health, environment, education, and culture; it's defense, social programs, and repaying government debt.Why are we stagnating? In my view, the answer is simple: America has the people, the ideas, and the investment capital to grow. We just can't get the permits. We are a great Gulliver, tied down by miles of Lilliputian red tape.  How much more can the US grow? Looking around the world, we see that even slightly better institutions produce large improvements in living standards. US taxes and regulations are only a bit less onerous than those in Canada and the UK, but US per capita income is 40% greater. Bigger improvements have enormous effects. US per capita income is 350% greater than Mexico's and 950% greater than India's. Unless you think the US is already perfect, there is a lot we can do. How can we improve the US economy? I offer four examples.I don't need to tell you how dysfunctional health care and insurance are. Just look at your latest absurd bill. There is no reason that health care cannot be provided in the same way as lawyering, accounting, architecture, construction, airplane travel, car repair, or any complex personal service. Let a brutally competitive market offer us better service at lower prices. There is no reason that health insurance cannot function at least as well as life, car, property, or other insurance. It's easy to address standard objections, such as preexisting conditions, asymmetric information, and so on.How did we get in this mess? There are two original sins. First, in order to get around wage controls during WWII, the government allowed a tax deduction for employer-based group plans, but not for portable insurance. Thus preexisting conditions were born: if you lose your job, you lose health insurance. Patch after patch then led to the current mess. Second, the government wants to provide health care to poor people, but without visibly taxing and spending a lot. So, the government forces hospitals to treat poor people below cost, and recoup the money by overcharging everyone else. But an overcharge cannot stand competition, so the government protects hospitals and insurers from competition. You'll know health care is competitive when, rather than hide prices, hospitals spam us with offers as airlines and cell phone companies do.  There is no reason why everyone's health care and insurance must be so screwed up to help the poor. A bit of taxing and spending instead — budgeted, appropriated, visible — would not stymie competition and innovation. Example 2: Banking offers plenty of room for improvement. In 1933, the US suffered a great bank run. Our government responded with deposit insurance. Guaranteeing deposits stops runs, but it's like sending your brother-in-law to Las Vegas with your credit card, what we economists call an "incentive for risk taking." The government piled on regulations to try to stop banks from taking risks. The banks got around the regulations, new crises erupted, new guarantees and regulations followed. This spring, the regulatory juggernaut failed to detect simple interest rate risk, and Silicon Valley Bank had a run, followed by others. The Fed and FDIC bailed out depositors and promised more rules. This system is fundamentally broken. The answer: Deposits should flow to accounts backed by reserves at the Fed, or short-term treasuries. Banks should get money for risky loans by issuing stock or long term debt that can't run. We can end private-sector financial crises forever, with next to no regulation. There is a lesson in these stories. If we want to improve regulations, we can't just bemoan them. We must understand how they emerged. As in health and banking, a regulatory mess often emerges from a continual patchwork, in which each step is a roughly sensible repair of the previous regulation's dysfunction. The little old lady swallowed a fly, a spider to catch the fly, and so on. Now horse is on the menu. Only a start-from-scratch reform will work.Much regulation protects politically influential businesses, workers, and other constituencies from the disruptions of growth. Responsive democracies give people what they want, good and hard. And in return, regulation extorts political support from those beneficiaries. We have to fix the regulatory structure, to give growth a seat at the table.  Economists are somewhat at fault too. They are taught to look at every problem, diagnose "market failure," and advocate new rules to be implemented by an omniscient, benevolent planner. But we do not live in a free market. When you see a problem, look first for the regulation that caused it.Example 3: Taxes are a mess, with high marginal rates that discourage work, investment and production; disappointing revenue; and massive, wasteful complexity. How can the government raise revenue while doing the least damage to the economy? A uniform consumption tax is the clear answer. Tax money when people spend it. When earnings are saved, invested, plowed into businesses that produce goods and services and employ people, leave them alone.Example 4: Bad incentives are again the unsung central problem of our social programs.  Roughly speaking, from zero to about sixty thousand dollars of income, if you earn an extra dollar, you lose a dollar of benefits. Fix the incentives, and more people will get ahead in life. We will also better help the truly needy, and the budget.Some more general points unite these stories:Focus on incentives. Politics and punditry are consumed with taking from A to give to B. Incentives are far more important for economic growth, and we can say something objective about them. Find the question. Politics and punditry usually advance answers without stating the question, or shop around for questions to justify the same old answers. Most people who disagree with the consumption tax really have different goals than funding the government with minimum economic damage. Well, what do you want the tax system to do? State the question, let's find the best answer to the question, and we can make a lot of progress.Look at the whole system. Tax disincentives come from the total difference between the value your additional work creates and what you can consume as a result. Between these lie payroll, income, excise, property, estate, sales, and corporate taxes, and more, at the federal, state, and local level. Greg Mankiw figured his all-in marginal tax rate at 90%, and even he left out sales, property, and a few more taxes. Social-program disincentives come from the combined phaseout of food stamps, housing subsidies, medicaid or Obamacare subsidies, disability payments, tax credits, and so on, down to low-income parking passes. And look at taxes and social programs together. A flat tax that finances checks to worthy people is very progressive government, if you want that. Looking at an individual tax or program for its disincentives or progressivity is silly. The list goes on. Horrible public education, labor laws, licensing laws, zoning, building and planning restrictions, immigration restrictions, regulatory barriers, endless lawsuits, prevailing-wage and domestic-content rules, are all sand in the productivity gears. Oh, and I haven't even gotten to money and inflation yet! And that just fixes our current economy. Long-term growth comes from new ideas. Many economists say we have run out of ideas; growth is ending; slice the pie. I look out the window and I see factory-built mini nuclear power plants that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is strangling; I see a historic breakthrough in artificial intelligence, facing an outcry for the government to stop it. I see advances in biology that portend much better health and longevity, but good luck getting FDA approval or increasingly politicized research funding.Many conservatives disparage this "incentive economics" as outdated and boring. That attitude is utterly wrong. Incentives, and the freedom, rights, and rule of law that preserve incentives, remain the key to tremendous and widespread prosperity. And it is hard work to understand and fix the incentives behind today's problems.Yes, supply is less glamorous than stimulus. "Fix regulations" is a tougher slogan than "free money for voters." Efficiency requires detailed reform in every agency and market, the Marie-Kondo approach to our civic life. But it's possible. And we don't need to reform all the dinosaurs. As we have seen with telephones, airlines, and taxis, we just need to allow new competitors, to allow the buds of freedom to grow.Many people ask, "How can we get leaders to listen?" That's the wrong question. Believe in democracy, not bending the emperor's ear. Take action. My fellow prizewinners have grabbed the levers of influence that belong to citizens of our free society, and done hard work of reforming its institutions. And ideas matter. The Hoover Institution motto is "ideas defining a free society." The Bradley Foundation tonight celebrates good ideas, and is devoted to spreading them. When voters, media, the chattering classes, and institutions of civil society understand, advance and apply these ideas, politicians will swiftly follow.   Notes:Growth: Real GDP 1950:I was $2186 billion, and per capita $14500; in 2000:I, $12935 and per capita $45983; in 2022:IV, $20182 and per capita 60376. From these numbers, average log real GDP growth 1950-2000 was 3.56% From 2000-2002, 1.96%. In per capita terms,  2.31% and  1.20%. (2.31-1.20)x22 = 24.4. Cross-country comparison: Calculations based on purchasing-power-adjusted GDP per capita: US $69,287, Canada $52,790, UK $50,890, Mexico $19,587, India $7,242. Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD The PPP adjustment tries to take account that some things are cheaper in other countries. Converting at the exchange rate produces even larger differences. US $70.248, Canada $51,987, UK $46,510, Mexico $10,065, India $2,256. Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CDMankiw: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.htmlThanksI have been fortunate to benefit from the effort, time, wisdom and affection of so many people, and many institutions that supported their efforts.Of course it starts with my parents, Eric and Lydia Cochrane. They expected children to think and speak at the family dinner table. They exposed me to different cultures, on the south side of Chicago and in Italy, sometimes beyond my desires. They set an example by how they lived: They steadfastly followed their intellectual pursuits with extreme honesty. They treated people with a radical egalitarianism. And then left me alone to pursue my own passions. I was lucky to learn from some extraordinary and dedicated teachers, at the Ancona Montessori School, the U of C Lab school, Italian public schools, and Kenwood high school. There, in an inner city public school, Arlene Gordon (Math), Judith Stein (English) Walter Sherrill (Chemistry) and especially Joel Hofslund (Physics) gave me absolutely first rate experience. Thanks also to Ed Shands' patient coaching of our swim team. I moved on to MIT to study physics. This was more impersonal, and a difficult time for me, but as it turned out a superb education in the kind of mathematical modeling essential to economics. I went on to study economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Faculty took PhD teaching seriously, not just of their own research, and I soaked it up. I thank especially my advisers, Roger Craine, Tom Rothermberg, and George Akerlof.  Many of their lessons are vivid today, but like my parents they provided only gentle guidance and feedback on my own imperfect quests. I was supremely luck to land a job at the University of Chicago. I learned a tremendous amount in the wide open collegial atmosphere at Chicago, thanks in large part to Lars Hansen and Gene Fama, but also colleagues too numerous to mention in this short space.  Generations of MBA and PhD students also pushed me hard to understand economics and became lifelong friends and colleagues. At just the right moment Hoover came calling, allowing me the time and institutional support to blossom as a public intellectual and commenter as well as an academic. A special thanks to John Raisin for that. No man is an island. The world of ideas is a conversation. Everything I know has been shaped by teachers, friends, colleagues, collaborators, students, journal editors, referees, and others who took the time and effort to help me think about things. Many small interactions have had a crucial effect on my life. A coffee conversation at a conference with John Campbell resulted in our best known academic paper. A lunch conversation with Luigi Zingales produced my first public writing during the financial crisis. As a result, Amity Shlaes invited me to a conference. Howard Dickman, then at the Wall Street Journal, liked my presentation and asked, "Why don't you write opeds for us?" I answered, "Why don't you stop rejecting them?" My oped career was born. And so forth. I thank these and many more, and lady luck who put us together. Of course my greatest thanks go to my wonderful wife, Elizabeth Fama. We met the night I returned to Chicago. It was love at first sight. We were engaged on the second date. She has been my best friend and constant companion ever since, though marriage to a passionate researcher, busy teacher and lover of time consuming sports cannot have been easy. Together we raised four amazing children, Sally, Eric, Jean, and Lake, who fill my heart with love, and now that they are grown a bit of nostalgia. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SMALL-SCALE FARMERS' STRATEGIES IN DEALING WITH CRISES: AN ANALYSIS OF HOUSEHOLD RESPONSES TO CRISIS IN FOUR VILLAGES IN RURAL ZIMBABWE Crises caused by natural and human-induced disasters have always been part of farmers' lives, but recently they have proliferated through the emergence of new economic, political and environmental challenges. Generally, it is the ordinary poor people, many of them living in the vulnerable contexts of the rural tropics, who are bearing the brunt of these changes. This is particularly true for many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, where more than two-thirds of the population still depend on agriculture, and a large proportion of rural households suffer from poverty, food insecurity and social unrest. In such contexts, national governments and numerous NGOs, often supported by international donors, become active in supporting small farmers with training programs, the diffusion of technology, credits, social payments, subsidies and infrastructural investments. These efforts have had a remarkable success, except in stopping a general process of local marginalization and environmental degradation. In the end, the vast majority of small-scale farming families are left on their own to face the challenge of sustaining their livelihoods and guarantee food for their families under precarious conditions. More effective measures to support poor rural farmers in Africa are urgently needed that take better account of and stimulate their adaptive capacity to find responses to the manifold challenges. The research in this thesis aimed to generate empirical insights into farmers' responses to crises as a basis to supporting small-scale farmers more effectively, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa, in times of crisis. This includes three specific objectives: (1) to describe how crises changes the conditions for small-scale farmers' activities; (2) to learn how small-scale farmers are responding to these changes; and (3) to find out what factors are driving farmers' 'decisions. To comply with these objectives, the study analyzed in depth the dynamics in four rural villages in Zimbabwe, which represent three typical agricultural contexts in Sub-Saharan Africa: (1) communal agricultural lands with traditional social configurations; (2) agricultural landscapes formed by individualized settlers; and (3) areas resettled in the course of land redistribution programs. Zimbabwe was chosen because it is a prime example of a crisis that brought about severe multi-layered political, economic, social and environmental challenges, especially during the presidency of Robert G. Mugabe between 2000 and 2017. Data were gathered, processed and analyzed using a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach. Household surveys were conducted with lead farmers and extension agents to gain an understanding of the factors and conditions that influence farmers' behavior and choices and to establish categories of farmers. Households were surveyed to determine their characteristics at the personal level (family size, head, level of education, financial situation, and farm experience), the farm level (assets, size, land tenure, remoteness) and the institutional level (extension services, financial support, social organization). Besides, farmers' households that represented the strategies typically used to cope with the situation of crisis were selected for in-depth interviews to learn about the operational details, underlying rationalities and effects of the strategies they had adopted. Expert interviews and participatory mapping exercises with local experts and leaders were conducted to gain an understanding of how the Zimbabwean crisis changed the conditions under which the farmers live and to grasp the range and spatial relevance of strategies adopted by the farmer in response to the changed conditions. Also, secondary sources were systematically explored for relevant information, including reports from international organizations, non-governmental agencies, local NGOs, public research organizations, farmers' groups, dairy associations, Internal Savings and Lending Clubs (ISACs) and government agencies. The study made three principal findings: (1) crises strongly affected farming households; (2) most farmers managed to respond effectively to crisis situations; and (3) support and resource endowments are critical to overcoming crises. The crises strongly affected farmers. More than fifteen years of political and economic crises in Zimbabwe, in combination with frequent droughts, profoundly changed the conditions under which rural farmers live and produce. Most strikingly, the manifestation of this complex situation of crises was the breakdown of public services, including progressive reductions of public services providing farmers with technical and financial assistance and, partly related to this, increases in corruption. For example, although the ruling party announced million-dollar tractor and farm mechanization programs during elections, not one of the farmers from the four case studies received anything. Most critical was also the fact that the state-driven Grain Marketing Board failed to continue offering support to maize farmers with regard to pricing and payment patterns, which led to a massive decline in the production of maize, the key business of many farmers at that time. This withdrawal of the state was further compounded by a massive distortion of markets, which for the farmers made the profitable marketing of their own production considerably more difficult or even impossible, as well as making agricultural input prices unaffordable. The latter development forced a majority of farmers to skip using fertilizers, certified seeds and pesticides. Some few only managed to apply sub-optimal amounts of fertilizers occasionally on smaller parts of their fields. Devastatingly, farmers also suffered animal losses to drought (especially the extreme drought of the 2015/2016 season) and animal diseases that hampered their practice of using manure to maintain soil fertility. In parallel, farmers were heavily affected by climate change, manifested through an increase in dryness, soil erosion and unpredictable rainfall. This was especially hard for farmers acting in the dry conditions that are typical of large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, where water is the limiting factor of production and where agricultural activities depend on the predictability of rainfall during the sowing period and the availability of groundwater or water reservoirs in the mountains during the growing period. This critical situation was, at least partly, mitigated for more than a third of farmers (38%) through the intervention of donors, NGOs and private companies, who, in contrast to the government's initial