Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Decentralization, market integration and efficiency-equity trade-offs: Evidence from Joint Forest Management in Ethiopian villages
School of Economics, University of Cape Town.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3400-7548
Department of Economics, University of Pretoria.
2016 (English)In: Journal of Forest Economics, ISSN 1104-6899, E-ISSN 1618-1530, Vol. 22, p. 1-23Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Extant literature on Joint Forest Management (JFM) impact evaluation has concluded that it generally does not provide sufficient incentives to justify the costs that forest use restrictions impose on local people. However, there is a dearth of evidence concerning whether alternative JFM intervention with improved market linkages for non-timber forest products has similar implications. In this study, we evaluated the income and distributive effects of a JFM program in Ethiopia in which additional support was provided for improved market linkages for non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Exploiting exogenous variation in customary rights across eligible groups of communities that participate in JFM programs, as well as using heteroskedasticity-based instrumentations, we identified the income and distributive effects of the program. Our analysis shows that the program has raised the income of the households who chose to participate by approximately 400 Ethiopian Birr or 26% of per capita expenditure; that result was robust to various specifications. We also found that this effect is largely driven by marketing incentives to use non-timber forest products. However, we found that the program's benefit is biased toward the upper end of the income distribution, a result that points to the inequality-reinforcing effects of the program.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 22, p. 1-23
National Category
Economics
Research subject
Economics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-13676DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2015.10.003ISI: 000376050200001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84959277390Local ID: cf098067-b5c0-48a6-a14c-8d860d8e0c47OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-13676DiVA, id: diva2:986629
Note
Validerad; 2016; Nivå 2; 20160302 (andbra)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Muchapondwa, Edwin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Muchapondwa, Edwin
By organisation
Social Sciences
In the same journal
Journal of Forest Economics
Economics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 40 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf