Productive Safety Net Program and children’s time use between work and schooling in Ethiopia

Northeast Africa

Ethiopia

Labour Market

Public Works

T Woldehanna

2010

Woldehanna, T. “Productive Safety Net Program and Children’s Time Use Between Work and Schooling in Ethiopia.” Child Welfare in Developing Countries. Springer, 2010. Print.
View publication

Secondary Data: Young Lives Survey. Website of the data collector: https://www.younglives-ethiopia.org/node/741.

2010

Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) and Agricultural Extension Program (AEP)

June to August 2006 (data collected by the government)

The purpose of the programs is to reduce the vulnerability of poor people to drought and assess the impact of the programs on time use between work and schooling as well as the highest grade completed by 12-year-old children in rural and urban Ethiopia.

A combination of administrative and community targeting is used to identify food-insecure households that can participate in the program.

The Public Works Program (PWP) in Ethiopia requires households to supply labor in return for daily unskilled wages. // Agricultural Extension Program (AEP) in rural areas. Many farmers are part of agricultural extension support programs in which farmers are encouraged to adopt labor and land augmenting technologies like fertilizers, improved seeds, and new cultural practices. // Direct support program in rural and urban areas. A direct support program is one component of a productive safety net program in Ethiopia. Cash/food aid in both rural and urban areas and the cash handouts in urban areas were also given to support children’s education. General explanation: A combination of administrative and community targeting is used to identify food-insecure households that can participate in the program. The Food Security Task Force established in each community is responsible to select beneficiaries (households) of the program. In principle, the task force pre-identified beneficiaries as those (1) who are chronically food insecure households (those facing continuous food shortages) in the last 3 years and who have received food assistance before the commencement of the PSNP program, (2) who suddenly become more food insecure as a result of a severe loss of assets and are unable to support themselves (last 1–2 years); and (3) who do not have any family support and other means of social protection and support. The task force further refined the selection by looking at (1) the status of household assets such as landholding, quality of land, and food stock, (2) income from non-agricultural activities and alternative employment, and (3) support/remittances from relatives or community.

• Child labour (paid work outside home, unpaid work outside home, childcare, and household chores)
• Hours dedicated to studying (at school and home)
• Highest grade completed by children

Propensity Score Matching

Study design: logit models of propensity score were estimated for three kinds of programs: (1) rural public work programs such as cash and food-for-work support programs; (2) agricultural extension support program in rural areas and (3) for direct support program which includes cash and food handouts as aid and education support for both rural and urban areas. Since the first two support programs have differences between rural and urban areas, we run separate logistic regression (propensity score) for rural and urban areas. Public work (cash/food-for-work) and agricultural extension support programs (AEP) are observed only in rural areas and they are not captured in urban areas in the survey data. The direct support program component of the productive safety net program (cash/food and education support) has been implemented in both rural and urban areas. Therefore, for rural areas, the authors estimated the impact public work and agricultural extension programs on hours spent by children on various activities and education, while we estimated the impact of direct support (cash/food aid and education support programs) for both rural and urban areas.
Sample: The total number of observations used in this paper is 980 households of which 584 (60%) reside in a rural area while 396 (40%) are urban dwellers. The authors used data of index children around the age of 12 years taken from the older cohort sample.
Survey Instrument: the paper uses Young Lives survey data of the older cohort using a time use module for the index children (12 years old).

The authors found that the Public Works Program in rural areas increases child work for pay, reduces children’s time spent on childcare and household chores and total hours of time children spent on work all kinds of work combined, and increases girls spending on the study. The Direct Support Program in rural and urban areas reduces the time children spent on paid and unpaid work and increases the highest grade completed by boys in urban areas. On the other hand, the Agricultural Extension Program in rural areas was effective in reducing child work for pay and total work, increasing the time girls spent on schooling and the highest grade completed by girls.

Child Labour

Households

Local

The Public Works Program in rural areas increases child work for pay, reduces children’s time spent on childcare and household chores and total hours of time children spent on all kinds of work combined. The Direct Support Program in rural and urban areas reduces the time children spent on paid and unpaid work. The Agricultural Extension Program in rural areas was effective in reducing child work for pay and total work.

The Public Works Program in rural areas increases girls time spending on the study. The Direct Support Program in rural and urban areas increases the highest grade completed by boys in urban areas. The Agricultural Extension Program in rural areas was effective in increasing the time girls spent on schooling and the highest grade completed by girls.

N. A.