strategy of diffusing technical packages, promoted low-cost technologies in the case of development organizations and contract farming in the case of private companies. Nevertheless, the situation of crisis resulted in considerable losses of harvests, plants and animals, particularly in very dry years (2002-2003, and 2015-2016), when some crops were a complete write-off, but also due to political violence, when livestock and harvests were looted, for example, in the aftermath of the 2008 election. Despite these difficulties, the vast majority of families remained on their properties and tried to cope with the challenging situation. In the resettlement area too, where the government distributed the land of expropriated white farmers, all those farmers who had settled there at the beginning of 2000 remained on their farms and in 2015were joined by new farmers settling on grazing land. Roughly a third of households (29%), however, decided to send a member or two to urban centers, abroad or other farms to search for remunerative employment off the family farm. As it was mostly young male adults who were drawn into leaving the farm for jobs, across all case studies it was common for women, children and the elderly to be left with the task of managing farm operations. Effective responses of the farmers. In response to the situation of crisis, the farmers in the case studies employed a wide range of strategies. Responses included orientation towards livestock, the reduction of the land area under cultivation, the adoption of low-input farming systems, intensification, and on and off-farm diversification, as well as migration, a re-orientation to subsistence farming and the unsustainable exploitation of common resources. Most farmers combined two or more of these responses. Where possible nearly all households (84%) started to buy livestock when a crisis broke, whether cattle or small livestock, the latter being seen as resistant to drought and more easily convertible into cash. To improve food security, many farmers (71%) reduced and concentrated inputs on the most suitable parcels of land to optimize the application of scarce resources. Upon realizing surpluses, some farmers (15%) then included tobacco as a cash crop, or even diversified their production portfolios more strongly (20%). Only traditional dairy farmers (10 %) mostly continued their production because, often belonging to the second or third generation of farmers, they had the knowledge and experience to continue and even intensify production. Also, migration and, relatedly, the transfer of remittances became a central resource for many families (29%). Accordingly, concentration and diversification were closely linked with an orientation to the market. The farmers who produced for markets were well connected with relevant platforms and networks (e.g., tobacco auction floors, milk collection points, the Grain Marketing Board, millers, etc.) and used their surpluses to invest in the farm and grow their asset base. Those farmers who received remittances also invested in farming, often accompanied by a diversification of production. The switch to low-cost technologies and the concentration of production on the most suitable parcels of land massively reduced the dependence on government subsidies. In parallel, many farmers managed to significantly enhance their areal productivity, so that overall production remained stable, despite a significant reduction in the land area under cultivation. Some farmers even managed to increase their gross incomes by intelligently combining on-farm with non-farm strategies. The concentration of farming activities on the most fertile land parcels also allowed fields to be left fallow and promoted other ecologically valuable land-use resources, such as woodlots. This effect was particularly visible in contexts that already showed a high level of degradation. Only 7% of farmers became engaged in unsustainable exploitative activities, but, every tenth household was forced to re-orient itself towards subsistence farming. However, about 75% of households in the case-study sites had somehow found effective ways to cope with crises, implying that the vast majority of farmers substantially changed or strongly adapted their livelihood strategies. While in 2000 most farmers were dedicated to the production of maize and dairy for income generating purposes, in 2016 livelihood strategies were diversified and included the production of food, dairy and cash crops, as well as off-farm employment. Support and resource endowments are critical. The specific choice and quality of farmers' responses varied strongly in accordance with institutional, farm and personal features, except the consistent orientation towards livestock across all farmers and case studies. In particular, a set of four factors had a highly significant positive influence on the successful actions of farmers, based on concentration, market orientation and diversification, namely the availability of farm assets (particularly ownership of cattle), financial support, the level of social organization and formal tenure arrangements. Market orientation was also favored by accessibility. Other factors had a comparatively low influence on farmers' responses, except a preference for diversification by older and female-headed households. Concerning remittance support, higher educational levels and the good financial situation of the households played a moderately positive role. The picture was less clear concerning factors that influenced responses with questionable livelihood outcomes, such as re-orientation towards subsistence farming (lack of assets, low level of education, households headed by females without husbands) and exploitative strategies (male-headed households and households headed by females without husbands). There were also large differences between the case studies in respect of the factors listed above, partly due to important contextual differences. Most strikingly, the better the situation of a case study with regard to accessibility, water availability and social organization, the stronger the external support. In response, more farmers in the favored case studies exploited the opportunities offered to them mainly by tobacco companies and development organizations (irrigation and dairy farming). One exception was the resettlement case study, which, as a contested area, was disregarded by development organizations, despite favorable environmental conditions. Accordingly, in the least favorable case study, "community in impoverished landscape", households were largely left to face their difficult situations alone. They were more likely to re-orient themselves to subsidence farming and switched to small livestock, thereby managing at least to secure their food basis. In particular, these results provide three important suggestions for how farmers can be better supported in crises. First, effective water management is key. There is an urgent need to diffuse in- field water-harvesting techniques and to further optimize appropriate agricultural practices, such as mulching and gravity-fed irrigation. Second, farmers are creative in finding solutions. This includes farming responses, as well as off-farm strategies. Both are effective from a local perspective. However, only the better-off farmers may have the means and capacities for the necessary investments, whereas the challenges may exceed the possibilities of poorer farmers. The proper management of livestock and the use of manure in agricultural production is another important requisite. Third, support measures are critical. However, rather than distributing of costly technology packages, support should take advantage of and promote capacity of farmers to take meaningful decisions. Thus, support should build on the resources and capacities that are available locally and accordingly highlight low-cost strategies and efficient water-use management, stimulate financially attractive options for diversification, and develop existing market opportunities further rather than creating new ones. In this regard, in particular, the frequently observed strategy of farmers to reduce and concentrate inputs on the most suitable land shows an immense potential for optimization. Supporting such promising attempts by farmers to build robust farming systems following their capacities and interests can help achieve development, social equality and sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa. To operationalize such an approach requires well-trained extension agents working in well-equipped organizations. Also, the provision of tenure security plays a critical role in motivating farmers to invest and develop the land, as well as to turn land into a bankable asset and collateral that enables farmers to secure bank loans for farm improvements. Equally important is investment in research and development regarding basic infrastructure, particularly the maintenance of public infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, which have largely been neglected due to economic hardships. The government can also assist farmers by providing market facilities for small livestock and small grains whose markets are still limited. The private sector has and continues to play an important role in supporting farmers through contract farming arrangements. But they need to consider more intensively weaker farmers who are located far from markets and have to cope with unfavorable situations. Farmers' associations should prioritize programs and actions that support the frequent and most common response of concentration, as well as market participation and diversification of production. Through the local sharing of information and knowledge, they can guide farmers in reducing their dependence on government subsidies and the use of costly inputs such as fertilizers, certified seeds and pesticides. The farmers themselves need to organize themselves better in order to lobby collectively and campaign for technical assistance, credits and secure tenure arrangements. Farmers should intensify crop–livestock integration with livestock, thus equipping farmers with the means to produce much needed inexpensive animal manure to improve soil fertility and to opt for long-term strategies that protect their resource base. Finally, research also has its part to play. More knowledge is needed about farmers' actions and rationalities as a basis for finding more effective ways of consolidating the socio- ecological diversity of Zimbabwe, Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere, despite the political, economic and climatic challenges that are to be expected in the future.

Sustainable investment (SI) has a strong niche foothold in Sub-Saharan Africa, anchored in the region's largest investment market, South Africa. Yet more work is needed, at policy and portfolio levels, to grow this investment theme. This report recommends measures to expand SI in Sub-Saharan Africa. It forecasts that over the next five years there will be considerable growth of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations applied to investment in South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria. While these three countries form the basis of the study, the lion's share of data and observations emerged from South Africa, which is home to the continent's most developed capital markets.

Not Available ; The land resource inventory of Ballary-3 microwatershed was conducted using village cadastral maps and IRS satellite imagery on 1:7920 scale. The false colour composites of IRS imagery were interpreted for physiography and these physiographic delineations were used as base for mapping soils. The soils were studied in several transects and a soil map was prepared with phases of soil series as mapping units. Random checks were made all over the area outside the transects to confirm and validate the soil map unit boundaries. The soil map shows the geographic distribution and extent, characteristics, classification, behavior and use potentials of the soils in the Microwatershed. The present study covers an area of 606 ha in Koppal taluk and district, Karnataka. The climate is semiarid and categorized as drought - prone with an average annual rainfall of 662 mm, of which about 424 mm is received during south –west monsoon, 161 mm during north-east and the remaining 77 mm during the rest of the year. An area of about 92 per cent is covered by soils, five per cent by rock out crops and 2 per cent by water bodies, settlements and others. The salient findings from the land resource inventory are summarized briefly below  The soils belong to 18 soil series and 35 soil phases (management units) and 10 land use classes.  The length of crop growing period is 150 cm).  About 0.75%) in the entire area of the microwatershed.  Available phosphorus is medium (23-57 kg/ha) in 20 per cent and high (>57 kg/ha) in 73 per cent of the soils.  Available potassium is low (337 kg/ha) in 21 per cent of the soils.  Available sulphur is low (20 ppm) in 4.5 ppm) in 30 per cent of the area.  Available zinc is deficient (0.6 ppm) in 72 per cent area of the microwatershed.  Available manganese and copper are sufficient in the entire area.  