Home

Results 1 - 10 of 49,256 for increment. Search took 0.419 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
Treatment SCT+FISP: hh treated under both programs simultaneously (17%) Household expenditure - total Table 1: Impact on total expenditure per capita MWK real values All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Baseline mean Baseline mean Baseline mean SCT*d2014 10348.6** 40384.6 5093.7 32691.3 15220.8** 49843.4 [2.44] [0.96] [2.76] FISP*d2014 2041.0 44615.7 -3590.4 39623.2 7957.7 50181.2 [0.53] [-0.68] [1.53] Joint impact SCT&FISP 14290.3** 44988.4 14443.2* 35532.3 11709.5** 55976.1 [2.59] [1.97] [2.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCT 3941.7 9349.5* -3511.3 [1.01] [1.80] [-0.75] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 12249.3** 18033.6** 3751.8 [2.03] [2.50] [0.57] Complementarity 1900.7 12939.9* -11468.9 [0.34] [1.80] [-1.72] Household expenditure - Food Table 2: Impact on expenditure per capita by items - MWK real values All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Food per capita SCTP*d2014 6013.45 1377.53 10058.494** [1.63] [0.29] [2.2] FISP*d2014 1834.64 -2976.59 6723.04 [0.54] [-0.63] [1.45] Joint Impact SCTP&FISP 8117.414* 7650.87 6774.536* [1.83] [1.18] [1.67] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 2103.96 6273.344 -3283.958 [0.65] [1.38] [-0.72] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 6282.779 10627.46* 51.4941 [1.38] [1.79] [0.01] Complementarity 269.3276 9249.934 -10007 [0.06] [1.43] [-1.62] Table 3: Impact on expenditure per capita by items -MWK real values All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Health per capita SCTP*d2014 515.10 441.73 545.76 [1.45] [1.21] [0.93] FISP*d2014 -391.02 -172.20 -857.66 [-0.62] [-0.37] [-0.63] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 1219.446** 1428.233** 624.29 [2.73] [2.38] [1.25] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 704.3511 986.5052 78.52 [1.56] [1.61] [0.12] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 1610.465** 1600.429** 1481.94 [2.04] [2.16] [1.09] Complementarity 1095.37 1158.701 936.18 [1.36] [1.48] [0.61] Education per capita SCTP*d2014 225.755*** -22.35 474.719*** [2.94] [-0.16] [3.78] FISP*d2014 -72.27 -241.111* 100.19 [-1.09] [-1.84] [0.94] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 360.351*** 263.51 401.553** [3.29] [1.39] [2.49] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 134.5952 285.8555 -73.1667 [1.11] [1.54] [-0.54] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 432.6177*** 504.6155** 301.3672* [3.84] [2.42] [1.85] Complementarity 206.8622 526.9664** -173.3522 [1.52] [2.21] [-1.02] Clothing and foot. Per capita SCTP*d2014 962.313*** 946.165*** 906.557*** [7.00] [4.98] [4.5] FISP*d2014 187.030*** 57.49 395.723*** [3.05] [0.57] [2.95] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 902.583*** 1047.960*** 659.761*** [6.34] [5.67] [3.56] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -59.730 101.795 -246.796 [-0.42] [0.44] [-1.37] Incremental effect of SCTP on FISP 715.553*** 990.476*** 264.038 [4.70] [5.17] [1.07] Complementarity -246.760 44.310 -642.519 [-1.53] [0.17] [-2.84] Table 4: Impact on value of production MWK real values All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Baseline Mean Baseline Mean Baseline Mean SCTP*d2014 1215.2 9143.0 2338.9 10501.5 -170.6 7472.9 (0.85) [1.66] [-0.07] FISP*d2014 5001.2*** 9570.9 5874.0*** 11169.2 2682.0 7789.1 (3.64) [5.24] [1.03] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 7609.5*** 9830.9 7774.1*** 11101.5 7060.7*** 8354.4 (5.88) [5.63] [3.78] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 6394.2*** 5435.1*** 7231.3*** (6.93) [3.67] [4.06] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 2607.6* 1900.0 4378.7* (1.70) [1.28] [1.9] Complementarity 1392.3 -438.9 4549.3 (0.86) [-0.26] [1.38] Table 5: Impact on livestock expenditures and sales Expenses Sales All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained SCTP*d2014 1172.647*** 1395.706*** 761.950*** -78.668 -44.992 -247.801 [5.95] [6.07] [2.83] [-0.54] [-0.18] [-1.23] FISP*d2014 232.985*** 493.282*** 32.287 57.964 231.508 62.384 [2.96] [3.66] [0.28] [0.37] [0.76] [0.27] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 1688.574*** 1478.082*** 1997.143*** 395.800* 383.684 335.607 [5.89] [3.92] [6.19] [1.98] [1.05] [1.06] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 515.926* 82.3756 1235.193*** 474.468** 428.676 583.408 [1.82] [0.2] [4.68] [2.03] [1.08] [1.57] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 1455.59*** 984.800** 1964.855*** 337.836* 152.176 273.224 [5.04] [2.52] [5.33] [1.7] [0.5] [0.8] Complementarity 282.941 -410.906 1202.906*** 416.505 197.167 521.024 [0.99] [-0.94] [3.83] [1.50] [0.43] [1.17] Table 6: Impact on livestock % of households which own: Quantity All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Chicken SCTP*d2014 0.196*** 0.150*** 0.236*** 0.931*** 0.698** 1.365*** [3.81] [2.77] [3.20] [3.03] [2.62] [3.04] FISP*d2014 0.103*** 0.134** 0.029 0.276* 0.408 -0.067 [2.80] [2.29] [0.77] [1.96] [1.34] [-0.31] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.244*** 0.230*** 0.263** 1.677*** 1.511*** 1.828*** [4.31] [4.54] [2.72] [3.90] [4.19] [3.03] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.047** 0.080* 0.027 0.746* 0.814** 0.463 [2.32] [1.81] [0.46] [1.90] [2.68] [0.98] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.141** 0.095 0.234** 1.400*** 1.104** 1.894** [2.56] [1.43] [2.13] [3.29] [2.39] [2.85] Complementarity -0.055 -0.054 -0.002 0.469 0.406 0.529 [-1.35] [-0.71] [-0.03] [1.20] [1.06] [1.08] Goats and sheeps SCTP*d2014 0.108*** 0.114*** 0.075* 0.145 0.263* 0.03 [3.99] [2.99] [1.91] [1.36] [1.84] [0.35] FISP*d2014 0.062* 0.099 0.025 0.145 0.294 0.021 [2.01] [1.53] [0.59] [1.30] [1.46] [0.19] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.238*** 0.185*** 0.300*** 0.694*** 0.758*** 0.452*** [5.79] [3.75] [5.93] [3.93] [2.99] [4.18] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.131*** 0.071 0.226*** 0.549** 0.495** 0.422*** [4.31] [1.44] [6.35] [2.96] [2.15] [4.87] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.176*** 0.086 0.276*** 0.549** 0.464* 0.431*** [3.70] [1.24] [4.48] [2.89] [1.73] [3.60] Complementarity 0.069* -0.028 0.201*** 0.404* 0.201 0 .401** [1.71] [-0.34] [3.44] [1.86] [0.68] [2.91 Pigeons, doves or ducks SCTP*d2014 0.007 0.006 0.001 0.136* 0.263** -0.083 [0.48] [0.37] [0.06] [1.71] [2.33] [-0.83] FISP*d2014 -0.005 -0.006 -0.006 0.065 0.143 -0.045 [-0.38] [-0.27] [-0.34] [1.21] [1.20] [-0.63] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.060** 0.064* 0.052* 0.280** 0.336** 0.238* [2.55] [1.84] [1.71] [2.74] [2.09] [1.80] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.053* 0.058* 0.051 0.144 0.072 0.320* [1.91] [1.7] [1.28] [1.15] [0.45] [1.67] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.064** 0.070* 0.057* 0.215** 0.192 0.283* [2.65] [1.9] [1.7] [2.12] [1.32] [1.81] Complementarity 0.057* 0.064 0.056 0.079 -0.071 0.365* [1.89] [1.5] [1.31] [0.58] [-0.38] [1.73] Conclusions • Positive synergies between SCTP and FISP in increasing expenditure, value of agricultural production, agricultural activities, livestock, and weakly, in improving food security • Heterogeneity analysis based on labor constraints: 1. positive synergies in increasing household expenditures are stronger for labor unconstrainted households 2. positive synergies in increasing the value of production, production activities and livestock are stronger for labor constrained households Conclusions • SCTP provides liquidity and certainty for poor households and small family farmers, allowing them to invest in agriculture, human capital development and better manage risk • FISP can promote growth in the productivity of small family farmers by addressing structural constraints that limit access to inputs, financial and advisory services and markets • Impact results obtained through simple programs’ overlap. (...) Table: Anova test for difference between groups of intervention: control, SCT, FISP, SCT+FISP (weights adjusted) C SCT FISP SCT&FISP F-test P-value>F single head of hh 0.748 0.730 0.751 0.740 0.18 0.9117 female head of hh 0.851 0.838 0.820 0.837 0.49 0.692 age of head of hh 54.495 54.161 55.087 54.719 0.15 0.927 num members in the hh 4.633 4.633 4.454 4.544 0.59 0.618 num members in the hh: 0-5 years old 0.783 0.769 0.728 0.771 0.27 0.846 num members in the hh: 6-12 years old 1.250 1.256 1.162 1.195 0.74 0.527 num members in the hh: 13-17 years old 0.905 0.905 0.873 0.891 0.11 0.956 num members in the hh: 18-64 years old 1.178 1.196 1.195 1.170 0.07 0.976 num members in the hh: ¿=65 years old 0.517 0.508 0.496 0.517 0.12 0.951 num orphans in the hh 1.099 1.084 1.019 1.035 0.23 0.874 yrs of education head of hh 1.272 1.296 1.245 1.385 0.28 0.840 hh severely labor constrained 0.456 0.449 0.473 0.463 0.17 0.914 hh consumption - total 164515 154514 163867 160597 0.56 0.639 hh consumption - food and beverages 127622 118177 124934 125508 0.75 0.523 Household owns or cultivates land 0.919 0.932 0.937 0.933 0.4 0.754 Total plot area operated within hh 1.210 1.238 1.220 1.247 0.13 0.944 HH has plot that is irrigated 0.045 0.045 0.051 0.066 0.76 0.515 HH applies chemical fertilizer 0.276 0.270 0.353 0.424 9.59 0.000 HH applies organic fertilizer 0.278 0.265 0.315 0.329 1.72 0.161 HH uses pesticides 0.015 0.030 0.040 0.030 1.5 0.212 HH uses improved or hybrid seed 0.283 0.271 0.328 0.348 2.51 0.057 HH planted maize 0.872 0.872 0.877 0.884 0.12 0.951 HH planted groundnut 0.094 0.091 0.089 0.136 2.23 0.083 HH planted pigeon pea 0.098 0.111 0.068 0.115 2.14 0.094 Value of production 9506 9143 9571 9831 0.35 0.786 HH owns hand hoe 0.813 0.814 0.837 0.855 1.18 0.317 HH owns axe 0.100 0.081 0.093 0.100 0.37 0.771 HH owns panga knife 0.192 0.226 0.242 0.217 1.02 0.383 HH owns sickle 0.126 0.128 0.107 0.085 1.6 0.187 HH owns chickens now 0.126 0.128 0.107 0.085 1.6 0.187 HH owns goat or a sheep now 0.064 0.054 0.051 0.083 1.38 0.246 Total HH Expenditure for livestock 87.79 97.95 43.83 80.277 0.86 0.462 Total HH livestock sales 275.48 321.27 119.46 293.949 1.63 0.180 obs 616 485 239 267 Table: Impact on food security All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Worry about lack of food SCTP*d2014 -0.091** -0.095** -0.084 [-2.17] [-2.12] [-1.57] FISP*d2014 -0.046 -0.070** 0.002 [-1.51] [-2.28] [0.04] Joint impact SCT&FISP -0.076 -0.109* -0.043 [-1.68] [-1.72] [-0.76] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.015 -0.014 0.04 [0.58] [-0.29] [0.72] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.030 -0.039 -0.045 [-0.70] [-0.62] [-0.59] Complementarity 0.06 0.056 0.038 [1.56] [0.92] [0.44] Number of meals per day SCTP*d2014 0.226*** 0.174** 0.278*** [3.51] [2.36] [3.03] FISP*d2014 0.054 -0.016 0.131 [0.92] [-0.13] [1.57] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.244*** 0.226** 0.237*** [3.25] [2.17] [2.88] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.018 0.05 -0.04 [0.3] [0.64] [-0.42] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.190** 0.241** 0.11 [2.79] [2.04] [0.87] Complementarity -0.036 0.07 -0.17 [-0.42] [0.46] [-1.34 Caloric intake in the past 7 days SCTP*d2014 187.382** 119.382 280.131** [2.13] [1.24] [2.24] FISP*d2014 -12.874 -57.596 63.059 [-0.29] [-0.70] [0.74] Joint impact SCT&FISP 188.926 175.909 267.392** [1.40] [1.03] [2.14] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 1.54 56.53 -75.80 [0.01] [0.4] [-0.51] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 201.80 233.50 -12.74 [1.43] [1.26] [-0.11] Complementarity 14.42 114.12 -75.80 [0.12] [0.71] [1.54] Table: Impact on food security (cont’d) All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Caloric intake from purchased food SCTP*d2014 181.329** 90.501 345.121*** [2.23] [0.93] [4.32] FISP*d2014 54.114 0.919 128.241 [0.82] [0.01] [1.47] Joint impact SCT&FISP 211.552** 163.367 294.328*** [2.09] [1.49] [2.79] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 30.22 72.87 -50.79 [0.42] [1] [-0.55] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 157.44 162.45 166.087 [1.58] [1.39] [1.58] Complementarity -23.89 71.95 -179.03 [0.24] [0.65] [-1.44] Caloric intake from produced food SCTP*d2014 -41.163 -18.085 -77.454 [-0.71] [-0.29] [-1.33] FISP*d2014 -6.951 -6.514 -21.837 [-0.38] [-0.26] [-1.03] Joint impact SCT&FISP -29.016 4.027 -63.326 [-0.52] [0.08] [-0.90] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 12.147 22.112 14.128 [0.78] [0.90] [0.48] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -22.066 10.541 -41.489 [-0.41] [0.21] [-0.63] Complementarity 19.098 28.626 35.965 [0.84] [0.84] [1] Caloric intake from gifts SCTP*d2014 -4.915 -2.845 -7.85 [-1.29] [-0.81] [-1.68] FISP*d2014 3.677* 1.431 6.655*** [1.78] [0.50] [3.04] Joint impact SCT&FISP -1.503 -1.061 -1.84 [-0.37] [-0.26] [-0.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 3.412* 1.784 6.010*** [1.73] [0.58] [2.96] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -5.180 -2.492 -8.495 [-1.18] [-0.50] [-1.91] Complementarity -0.265 0.353 -0.645 [-0.1] [0.09] [-0.23] Table: Impact on crop production % of households engaged in: Quantity produced All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Maize production SCTP*d2014 -0.001 -0.004 -0.008 18.767 19.641 12.244 [-0.03] [-0.19] [-0.15] [1.22] [1.29] [0.52] FISP*d2014 0.067** 0.014 0.112** 65.581*** 61.179*** 61.037*** [2.48] [0.72] [2.52] [6.42] [5.97] [4.49] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.033 0.003 0.081 81.418*** 76.181*** 82.667*** [0.98] [0.10] [1.64] [4.32] [3.70] [4.28] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.034 0.007 0.089 62.651*** 56.540*** 70.423*** [1.52] [0.28] [2.99] [5.40] [3.29] [4.08] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.034 -0.011 -0.031 15.837 15.002 21.629 [-0.94] [-0.39] [-0.56] [0.78] [0.70] [0.97] Complementarity -0.033 -0.007 -0.023 -2.93 -4.639 9.386 [-0.94] [-0.22] [-0.4] [-0.19] [-0.25] [0.43] Grandnut production SCTP*d2014 0.090* 0.089 0.088 7.954** 8.654 7.076* [1.86] [1.44] [1.54] [2.23] [1.68] [2.01] FISP*d2014 0.082*** 0.096** 0.082** 7.861** 6.145 9.508** [4.04] [2.42] [2.37] [2.33] [1.25] [2.16] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.105** 0.105* 0.100* 9.038** 9.372** 8.112** [2.14] [1.74] [1.99] [2.38] [2.19] [2.21] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.015 0.017 0.012 1.084 0.718 1.035 [0.34] [0.31] [0.19] [0.47] [0.27] [0.24] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.022 0.009 0.018 1.177 3.227 -1.397 [0.45] [0.14] [0.3] [0.25] [0.60] [-0.25] Complementarity -0.067 -0.079 -0.069 -6.777 -5.428 -8.472 [-1.43] [-1.2] [-0.95] [-1.63] [-0.98] [-1.39] Pigeon pea production SCTP*d2014 0.016 0.102** -0.109 1.506 2.648 -0.09 [0.30] [2.05] [-1.57] [0.85] [1.25] [-0.06] FISP*d2014 0.094** 0.095** 0.071 3.706*** 3.916** 3.039** [2.23] [2.33] [1.18] [2.85] [2.43] [2.31] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.001 0.027 -0.035 1.929 1.405 2.28 [0.01] [0.49] [-0.64] [1.30] [0.82] [1.13] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -0.015 -0.074** 0.074 0.424 -1.243 2.37 [-0.86] [-2.49] [2.16] [0.41] [-0.76] [1.40] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.094 -0.067 -0.105 -1.776 -2.511 -0.759 [-1.56] [-1.04] [-1.58] [-0.97] [-1.15] [-0.34] Complementarity -0.110** -0.169*** 0.004 -3.282** -5.159** -0.669 [-2.48] [-3.18] [0.05] [-2.14] [-2.40] [-0.32] Nkhwani production SCTP*d2014 -0.086* -0.122* -0.069 -0.954 -2.396 0.366 [-1.89] [-1.95] [-1.52] [-0.66] [-1.28] [0.25] FISP*d2014 0.001 -0.043 0.06 1.849 0.339 3.651*** [0.03] [-0.86] [1.06] [1.45] [0.19] [2.81] Joint impact SCTP&FISP -0.07 -0.104 -0.057 -0.3 -2.457 1.856 [-1.28] [-1.39] [-1.36] [-0.19] [-1.26] [1.19] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.015 0.018 0.012 0.653 -0.061 1.489 [0.57] [0.42] [0.38] [0.90] [-0.09] [1.14] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.072 -0.061 -0.117* -2.149 -2.796 -1.795 [-1.28] [-0.86] [-1.77] [-1.44] [-1.53] [-0.96] Complementarity 0.014 0.061 -0.048 -1.195 -0.399 -2.162 [0.26] [0.95] [0.69] [-0.79] [-0.22] [-1.16] Table: Impact on agricultural input % of households which use: Quantity used All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Chemical fertilizers SCTP*d2014 0.058 -0.004 0.096 2.378 1.171 2.305 [0.85] [-0.04] [1.01] [0.99] [0.34] [0.65] FISP*d2014 0.472*** 0.354*** 0.562*** 21.638*** 15.819*** 26.205*** [7.95] [3.55] [13.88] [7.80] [3.57] [7.93] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.338*** 0.284*** 0.435*** 21.952*** 21.792*** 22.380*** [5.03] [3.78] [4.17] [7.46] [6.20] [4.96] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.279*** 0.288** 0.339** 19.574*** 20.621*** 20.075*** [4.04] [2.97] [2.82] [5.49] [4.08] [3.8] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.134** -0.07 -0.127 0.314 5.972 -3.825 [-2.12] [-0.89] [-1.26] [0.10] [1.51] [-0.9] Complementarity -0.192** -0.066 -0.223* -2.063 4.802 -6.13 [-2.09] [-0.49] [-1.75] [ -0.47] [0.77] [-1] Organic ferlizers Value SCTP*d2014 0.046 -0.009 0.122 213.131* 207.302 208.637* [0.64] [-0.09] [1.50] [1.92] [1.38] [1.79] FISP*d2014 -0.082 -0.072 -0.083 -201.953** -178.551* -221.040*** [-1.35] [-0.85] [-1.46] [-2.65] [-1.81] [-2.81] Joint impact SCTP&FISP -0.069 -0.158 0.077 114.853 91.057 162.463 [-0.75] [-1.32] [0.94] [0.93] [0.56] [1.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -0.115 -0.149 -0.045 -98.278 -116.246 -46.175 [-1.81] [-1.36] [-0.70] [-1.04] [0.65] [-0.63] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.013 -0.086 0.160* 316.806*** 269.607** 383.503*** [0.16] [-0.81] [1.86] [2.94] [1.96] [3.38] Complementarity -0.033 -0.077 0.038 103.675 62.305 174.866* [-0.36] [-0.53] [0.46] [0.86] [0.31] [1.77] Pesticides SCTP*d2014 -0.004 -0.02 0.012 [-0.25] [-0.74] [0.95] FISP*d2014 -0.01 -0.023 0.001 [-0.74] [-1.16] [0.06] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.031 -0.004 0.062** [1.60] [-0.15] [2.68] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.035** 0.015 0.051* [2.39] [0.54] [1.94] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.041** 0.019 0.062** [2.46] [0.77] [2.33] Complementarity 0.045** 0.039 0.05 [2.36] [1.21] [1.61] Improved or hybrid seeds SCTP*d2014 0.05 -0.021 0.118* [1.04] [-0.36] [1.67] FISP*d2014 0.125*** 0.121* 0.136* [3.32] [1.96] [1.98] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.115 0.087 0.171* [1.49] [1.01] [1.93] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.065 0.108 0.053 [0.83] [1.13] [ 0.76] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.01 -0.034 0.035 [-0.11] [-0.31] [0.37] Complementarity -0.06 -0.013 -0.083 [-0.67] [-0.11] [-0.82]
Language:English
Score: 977023 - https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/...ntations/pacdev2017daidone.pdf
Data Source: un
Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Objective of the paper To study the interplay between the Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP) and the Social Cash Transfer Program (SCTP) in Malawi Impacts on ultra-poor households under three different treatment regimes: 1 exclusive participation in FISP (α) 2 exclusive participation in SCTP (β) 3 simultaneous participation in both (γ) Is there any complementarity between the two programs, i.e. γ > α + β Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Why Malawi Previous involvement in SCTP evaluation On-going debate in the region on the effectiveness of input subsidies and cash transfers This paper is part of a research work intended to inform FISP review and how it can be coordinated with other agricultural and social protection programs Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix The Farm Input Subsidy Program Initiated in 2005-2006 Initially aimed to reach approximately 50% of farmers to receive fertilizers for maize production Substantial changes in several aspects (objectives, scale, quantity of subsidized fertilizer supplies, voucher distribution system, voucher redemption system) In theory FISP targets small family farmers who are resource-poor but own a piece of land Broad criteria and variations in the use of the targeting guidelines Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix The Social Cash Transfer Program Unconditional cash transfers Targeted to ultra-poor and labour constrained households The size of the transfer to each household depends on the number of household members and their characteristics A pilot of the program was initiated in 2006 in one district As of April 2015, it reached over 100,000 households in 18 out of 28 districts Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Econometric method Two complications: 1 3 treatment regimes instead of one 2 only inclusion into SCTP is randomized Doubly robust method implemented by Uysal (2015) It combines regression modeling (based on a DiD approach) and Generalized Propensity Score (GPS) weighting by Imbens (2000) applied to multiple treatments’ interventions Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Econometric method In practice, we estimate a weighted least squares regression with the following minimization problem: min µ̃t,α̃t 1 N N ∑ i=1 ( K ∑ t=0 Dit(Ti) r̂(t, Xi) )( Yi − K ∑ t=0 µ̃tDit(Ti)− K ∑ t=0 Dit(Ti)(Xi − X̄)′α̃t )2 (1) where r̂(t, Xi) is the GPS estimated via a multinomial logit regression using baseline data Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Regression analysis The regression equivalent of DiD with covariates and weighting based on GPS is: Yi,d = ζ + αD2014i + β1SCTPi,d + β2(D2014i ∗ SCTPi,d)+ γ1FISPi,d + γ2(D2014i ∗ FISPi,d) + γ3SCTPi,d&FISPi,d+ δ(D2014i ∗ SCTPi,d&FISPi,d) + ∑ βXi + µi,d (2) Yi,d represents the main outcome variable Xi vector of household/community characteristics measured at baseline (i.e. not affected by the treatment) Parameters of interest: β2, γ2 and δ δ− β2 − γ2: complementarity between SCTP and FISP. δ− β2: incremental impact of FISP on SCTP. δ− γ2: incremental impact of SCTP on FISP Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Evaluation design and data Data collected from a seventeen-month impact evaluation of a sample eligible to receive SCTP in two districts (Salima and Mangochi) These data also provide information about inclusion into FISP RCT with delayed entry control group: 1 Random selection of Traditional Authorities 2 Random assignment of village clusters into SCTP Sample of 1,607 househods interviewed at both baseline (July/August 2013) and follow-up (November 2014) Four groups: 1 Control hh: neither received SCTP not FISP (38%) 2 Treatment SCTP: hh treated exclusively under SCTP (30%) 3 Treatment FISP: hh treated exclusively under FISP (15%) 4 Treatment SCT+FISP: hh treated under both programs simultaneously (17%) Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Household expenditure - total Table 1: Impact on total expenditure per adult equivalent MWK real values (1 USD=329.5 MWK) All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Baseline mean Baseline mean Baseline mean SCT*d2014 9480.7** 46207.2 7092.7 38001.4 13290.7** 56296.2 [2.19] [1.37] [2.08] FISP*d2014 -1592.2 50496.0 -7879.5 45677.7 6388.6 55867.3 [-0.48] [-1.62] [1.08] Joint impact SCT&FISP 10696.8** 51667.8 12625.7* 40800.7 10656.9** 64295.1 [2.04] [1.79] [2.05] Incremental impact of FISP on SCT 1216.1 5533.0 -2633.7 [0.32] [1.33] [-0.44] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 12288.9** 20505.3** 4268.4 [2.24] [3.35] [0.57] Complementarity 2808.3 13412.6* -9022.3 [0.55] [2.26] [-1.09] R2 0.1671 0.1292 0.2666 Observations 3214 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Household expenditure - Food Table 2: Impact on expenditure per adult equivalent by items All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Food SCTP*d2014 5020.7 2803.4 7984.1* [1.34] [0.61] [1.74] FISP*d2014 -794.6 -6198.5 5565.4 [-0.25] [-1.38] [1.08] Joint Impact SCTP&FISP 5538.9* 6616.2 5666.6 [1.40] [1.11] [1.26] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 518.3 3812.7 -2317.5 [0.18] [1.14] [-0.41] Incremental impact of SCT on FISP 6308.6 12814.7** 101.3 [1.57] [2.62] [0.02] Complementarity 1287.9 10011.2* -7882.8 [0.3] [1.86] [-1.06] R2 0.1742 0.104 0.2522 Observations 3124 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table 3: Impact on expenditure per adult equivalent by items All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Health SCTP*d2014 574.702 497.461 632.908 [1.51] [1.42] [0.92] FISP*d2014 -554.987 -417.04 -762.646 [-0.86] [-0.80] [-0.50] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 980.121** 1018.868 808.837 405.419 521.406 175.930 Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP [0.81] [0.82] [0.21] 1535.108* 1435.907** 1571.48 Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 1535.108* 1435.907** 1571.48 [1.94] [2.04] [1.02] Complementarity 960.406 938.446 938.58 [1.16] [1.2] [0.53] Education SCTP*d2014 210.792*** -38.447 456.396*** [2.98] [-0.28] [3.41] FISP*d2014 -117.666* -328.706** 117.8 [-1.84] [-2.53] [0.94] Joint impact SCT&FISP 281.521*** 142.917 426.356** [2.84] [1.19] [2.30] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 70.729 181.363 -30.039 [0.63] [1.18] [-0.54] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 399.187*** 471.622*** 308.556* [4.1] [3.5] [1.68] Complementarity 188.395 510.069** -147.839 [1.51] [2.5] [-0.81] R2 0.143 0.154 0.175 Clothing and footwear SCTP*d2014 1031.314*** 1033.338*** 1007.661*** [6.76] [5.05] [4.08] FISP*d2014 167.566** 26.962 410.703** [2.38] [0.25] [2.22] Joint impact SCT&FISP 980.496*** 1061.451*** 880.214*** [5.95] [5.42] [3.72] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -50.818 28.113 -127.447 [-0.34] [0.13] [-0.58] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 812.929*** 1034.49*** 469.5115 [4.46] [5.08] [1.56] Complementarity -218.385 1.151 -538.1498 [-1.25] [0] [-1.85] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table 4: Impact on value of production MWK real values (1 USD= 329.5 MWK) All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Baseline Mean Baseline Mean Baseline Mean SCTP*d2014 1359.978 9143.033 2421.597* 10501.45 67.177 7472.863 [0.97] [1.75] [0.03] FISP*d2014 5079.694*** 9570.896 5954.431*** 11169.23 2806.269 7789.116 [3.74] [5.54] [1.08] Joint impact SCT&FISP 7702.45*** 9830.867 7798.565*** 11101.51 7196.608*** 8354.416 [6.29] [5.87] [4.00] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 6342.471*** 5376.968*** 7129.431*** [6.93] [ 3.68] [3.97] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 2622.755* 1844.134 4390.339** [1.81] [1.30] [1.99] Complementarity 1262.777 -577.463 4323.162 [0.78] [-0.35] [1.31] R2 0.275 0.313 0.284 Observations 3,214 1,806 1,408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table 5: Impact on livestock expenditures and sales Expenses Sales All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained SCTP*d2014 1172.647*** 1395.706*** 761.950*** -78.668 -44.992 -247.801 [5.95] [6.07] [2.83] [-0.54] [-0.18] [-1.23] FISP*d2014 232.985*** 493.282*** 32.287 57.964 231.508 62.384 [2.96] [3.66] [0.28] [0.37] [0.76] [0.27] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 1688.574*** 1478.082*** 1997.143*** 395.800* 383.684 335.607 [5.89] [3.92] [6.19] [1.98] [1.05] [1.06] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 515.926* 82.3756 1235.193*** 474.468** 428.676 583.408 [1.82] [0.2] [4.68] [2.03] [1.08] [1.57] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 1455.59*** 984.800** 1964.855*** 337.836* 152.176 273.224 [5.04] [2.52] [5.33] [1.7] [0.5] [0.8] Complementarity 282.941 -410.906 1202.906*** 416.505 197.167 521.024 [0.99] [-0.94] [3.83] [1.50] [0.43] [1.17] R2 0.1879 0.1887 0.2714 0.0528 0.0677 0.1323 Observations 3214 1806 1408 3214 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table 6: Impact on livestock % of households which own: Quantity All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Chicken SCTP*d2014 0.196*** 0.150*** 0.236*** 0.931*** 0.698** 1.365*** [3.81] [2.77] [3.20] [3.03] [2.62] [3.04] FISP*d2014 0.103*** 0.134** 0.029 0.276* 0.408 -0.067 [2.80] [2.29] [0.77] [1.96] [1.34] [-0.31] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.244*** 0.230*** 0.263** 1.677*** 1.511*** 1.828*** [4.31] [4.54] [2.72] [3.90] [4.19] [3.03] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.047** 