The land suitability for 28 major agricultural and horticultural crops grown in the microwatershed was assessed and the areas that are highly suitable (class S1) and moderately suitable (class S2) are given below. It is however to be noted that a given soil may be suitable for various crops but what specific crop to be grown may be decided by the farmer looking to his capacity to invest on various inputs, marketing infrastructure, market price, and finally the demand and supply position. Land suitability for various crops in the microwatershed Crop Suitability Area in ha (%) Crop Suitability Area in ha (%) Highly suitable (S1) Moderately suitable (S2) Highly suitable (S1) Moderately suitable (S2) Sorghum 14 (2) 269(44) Pomegranate 8(1) 68(11) Maize 8(1) 279(46) Guava 8(1) 45 (7) Bajra 50(8) 239(40) Jackfruit 8(1) 45(7) Redgram 8(1) 50 (8) Jamun - 53(9) Bengal gram 6 (<1) 277 (46) Musambi 8 (1) 68 (11) Groundnut 30(5) 161(27) Lime 8(1) 68(11) Sunflower 8(1) 65 (11) Cashew 8(1) 65(11) Cotton 6 (<1) 276(46) Custard apple 56(9) 278(46) Chilli 8(1) 177(29) Amla 50(8) 284 (47) Tomato 8(1) 177(29) Tamarind - 49(8) Drumstick 20(3) 53 (9) Marigold 8(1) 275(45) Mulberry 49(8) 102(17) Chrysanthemum 8(1) 275(45) Mango - 49(8) Jasmine 8(1) 252(42) Sapota 8(1) 45(7) Crossandra 8(1) 193(32) Apart from the individual crop suitability, a proposed crop plan has been prepared for the 10 identified LUCs by considering only the highly and moderately suitable lands for different crops and cropping systems with food, fodder, fibre and other horticulture crops.  Maintaining soil-health is vital for crop production and conserve soil and land resource base for maintaining ecological balance and to mitigate climate change. For this, several ameliorative measures have been suggested to these problematic soils like saline/alkali, highly eroded, sandy soils etc.,  Drainage line treatment and Soil and water conservation treatment plans have been prepared that would help in identifying the sites to be treated and also the type of structures required.  As part of the greening programme, several tree species have been suggested to be planted in marginal and submarginal lands, field bunds and also in the hillocks, mounds and ridges. This would help in supplementing the farm income, provide fodder and fuel, and generate lot of biomass which in turn would help in maintaining the ecological balance and contribute to mitigating the climate change. Results indicated that 37 farmers were sampled in Bellary-3 micro watershed among them 5 (13.51%) were marginal farmers, 13 (35.14%) were small farmers, 10(27.03%) were semi medium farmers, 4 (10.81%) were medium farmers and 5 (13.51%) landless farmers were also interviewed for the survey.  The data indicated that there were 179 population households were there in the studied micro watershed. Among them 115 (64.25%) men and 64 (35.75%) were women. The average family size of landless and small was, semi medium and medium farmers were 5 and Marginal farmers were 6.  The data indicated that 22 (12.29%) people were in 0-15 years of age, 88 (49.16%) were in 16-35 years of age, 50 (27.93%) were in 36-60 years of age and 19 (10.61%) were above 61 years of age.  The results indicated that the Bellary-3 had 32.96 per cent illiterates, 19.55 per cent of them had primary school education, 13.41 per cent of them had both middle school, 14.53 per cent them had high school education, 7.26 per cent of them had PUC education, 0.56 per cent them had Diploma education and ITI, 6.15 per cent of them had degree education, 1.68 per cent of them had masters education and 3.35 per cent them had others.  The results indicated that, 75.68 per cent of households practicing agriculture, 16.22 per cent of the household heads were agricultural labour and 8.11 per cent of the household heads were general labour.  The results indicated that agriculture was the major occupation for 60.89 per cent of the household members, 6.70 per cent were agricultural labourers and general labours, 0.56 percent were in household industry, 4.47 per cent of them were in private sector, 15.08 per cent of them were students and 3.35 per cent of them were children.  In case of landless households 20 per cent were agricultural labour, 60 per cent were general labourers and 20 per cent were students. In case of marginal farmers 76.67 per cent were agriculturist, 3.33 percent was in private service and 20 per cent were students. In case of small farmers 68.97 per cent of them were agriculturist and 5.17 per cent of them were agricultural labours, and 18.97 per cent of them were students. In case of semi medium farmers 70.59 per cent of the family members were agriculturist, 5.88 per cent were general labour and were in private service and 3.92 per cent of them were students. In case of medium farmers 50 per cent of the family members were agriculturist, 10 per cent were general labour, 20 per cent were students and 20 per cent of them were in private service.  The results showed that 1.12 per cent of them participated in self help groups and 98.88 per cent of them have not participated in any local institutions. 2  The results indicated that 81.08 per cent of the households possess Katcha house, 8.11 per cent of the households possess Pucca house and 8.11 per cent of the households possess Semi Pacca house.  The results showed that, 2.70 per cent of the households possess radio, 59.46 per cent of the households possess TV, 24.32 per cent of the households possess Mixer grinder, 27.03 per cent of the households possess bicycle, 37.84 per cent of the households possess motor cycle and 97.30 per cent of the households possess mobile phones.  The results showed that the average value of radio was Rs.500, television was Rs. 3409, mixer grinder was Rs.1033, bicycle was Rs.1400, motor cycle was Rs.35000 and mobile phone was Rs.1398.  About 18.92 per cent of the households possess bullock cart and plough, 13.51 per cent of the households possess sprayer, 70.27 per cent of the households possess weeder, 5.41 per cent of the households possess thresher and 29.73 per cent of the households possess chaff cutter.  The results showed that the average value of bullock cart was Rs.16000; the average value of plough was Rs. 1133, the average value of sprayer was Rs. 2300, the average value of weeder was Rs. 32, the average value of thresher was Rs. 500 and the average value of chaff cutter was Rs. 1327.  The results indicated that, 37.84 per cent of the households possess bullocks, 32.43 per cent of the households possess local cow, 2.70 per cent of the households possess crossbred cow and 5.41 per cent of the households possess poultry birds. In case of marginal farmers, 40 per cent of the households possess bullock and 20 per cent of the household possess local cow and poultry birds respectively. In case of small farmers, 38.46 per cent of households possess bullock, 46.15 per cent possess local cow and 7.69 per cent possess poultry birds. In case of semi medium farmers, 40 per cent of the households possess bullock, 30 per cent of the household possess local cow and 10 per cent of the households possess crossbred cow. In medium farmers 75 per cent of the households possess bullock and 50 per cent of the household possess local cow.  The results indicated that, average own labour men available in the micro watershed was 6.72, average own labour (women) available was 4.25, average hired labour (men) available was 8.41 and average hired labour (women) available was 8.16.  In case of marginal farmers, average own labour men available was 3, average own labour (women) was also 1.40, average hired labour (men) was 9.40 and average hired labour (women) available was 9.60. In case of small farmers, average own labour men available was 13, average own labour (women) was 8.31, average hired labour (men) was 9.92 and average hired labour (women) available was 9.85. In case of semi medium farmers, average own labour men available was 2.20, average own labour (women) was 1.60, average hired labour (men) was 6.90 and average hired labour (women) available was 6.20. In medium farmers average own labour men 3 available was 2.25, average own labour (women) was 1.25, average hired labour (men) was 6 and average hired labour (women) available was 5.75.  The results indicated that, 86.49 per cent of the household opined that hired labour was adequate.  The results indicated that, households of the Bellary-3 micro watershed possess 29.40 ha (55.96%) of dry land and 23.14 ha (44.04%) of irrigated land. Marginal farmers possess 2.10 ha (70.61%) of dry land and 0.88 ha (29.39%) of irrigated land. Small farmers possess 18.41ha (95.79%) of dry land and 0.81ha (4.21%) of irrigated land. Semi medium farmers possess 7.27ha (40.35%) of dry land and 10.74 ha (59.65%) of irrigated land. Medium farmers possess 1.62 (13.13%) of dry land and 10.71ha (86.87%) of irrigated land.  The results indicated that, the average value of dry land was Rs. 302,629.41 and average value of irrigated was Rs. 395,293.31. In case of marginal famers, the average land value was Rs. 664,999.99 for dry land and Rs. 1,540,896.49 for irrigated land. In case of small famers, the average land value was Rs. 255,255.06 for dry land Rs. 988,000 for irrigated land. In case of semi medium famers, the average land value was Rs. 302,561.25 for dry land and Rs. 325,612.05 for irrigated land. In case of medium famers, the average land value was Rs. 370,500 for dry land and Rs. 326,719.58 for irrigated land.  The results indicated that, there were 14 functioning and 4 de-functioning bore wells in the micro watershed.  The results indicated that, bore well was the major irrigation source for 37.84 per cent of the farmers and 2.70 per cent households were using open well for irrigation.  The results indicated that on an average the depth of the bore well was 27.51 meters.  The results indicated that, in case of marginal farmers there was 0.40 ha of irrigated land, in case of small farmers there was 1.62 ha of irrigated land, semi medium farmers were having 8.10 ha of irrigated land and medium farmers were having 12.11 ha of irrigated land. On an average there were 22.23 ha of irrigated land.  The results indicated that, farmers have grown bajra (3.24 ha), groundnut (10.26 ha), maize (37.65 ha), paddy (0.81 ha) and tomato (0.54 ha) in kharif season. Farmers grown bajra (1.62 ha) and sunflower (0.40 ha) in Rabi season. Also grown groundnut (2.83 ha) in summer season. Marginal farmers had grown maize, tomato and groundnut. Small farmers had grown bajra, groundnut and maize. Semi medium farmers had grown Bajra, groundnut, maize and sunflower. Medium farmers had grown groundnut, maize, paddy and tomato.  The results indicated that, the cropping intensity in Bellary-3 micro watershed was found to be 83.06 per cent. In case of marginal farmers it was 100 per cent, in small farmers it was 81.04 , in semi medium farmers it was 91.19 and in medium farmers it was 69.68 per cent. 4  The results indicated that, 83.78 per cent of the households have bank account and 2.70 per cent of them savings. In land less farmers 80 per cent of the household possess bank account. Among marginal farmers 60 percent of them possess bank account and 20 per cent of the household possess savings. 92.31 per cent of small farmers possess bank account. In semi medium farmers possess 80 per cent of them possess bank account and medium category of farmers possess 100 per cent of bank account. The results indicated that, 80 per cent of landless, 60 per cent of marginal, 92.31 per cent of small, 80 per cent of the semi medium and 100 per cent of medium farmers have borrowed credit from different sources.  The results indicated that, 3.23 per cent have availed loan from friends/ relatives and 9.68 per cent have availed loan from Grameena bank.  The results indicated that, semi medium farmers have availed Rs.52500. Overall average credit amount availed by households in the micro watershed is 13,548.39.  The results indicated that, 100 per cent of the households have borrowed loan for agriculture production.  The results indicated that, 100 percent of loan was taken for household consumption.  Results indicated that 100 percent of the households have unpaid their institutional loan.  Results indicated that 100 per cent of the households have partially paid their private loan.  The results indicated that, the total cost of cultivation for bajra was Rs. 18425.71. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 31260.94. The net income from bajra cultivation was Rs. 12835.23, thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:1.7.  The results indicated that, the total cost of cultivation for maize was Rs. 31011.05. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 43640.22. The net income from maize cultivation was Rs. 12629.17. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:1.41.  The results indicated that, the total cost of cultivation for paddy was Rs. 33295.80. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 37297.00. The net income from paddy cultivation was Rs. 4001.20. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:1.12.  The results indicated that, the total cost of cultivation for groundnut was Rs. 44988.36. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 104414.40. The net income from groundnut cultivation was Rs. 59426.04. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:2.32.  The results indicated that, the total cost of cultivation for Sunflower was Rs. 47943.10. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 103740.00. The net income from Sunflower cultivation was Rs. 55796.90. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:2.16.  The results indicated that, the total cost of cultivation for Tomato was Rs. 102707.41. The gross income realized by the farmers was Rs. 335876.41. The net income from 5 Tomato cultivation was Rs. 233169.00. Thus the benefit cost ratio was found to be 1:3.27.  