0.080* 0.027 0.746* 0.814** 0.463 [2.32] [1.81] [0.46] [1.90] [2.68] [0.98] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.141** 0.095 0.234** 1.400*** 1.104** 1.894** [2.56] [1.43] [2.13] [3.29] [2.39] [2.85] Complementarity -0.055 -0.054 -0.002 0.469 0.406 0.529 [-1.35] [-0.71] [-0.03] [1.20] [1.06] [1.08] Goats and sheeps SCTP*d2014 0.108*** 0.114*** 0.075* 0.145 0.263* 0.03 [3.99] [2.99] [1.91] [1.36] [1.84] [0.35] FISP*d2014 0.062* 0.099 0.025 0.145 0.294 0.021 [2.01] [1.53] [0.59] [1.30] [1.46] [0.19] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.238*** 0.185*** 0.300*** 0.694*** 0.758*** 0.452*** [5.79] [3.75] [5.93] [3.93] [2.99] [4.18] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.131*** 0.071 0.226*** 0.549** 0.495** 0.422*** [4.31] [1.44] [6.35] [2.96] [2.15] [4.87] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.176*** 0.086 0.276*** 0.549** 0.464* 0.431*** [3.70] [1.24] [4.48] [2.89] [1.73] [3.60] Complementarity 0.069* -0.028 0.201*** 0.404* 0.201 0 .401** [1.71] [-0.34] [3.44] [1.86] [0.68] [2.91 Pigeons, doves or ducks SCTP*d2014 0.007 0.006 0.001 0.136* 0.263** -0.083 [0.48] [0.37] [0.06] [1.71] [2.33] [-0.83] FISP*d2014 -0.005 -0.006 -0.006 0.065 0.143 -0.045 [-0.38] [-0.27] [-0.34] [1.21] [1.20] [-0.63] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.060** 0.064* 0.052* 0.280** 0.336** 0.238* [2.55] [1.84] [1.71] [2.74] [2.09] [1.80] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.053* 0.058* 0.051 0.144 0.072 0.320* [1.91] [1.7] [1.28] [1.15] [0.45] [1.67] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.064** 0.070* 0.057* 0.215** 0.192 0.283* [2.65] [1.9] [1.7] [2.12] [1.32] [1.81] Complementarity 0.057* 0.064 0.056 0.079 -0.071 0.365* [1.89] [1.5] [1.31] [0.58] [-0.38] [1.73] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Conclusions These findings challenge important notions underling the approach to poverty reduction in Malawi The achievement of the objective of FISP and SCTP among poor households is best done by combining these programs such that a household participates in both programs simultaneously Positive synergies between SCTP and FISP in increasing expenditure, value of agricultural production, agricultural activities, livestock, and weakly, in improving food security Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Conclusions SCTP provides liquidity and certainty for poor households and small family farmers, allowing them to invest in agriculture, human capital development and better manage risk FISP can promote growth in the productivity of small family farmers by addressing structural constraints that limit access to inputs and markets Impact results obtained through simple programs’ overlap. (...) PtoP publications: http://www.fao.org/economic/ptop/publications/reports/en/ From Evidence to Action: the Story of Cash Transfers and Impact Evaluation in Sub-Saharan Africa: link http://www.fao.org/economic/ptop/publications/reports/en/ http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5157e.pdf Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Thank you noemi.pace@fao.org Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Anova test for difference between groups of intervention: control, SCT, FISP, SCT+FISP (weights adjusted) C SCT FISP SCT&FISP F-test P-value>F single head of hh 0.748 0.730 0.751 0.740 0.18 0.9117 female head of hh 0.851 0.838 0.820 0.837 0.49 0.692 age of head of hh 54.495 54.161 55.087 54.719 0.15 0.927 num members in the hh 4.633 4.633 4.454 4.544 0.59 0.618 num members in the hh: 0-5 years old 0.783 0.769 0.728 0.771 0.27 0.846 num members in the hh: 6-12 years old 1.250 1.256 1.162 1.195 0.74 0.527 num members in the hh: 13-17 years old 0.905 0.905 0.873 0.891 0.11 0.956 num members in the hh: 18-64 years old 1.178 1.196 1.195 1.170 0.07 0.976 num members in the hh: ¿=65 years old 0.517 0.508 0.496 0.517 0.12 0.951 num orphans in the hh 1.099 1.084 1.019 1.035 0.23 0.874 yrs of education head of hh 1.272 1.296 1.245 1.385 0.28 0.840 hh severely labor constrained 0.456 0.449 0.473 0.463 0.17 0.914 hh consumption - total 164515 154514 163867 160597 0.56 0.639 hh consumption - food and beverages 127622 118177 124934 125508 0.75 0.523 Household owns or cultivates land 0.919 0.932 0.937 0.933 0.4 0.754 Total plot area operated within hh 1.210 1.238 1.220 1.247 0.13 0.944 HH has plot that is irrigated 0.045 0.045 0.051 0.066 0.76 0.515 HH applies chemical fertilizer 0.276 0.270 0.353 0.424 9.59 0.000 HH applies organic fertilizer 0.278 0.265 0.315 0.329 1.72 0.161 HH uses pesticides 0.015 0.030 0.040 0.030 1.5 0.212 HH uses improved or hybrid seed 0.283 0.271 0.328 0.348 2.51 0.057 HH planted maize 0.872 0.872 0.877 0.884 0.12 0.951 HH planted groundnut 0.094 0.091 0.089 0.136 2.23 0.083 HH planted pigeon pea 0.098 0.111 0.068 0.115 2.14 0.094 Value of production 9506 9143 9571 9831 0.35 0.786 HH owns hand hoe 0.813 0.814 0.837 0.855 1.18 0.317 HH owns axe 0.100 0.081 0.093 0.100 0.37 0.771 HH owns panga knife 0.192 0.226 0.242 0.217 1.02 0.383 HH owns sickle 0.126 0.128 0.107 0.085 1.6 0.187 HH owns chickens now 0.126 0.128 0.107 0.085 1.6 0.187 HH owns goat or a sheep now 0.064 0.054 0.051 0.083 1.38 0.246 Total HH Expenditure for livestock 87.79 97.95 43.83 80.277 0.86 0.462 Total HH livestock sales 275.48 321.27 119.46 293.949 1.63 0.180 obs 616 485 239 267 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on food security All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Worry about lack of food SCTP*d2014 -0.091** -0.095** -0.084 [-2.17] [-2.12] [-1.57] FISP*d2014 -0.046 -0.070** 0.002 [-1.51] [-2.28] [0.04] Joint impact SCT&FISP -0.076 -0.109* -0.043 [-1.68] [-1.72] [-0.76] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.015 -0.014 0.04 [0.58] [-0.29] [0.72] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.030 -0.039 -0.045 [-0.70] [-0.62] [-0.59] Complementarity 0.06 0.056 0.038 [1.56] [0.92] [0.44] Number of meals per day SCTP*d2014 0.226*** 0.174** 0.278*** [3.51] [2.36] [3.03] FISP*d2014 0.054 -0.016 0.131 [0.92] [-0.13] [1.57] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.244*** 0.226** 0.237*** [3.25] [2.17] [2.88] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.018 0.05 -0.04 [0.3] [0.64] [-0.42] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.190** 0.241** 0.11 [2.79] [2.04] [0.87] Complementarity -0.036 0.07 -0.17 [-0.42] [0.46] [-1.34 Caloric intake in the past 7 days SCTP*d2014 187.382** 119.382 280.131** [2.13] [1.24] [2.24] FISP*d2014 -12.874 -57.596 63.059 [-0.29] [-0.70] [0.74] Joint impact SCT&FISP 188.926 175.909 267.392** [1.40] [1.03] [2.14] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 1.54 56.53 -75.80 [0.01] [0.4] [-0.51] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 201.80 233.50 -12.74 [1.43] [1.26] [-0.11] Complementarity 14.42 114.12 -75.80 [0.12] [0.71] [1.54] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on food security (cont’d) All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Caloric intake from purchased food SCTP*d2014 181.329** 90.501 345.121*** [2.23] [0.93] [4.32] FISP*d2014 54.114 0.919 128.241 [0.82] [0.01] [1.47] Joint impact SCT&FISP 211.552** 163.367 294.328*** [2.09] [1.49] [2.79] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 30.22 72.87 -50.79 [0.42] [1] [-0.55] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 157.44 162.45 166.087 [1.58] [1.39] [1.58] Complementarity -23.89 71.95 -179.03 [0.24] [0.65] [-1.44] Caloric intake from produced food SCTP*d2014 -41.163 -18.085 -77.454 [-0.71] [-0.29] [-1.33] FISP*d2014 -6.951 -6.514 -21.837 [-0.38] [-0.26] [-1.03] Joint impact SCT&FISP -29.016 4.027 -63.326 [-0.52] [0.08] [-0.90] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 12.147 22.112 14.128 [0.78] [0.90] [0.48] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -22.066 10.541 -41.489 [-0.41] [0.21] [-0.63] Complementarity 19.098 28.626 35.965 [0.84] [0.84] [1] Caloric intake from gifts SCTP*d2014 -4.915 -2.845 -7.85 [-1.29] [-0.81] [-1.68] FISP*d2014 3.677* 1.431 6.655*** [1.78] [0.50] [3.04] Joint impact SCT&FISP -1.503 -1.061 -1.84 [-0.37] [-0.26] [-0.