The results indicated that, 43.24 per cent of the households opined that dry fodder was adequate and 8.11 per cent of the households opined that green fodder was adequate.  The table indicated that, in landless farmers, the average income from wage Rs.66000.In marginal farmers the average income from service/salary was Rs.16000, wage was Rs.39000 and agriculture was Rs.52240. In small farmers the average income from wage was Rs.8076.92 and agriculture was Rs.97480.77 and dairy farm was Rs.3826.92. In semi medium farmers the average income from service/salary was Rs.15000, business was rs.12000, wage was Rs.22200 and agriculture was Rs.132600. In medium farmers the average income from service/salary was Rs.218000, wage was Rs.5000 and agriculture was Rs.287500.  The results indicated that in landless, the average expenditure from wage was Rs.3333.33. In marginal farmers the average expenditure from agriculture was Rs.22200. In small farmers the average expenditure from wage was Rs.2000, agriculture was Rs.51464.54 and dairy farm was Rs.7666.67. In semi medium farmers the average expenditure from business was Rs.60000, wage was Rs.20000 and agriculture was Rs.65000.In medium farmers the average expenditure from agriculture was Rs.126250.  The results indicated that, sampled households have grown 65 coconut, 1 lemon and 7 mango trees in their field and also planted 2 coconut and 1 mango trees in their backyard.  The results indicated that, households have planted 4 Eucalyptus tree, 56 teak trees, and 144 neem trees in their field and also grown 2 Neem tree in the their backyard.  The results indicate that, households have an average investment capacity of Rs. 135.14 for improved crop production and Rs.81.08 for improved livestock management. Small farmers have an average investment capacity of Rs. 384.62 for improved crop production and Rs.230.77 for improved livestock management.  The results indicated that for 2.70 per cent of the households were dependent on loan from the bank for improved crop production and improved livestock management respectively.  The results indicated that, Bajra, sunflower and tomato crops were sold to an extent of 100 per cent. Groundnut, maize and paddy crops were sold to an extent of 97.68 per cent, 98.81 per cent and 70 per cent respectively.  The results indicated that, 2.70 percent of the households have sold their produce to agent/traders, 100 percent of the households have sold their produce to local/village merchant and 21.62 percent of the households sold their produce in regulated markets. 6  The results indicated that 2.70 per cent of the households have used cart as a mode of transport, 100 per cent of them have used tractor and 5.41 per cent have used truck.  The results indicated that, 72.97 per cent of the households have experienced the soil and water erosion problems i.e. 60 percent of marginal farmers, 84.62 per cent of small farmers, 90 per cent of semi medium farmers and 100 percent of medium farmers.  The results indicated that, 81.08 per cent of the households have shown interest in soil testing.  The results indicated that, 72.97 percent used fire wood as a source of fuel and 27.03 percent of the households used LPG.  The results indicated that, piped supply was the source of drinking water for 75.68 per cent, 16.22 per cent of them were using bore well and 8.11 per cents of the households were using lake/tank for drinking water.  The results indicated that, electricity was the major source of light for 100 per cent of the households.  The results indicated that, 86.49 per cent of the households possess sanitary toilet i.e. 100 per cent of landless, marginal, small, 50 per cent of semi medium and 75 per cent of medium had sanitary toilet facility.  The results indicated that, 100 per cent of the sampled households possessed BPL card and 2.70 per cent of the sampled households have not possessed BPL card.  The results indicated that, 40.54 per cent of the households participated in NREGA programme which included 100 per cent of the landless and marginal, 7.69 per cent of the small, 20 per cent of the semi medium and 50 percent of the medium farmers.  The results indicated that, cereals, pulses, oilseeds, vegetables, fruits , milk, egg and meat were adequate for 100 per cent, 91.89 per cent, 27.03 per cent, 81.08 per cent, 5.41 per cent, 75.68 per cent, 48.65 per cent and 21.62 per cent of the households respectively.  The results indicated that, pulses, oilseeds, vegetables, fruits , milk, egg and meat were inadequate for 8.11 per cent, 70.27 per cent, 16.22 per cent, 89.19 per cent, 18.92 per cent, 48.65 per cent and 72.97 per cent of the households respectively.  The results indicated that, Lower fertility status of the soil was the constraint experienced by 81.08 per cent of the households, wild animal menace on farm field (83.78%), frequent incidence of pest and diseases (62.16%), inadequacy of irrigation water (29.73%), high cost of Fertilizers and plant protection chemicals (70.27%), high rate of interest on credit (35.14%), low price for the agricultural commodities (72.97%), lack of marketing facilities in the area (56.76%), inadequate extension services (10.81%), lack of transport for safe transport of the agricultural produce to the market (67.57%), less rainfall (13.51%) and Source of Agri-technology information(Newspaper/TV/Mobile) (5.41%). ; Watershed Development Department, Government of Karnataka (World Bank Funded) Sujala –III Project

The importance of energy efficiency and conservation (EE&C) is commonly discussed amongst policymakers. Countries are regarding this as one of the primary principles constituting energy policy, and various types of EE&C policies have been developed and adopted. However, in reality, expected EE&C investment is not necessarily executed due to high upfront costs and financing difficulties. The first step to overcome these challenges is to understand the potential benefits of EE&C investment and financing. One incentive to invest in EE&C is that the resulting reduction in energy bills could pay off the capital expenditure. Policymakers might also become willing to allocate a budget for an EE&C financing programme if they understand that EE&C investment can bring greater benefits to a county than investment amount. Another necessary step is to learn about possible EE&C financing methods. Eliminating knowledge gaps amongst stakeholders, particularly policymakers and financing institutions, can facilitate finance and hence EE&C investment in a country. In this context, this study will try to identify possible financing methods for EE&C investment and will analyse their costs and benefits. By sharing this information with policymakers in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member countries, this study intends to help promote EE&C investment in the region.