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 3.412* 1.784 6.010*** [1.73] [0.58] [2.96] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -5.180 -2.492 -8.495 [-1.18] [-0.50] [-1.91] Complementarity -0.265 0.353 -0.645 [-0.1] [0.09] [-0.23] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Index of agricultural assets All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained SCTP*d2014 0.029*** 0.043*** 0.007 [3.58] [4.07] [0.58] FISP*d2014 0.023*** 0.036*** 0.003 [2.85] [3.00] [0.27] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.042*** 0.050*** 0.026** [5.18] [4.09] [2.17] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.014* 0.007 0.019* [1.79] [0.68] [1.73] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.020** 0.014 0.029** [2.21] [1.08] [1.97] Complementarity -0.009 -0.029* 0.022 [-0.80] [-1.79] [1.18] R2 0.1881 0.1708 0.2480 Observations 3214 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on crop production Land size for each crop: % of households engaged in: Quantity produced All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Maize production SCTP*d2014 0.039 0.037 0.029 -0.001 -0.004 -0.008 18.767 19.641 12.244 [0.50] [0.49] [0.26] [-0.03] [-0.19] [-0.15] [1.22] [1.29] [0.52] FISP*d2014 0.08 -0.03 0.177* 0.067** 0.014 0.112** 65.581*** 61.179*** 61.037*** [1.06] [-0.33] [1.78] [2.48] [0.72] [2.52] [6.42] [5.97] [4.49] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.189*** 0.206** 0.161* 0.033 0.003 0.081 81.418*** 76.181*** 82.667*** [2.79] [2.34] [1.65] [0.98] [0.10] [1.64] [4.32] [3.70] [4.28] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.15*** 0.17** 0.13* 0.034 0.007 0.089 62.651*** 56.540*** 70.423*** [4.25] [2.62] [1.94] [1.52] [0.28] [2.99] [5.40] [3.29] [4.08] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.109 0.24** -0.016 -0.034 -0.011 -0.031 15.837 15.002 21.629 [1.5] [2.27] [-0.16] [-0.94] [-0.39] [-0.56] [0.78] [0.70] [0.97] Complementarity 0.069 0.20* -0.045 -0.033 -0.007 -0.023 -2.93 -4.639 9.386 [0.82] [1.77] [-0.36] [-0.94] [-0.22] [-0.4] [-0.19] [-0.25] [0.43] Grandnut production SCTP*d2014 0.061* 0.075 0.05 0.090* 0.089 0.088 7.954** 8.654 7.076* [1.84] [1.68] [1.33] [1.86] [1.44] [1.54] [2.23] [1.68] [2.01] FISP*d2014 0.068*** 0.077** 0.064* 0.082*** 0.096** 0.082** 7.861** 6.145 9.508** [3.36] [2.65] [1.94] [4.04] [2.42] [2.37] [2.33] [1.25] [2.16] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.074** 0.115** 0.015 0.105** 0.105* 0.100* 9.038** 9.372** 8.112** [2.07] [2.59] [0.38] [2.14] [1.74] [1.99] [2.38] [2.19] [2.21] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.013 0.040 -0.035 0.015 0.017 0.012 1.084 0.718 1.035 [0.44] [1.2] [-0.84] [0.34] [0.31] [0.19] [0.47] [0.27] [0.24] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.006 0.038 -0.050 0.022 0.009 0.018 1.177 3.227 -1.397 [0.15] [0.81] [-0.94] [0.45] [0.14] [0.3] [0.25] [0.60] [-0.25] Complementarity -0.055 -0.037 -0.01* -0.067 -0.079 -0.069 -6.777 -5.428 -8.472 [-1.5] [-0.82] [-1.82] [-1.43] [-1.2] [-0.95] [-1.63] [-0.98] [-1.39] Pigeon pea production SCTP*d2014 0.003 0.048 -0.079 0.016 0.102** -0.109 1.506 2.648 -0.09 [0.07] [1.02] [-1.57] [0.30] [2.05] [-1.57] [0.85] [1.25] [-0.06] FISP*d2014 0.071* 0.092** 0.029 0.094** 0.095** 0.071 3.706*** 3.916** 3.039** [1.92] [2.23] [0.53] [2.23] [2.33] [1.18] [2.85] [2.43] [2.31] Joint impact SCT&FISP -0.004 0.01 -0.032 0.001 0.027 -0.035 1.929 1.405 2.28 [-0.10] [0.13] [-0.69] [0.01] [0.49] [-0.64] [1.30] [0.82] [1.13] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -0.007 -0.039 0.047 -0.015 -0.074** 0.074 0.424 -1.243 2.37 [-0.34] [-0.76] [1.3] [-0.86] [-2.49] [2.16] [0.41] [-0.76] [1.40] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.075 -0.082 -0.060 -0.094 -0.067 -0.105 -1.776 -2.511 -0.759 [-1.33] [-0.94] [-1.02] [-1.56] [-1.04] [-1.58] [-0.97] [-1.15] [-0.34] Complementarity -0.078* -0.13* 0.019 -0.110** -0.169*** 0.004 -3.282** -5.159** -0.669 [-1.74] [-1.75] [0.28] [-2.48] [-3.18] [0.05] [-2.14] [-2.40] [-0.32] Nkhwani production SCTP*d2014 -0.034 -0.059 -0.019 -0.086* -0.122* -0.069 -0.954 -2.396 0.366 [-1.07] [-1.19] [-0.54] [-1.89] [-1.95] [-1.52] [-0.66] [-1.28] [0.25] FISP*d2014 0.012 -0.032 0.061 0.001 -0.043 0.06 1.849 0.339 3.651*** [0.33] [-0.62] [1.63] [0.03] [-0.86] [1.06] [1.45] [0.19] [2.81] Joint impact SCT&FISP -0.009 -0.055 0.035 -0.07 -0.104 -0.057 -0.3 -2.457 1.856 [-0.22] [-1.03] [0.87] [-1.28] [-1.39] [-1.36] [-0.19] [-1.26] [1.19] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.026 0.004 0.054 0.015 0.018 0.012 0.653 -0.061 1.489 [1.16] [0.18] [1.34] [0.57] [0.42] [0.38] [0.90] [-0.09] [1.14] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.021 -0.024 -0.026 -0.072 -0.061 -0.117* -2.149 -2.796 -1.795 [-0.48] [-0.47] [-0.51] [-1.28] [-0.86] [-1.77] [-1.44] [-1.53] [-0.96] Complementarity 0.01 0.036 -0.007 0.014 0.061 -0.048 -1.195 -0.399 -2.162 [0.3] [0.67] [-0.13] [0.26] [0.95] [0.69] [-0.79] [-0.22] [-1.16] Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on cultivated land All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained SCTP*d2014 0.077 0.205 -0.074 [0.61] [1.39] [-0.42] FISP*d2014 0.236* 0.248 0.174 [1.77] [1.40] [1.29] Joint impact SCT&FISP 0.293* 0.273 0.298* [1.70] [1.29] [1.85] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.216 0.07 0.372** [1.09] [0.31] [2.5] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.057 0.03 0.124 [0.31] [0.12] [0.8] Complementarity -0.020 -0.18 0.198 [-0.08] [-0.65] [0.96] R2 0.1025 0.1070 0.1799 Observations 3214 1806 1408 Motivation Background of the programs Empirical analysis Results Conclusion Appendix Table: Impact on agricultural input % of households which use: Quantity used All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained All Labor unconstrained Labor constrained Chemical fertilizers SCTP*d2014 0.058 -0.004 0.096 2.378 1.171 2.305 [0.85] [-0.04] [1.01] [0.99] [0.34] [0.65] FISP*d2014 0.472*** 0.354*** 0.562*** 21.638*** 15.819*** 26.205*** [7.95] [3.55] [13.88] [7.80] [3.57] [7.93] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.338*** 0.284*** 0.435*** 21.952*** 21.792*** 22.380*** [5.03] [3.78] [4.17] [7.46] [6.20] [4.96] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.279*** 0.288** 0.339** 19.574*** 20.621*** 20.075*** [4.04] [2.97] [2.82] [5.49] [4.08] [3.8] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP -0.134** -0.07 -0.127 0.314 5.972 -3.825 [-2.12] [-0.89] [-1.26] [0.10] [1.51] [-0.9] Complementarity -0.192** -0.066 -0.223* -2.063 4.802 -6.13 [-2.09] [-0.49] [-1.75] [ -0.47] [0.77] [-1] Organic ferlizers Value SCTP*d2014 0.046 -0.009 0.122 213.131* 207.302 208.637* [0.64] [-0.09] [1.50] [1.92] [1.38] [1.79] FISP*d2014 -0.082 -0.072 -0.083 -201.953** -178.551* -221.040*** [-1.35] [-0.85] [-1.46] [-2.65] [-1.81] [-2.81] Joint impact SCTP&FISP -0.069 -0.158 0.077 114.853 91.057 162.463 [-0.75] [-1.32] [0.94] [0.93] [0.56] [1.39] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP -0.115 -0.149 -0.045 -98.278 -116.246 -46.175 [-1.81] [-1.36] [-0.70] [-1.04] [0.65] [-0.63] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.013 -0.086 0.160* 316.806*** 269.607** 383.503*** [0.16] [-0.81] [1.86] [2.94] [1.96] [3.38] Complementarity -0.033 -0.077 0.038 103.675 62.305 174.866* [-0.36] [-0.53] [0.46] [0.86] [0.31] [1.77] Pesticides SCTP*d2014 -0.004 -0.02 0.012 [-0.25] [-0.74] [0.95] FISP*d2014 -0.01 -0.023 0.001 [-0.74] [-1.16] [0.06] Joint impact SCTP&FISP 0.031 -0.004 0.062** [1.60] [-0.15] [2.68] Incremental impact of FISP on SCTP 0.035** 0.015 0.051* [2.39] [0.54] [1.94] Incremental impact of SCTP on FISP 0.041** 0.019 0.062** [2.46] [0.77] [2.33] Complementarity 0.045** 0.039 0.05 [2.36] [1.21] [1.61]
Language:English
Score: 971224.2 - https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/...entations/ABCA_Malawi_Pace.pdf
Data Source: un
At the current rate of progress – that is at the 1 .13 percent average annual increment between 1998 and 2006 - gender balance will be reached in 2027 at the D-1 level. (...) In the Secretariat for all professional and higher category staff with appointments of one year or more2 : As of 31 December 2007 women represent 37.3 per cent overall, an increase of 0.02 percentage points since 31 December 2006; • At the D-2 and P-5 levels there have been decreases of 2.7 and 1.2 per cent in the representation of women, bringing the percent to 22.9 and 30.1 at the these levels respectively. • At the P-5 level, at the current rate of progress (0.17 percent average annual increment between 1998 and 2007) gender balance will be reached in 2120. (...) Thank you. 4 ANNEX 1 Status of Women in the UN System at a Glance (as of 31 December 2006) Representation of women (percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 1998 2006 53 57 40 43 29 35 20 29 17 26 16 23 14 21 4 (tot. increment) 3 (tot. increment) 6 (tot. increment) 9 (tot. increment) 9 (tot. increment) 7 (tot. increment) 7 (tot. increment) 0.5 (average annual increment) 0.375 ((average annual increment) 0.75 (average annual increment) 1.13 (average annual increment) 1.13 (average annual increment) 0.88 (average annual increment) 0.88 (average annual increment) Source: Table 11C - Secretariat of the United Nations System Chief Executive Board for Coordination *UG – (Ungraded) – ASG and above Jm 26Feb 2008 Year at which gender parity will be reached at current average annual increment P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG At current average annual increment achieved 2025 2026 2025 2027 2037 2039 Required average annual increase to achieve gender balance of 50% in all professional categories by 2010 and in all D and higher categories by 2015 (percentage terms) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG achieved 1.75 3.75 5.25 3 3 3 5 ANNEX 2 Status of Women in the Secretariat at a Glance (as of 30 June 2007) Representation of women (percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 Total % 45.4 49.7 39.4 41.2 32.3 34.5 29.3 30.8 23.7 28.5 18.8 24.0 13.0 20.8 11.1 15.4 Total change % 4.3 1.8 2.2 1.5 4.8 5.2 7.8 4.3 Average annual increment % .48 .20 .24 .17 .53 .58 .87 .48 Year at which gender parity will be reached at current average annual increment P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG At current average annual increment 2008 2052 2072 2120 2048 2052 2041 2080 By meeting 1% annual increase target in the HRAPs 2008 2018 2023 2027 2029 2033 2036 2042 Required average annual increase to achieve 50% gender balance in all professional categories by 2010 and in all D and higher categories by 2015 (percentage) P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 ASG USG .10 2.93 5.17 6.40 2.69 3.25 3.65 4.33 Source: Office of Human Resources data
Language:English
Score: 965307.9 - https://www.un.org/womenwatch/...20Oral%20report%205march08.pdf
Data Source: un
If above all verified, register visitor on visited VLR, over-the-air (OTA) activation, billing file, network, in visiting location register (VLR), and customer care DB. activate; update customer care and billing databases (DBs). 2.2.3 Incremental cost modelling A further principle, as we are focused on the differences in costs due to roaming over domestic tariffs, is to understand the incremental cost for each part of the business process due to the fact that it is employed for roaming. There are various forms that such incremental costs can take. Incremental cost due to roaming (for equipment for instance) is either an extension of capacity, or of functionality, or spend on specialized quite new equipment by function. (...) However, this is a moving target as more extensions of features become absorbed into the standard processes and support platforms over the long term. Various types of increments in costs are shown in Table 3 for the MNO operations related to roaming with their long term trends: Table 3 – Types of cost increment in MNO assets for roaming Categories of possible cost increments (opex and Long-term cost trend capex) for roaming over domestic costs Increased capacity for international roaming for May become considered part of customary business growth – existing assets. i.e. normal business expansion cost.
Language:English
Score: 965035.7 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/Publ...s/files/basic-html/page20.html
Data Source: un
The National Commission of Prognosis estimates for the entire year 2007, an economical increment by 6.1 % and forsees an increment by 6.5 % in the year 2008, the unemployement rate will lie around 4.4 %, and it is forseen an inflation of 4.5 % for the end of year 2007 and of 3.8 % in 2008. (...) A significant increase has known the furniture import, of 196 million Euro in the first six month of the current year, estimating an increment by about 20 % of imports value in the year 2007 in comparison with 2006, and the keeping up of increment trend in 2008. (...) Non-coniferous sawn timber (temperate and tropical) The non-coniferous sawn timber products of 1,900 thousand m3, shows in 2007 an increment by 2.7 %, on comparison with 2006 and it is forseen an increment in 2008 to 1,950 thousand m3.
Language:English
Score: 953248.7 - https://unece.org/fileadmin/DA...s/market/market-65/romania.pdf
Data Source: un
Central and Eastern European Base scenario Countries Unit 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Forest resource parameters Area of forest available for wood supply 1000 ha 47,341 47,113 46,884 46,656 46,485 - coniferous 1000 ha 24,540 24,456 24,372 24,288 24,225 - broadleaved 1000 ha 22,801 22,657 22,512 22,367 22,259 Growing stock, total 1000 cu.m. o.b. 8,982,307 9,230,990 9,483,649 9,559,831 9,580,342 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. o.b. 5,143,327 5,302,476 5,463,846 5,491,634 5,471,610 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. o.b. 3,838,979 3,928,515 4,019,802 4,068,197 4,108,732 Net annual increment, total 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 237,336 229,020 219,810 215,145 212,477 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 143,419 139,683 135,477 134,200 132,501 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 93,917 89,337 84,333 80,945 79,976 Fellings, total 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 159,867 180,870 202,026 210,596 210,027 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 94,948 109,375 123,841 133,204 133,794 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 64,919 71,495 78,185 77,392 76,233 Removals, total 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 119,416 135,105 150,908 157,309 156,885 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 70,924 81,700 92,506 99,500 99,941 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 48,492 53,405 58,402 57,810 56,944 Removals, total from final fellings 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 79,264 91,666 104,149 109,022 106,278 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 46,036 53,739 61,463 67,490 66,517 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 33,228 37,927 42,686 41,532 39,761 Removals, total from thinnings 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 40,153 43,439 46,759 48,288 50,607 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 24,888 27,961 31,043 32,010 33,424 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 15,265 15,478 15,716 16,278 17,183 Ratios - Growing stock per Area cu.m. o.b. / ha 190 196 202 205 206 - Net annual increment per growing stock cu.m. o.b. / cu.m. o.b. 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% - Net annual increment per Area cu.m. o.b. / ha / y. 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.6 - Fellings per Net annual increment cu.m. o.b. / cu.m. o.b. 66% 79% 92% 98% 99% - Removals per Area cu.m. u.b. / ha / y. 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.4 46,200 46,400 46,600 46,800 47,000 47,200 47,400 47,600 47,800 48,000 48,200 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 year FAWS (1000 ha) Base scenario Alternative scenario 8,600,000 8,800,000 9,000,000 9,200,000 9,400,000 9,600,000 9,800,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 year Growing stock, total (1000 cu.m. o.b.) (...) Base scenario Alternative scenario Albania Base scenario Unit 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Forest resource parameters Area of forest available for wood supply 1000 ha 898 870 848 825 808 - coniferous 1000 ha 165 160 155 151 148 - broadleaved 1000 ha 734 711 692 674 660 Growing stock, total 1000 cu.m. o.b. 77,541 90,742 98,339 104,288 108,496 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. o.b. 15,696 17,933 19,478 20,712 21,645 - broadleaved 1002 cu.m. o.b. 61,846 72,809 78,861 83,576 86,852 Net annual increment, total 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 1,770 1,498 1,463 1,377 1,343 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 308 290 288 281 273 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 1,462 1,208 1,175 1,096 1,070 Fellings, total 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 511 595 723 840 952 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 103 117 142 165 186 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 408 479 582 676 766 Removals, total 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 428 498 605 702 796 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 86 97 118 138 156 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 341 400 486 565 640 Removals, total from final fellings 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 306 360 438 508 577 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 58 65 79 92 105 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 248 295 358 416 473 Removals, total from thinnings 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 121 138 167 194 219 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 28 32 39 45 51 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 93 105 128 148 168 Ratios - Growing stock per Area cu.m. o.b. / ha 86 104 116 126 134 - Net annual increment per growing stock cu.m. o.b. / cu.m. o.b. 2.3% 1.7% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2% - Net annual increment per ha cu.m. o.b. / ha / y. 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 - Fellings per Net annual increment cu.m. o.b. / cu.m. o.b. 29% 40% 49% 61% 71% - Removals per Area cu.m. u.b. / ha / y. 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 year FAWS (1000 ha) Base scenario Alternative scenario 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 105,000 110,000 115,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 year Growing stock, total (1000 cu.m. o.b.) (...) Base scenario Alternative scenario 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 year Fellings/NAI Base scenario Alternative scenario 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 year Growing stock per ha Base scenario Alternative scenario FYR Macedonia Base scenario Unit 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Forest resource parameters Area of forest available for wood supply 1000 ha 745 745 745 745 745 - coniferous 1000 ha 33 33 33 33 33 - broadleaved 1000 ha 712 712 712 712 712 Growing stock, total 1000 cu.m. o.b. 60,674 61,980 61,140 59,621 57,321 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. o.b. 2,152 2,285 2,358 2,632 2,652 - broadleaved 1002 cu.m. o.b. 58,522 59,695 58,782 56,989 54,669 Net annual increment, total 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 1,417 1,327 1,388 1,517 1,655 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 64 68 70 71 71 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 1,353 1,259 1,318 1,446 1,584 Fellings, total 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 1,076 1,301 1,502 1,681 1,915 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 50 60 60 42 80 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. o.b. / y. 1,027 1,241 1,442 1,639 1,835 Removals, total 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 1,185 1,433 1,654 1,851 2,108 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 55 66 66 46 88 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 1,130 1,367 1,587 1,804 2,021 Removals, total from final fellings 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 1,111 1,344 1,550 1,733 1,976 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 38 46 43 20 58 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 1,073 1,297 1,507 1,713 1,918 Removals, total from thinnings 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 74 89 104 118 132 - coniferous 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 17 20 23 26 29 - broadleaved 1000 cu.m. u.b. / y. 57 69 81 92 102 Ratios - Growing stock per Area cu.m. o.b. / ha 81 83 82 80 77 - Net annual increment per growing stock cu.m. o.b. / cu.m. o.b. 2.3% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 2.9% - Net annual increment per ha cu.m. o.b. / ha / y. 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 - Fellings per Net annual increment cu.m. o.b. / cu.m. o.b. 76% 98% 108% 111% 116% - Removals per Area cu.m. u.b. / ha / y. 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 740 742 744 746 748 750 752 754 756 758 760 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 year FAWS (1000 ha) Base scenario Alternative scenario 45,000 47,000 49,00
Language:English
Score: 941708 - https://unece.org/fileadmin/DA...r/docs/stats-25/supp/WA3-5.doc
Data Source: un
Suggested Correction: Change “SPWI specifies the height …” to “SPHI specifies the height …” Issue #3: Confusion between Decrementing and Incrementing of Indices in Annex U In the last bullet item of subclause U.4.5, the text refers to incremented indices, when the relevant indices have been decremented, not incremented. (...) Suggested Correction: Change the word “incremented” to “decremented” in the sentence: “The specified picture is assigned to a default relative index of one plus the highest of the incremented default relative indices, or zero if there are no such incremented indices.”
Language:English
Score: 929808.6 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...eo-site/0011_Gen/MS_H263pp.doc
Data Source: un
Suggested Correction: Change “SPWI specifies the height …” to “SPHI specifies the height …” Issue #3: Confusion between Decrementing and Incrementing of Indices in Annex U In the last bullet item of subclause U.4.5, the text refers to incremented indices, when the relevant indices have been decremented, not incremented. (...) Suggested Correction: Change the word “incremented” to “decremented” in the sentence: “The specified picture is assigned to a default relative index of one plus the highest of the incremented default relative indices, or zero if there are no such incremented indices.”
Language:English
Score: 929808.6 - https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-a...ite/h263plusplus/MS_H263pp.doc
Data Source: un
The growth of high- income population increment sped up, while the to 94 Asian cities are among the global Top 200 by high- income population increment, nearly half of the total, but there is still much room for improvement in terms of high-income population density. increase in high-income population density is seen in some clusters. (...) Compared with the situation of sustainable competitiveness and high-income population increment, the increase in high-income population density is more clear in West Asia. (...) At the same time, the gaps between in terms of high-income population increment between Northeast Asia, Europe and North America also narrowed.
Language:English
Score: 918184.3 - https://unhabitat.org/sites/de..._cities_worldwide2018-2019.pdf
Data Source: un
(Note: Allow for 0.1 discrepancies due to rounding) Website: http://www.unwomen.org/en/how-we-work/un-system-coordination/women-in-the-united-nations/ TRENDS and PROJECTIONS: ITC Representation of women in the United Nation System with appointments of one year or more December 2001 – December 2011 Representation of women : Trends for 31 December 2001 – 31 December 2011 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG Total 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Representation of women (%) 0.0 33.3 37.5 43.2 47.8 45.5 26.7 24.4 8.0 27.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 27.5 36.2 Change in Representation of women (percentage points) 33.3 5.7 -2.4 -2.3 19.3 66.7 0.0 100.0 8.6 Average annual increment (percentage points) 3.3 0.6 -0.2 -0.2 1.9 6.7 0.0 10.0 0.9 Year at which gender parity will be reached at 2 percentage points annual increment P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG Total 2019 2014 2013 2024 2022 Reached 2036 Reached 2018 Average annual increment required to achieve 50% gender balance by 2015 (percentage points) P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG Total 4.2 1.7 1.1 6.4 5.7 Reached 12.5 Reached 3.5 Source: CEB (2001), UN System Entities (2011) Projections for reaching gender parity at current average annual increment (December 2001 – December 2011) P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 D1 D2 UG Total Year at which gender parity will be reached 2016 2023 Never Never 2023 Reached Never Reached 2027 Number of years to reach parity 5 12 Never Never 12 Reached Never Reached 16
Language:English
Score: 916179 - https://www.un.org/womenwatch/...entity/ITC/itc-projections.pdf
Data Source: un