Download World Bank Document

Better motorized transport conditions might increase the possibility for more mechanized,
intensive agriculture, resulting in a greater attractiveness of irrigated land. However, in
the long-term (generation 2000), this effect does not seem to sustain. Another long-term
effect found is the reduction of horses owned by rural households. The impact of better
roads on the traffic of motorized vehicles may, in the long-term, reduce the need for
animal-based transport. Finally, in the case of rural roads, it seems that households had a
better access to credit services (as measured by the number of applications). The impact
on the households who actually got a credit is, however, not statistically significant.
Table 13: key effects on agricultural/forestry activities (double-difference, percent)
Effect
Cultivated area
Expenditures per cultivated/forest area
Net income per cultivated/forest area
Irrigated land value per area
Dry land value per area
Owned horses
Households who asked for a credit and
received an answer (negative or positive)
Households who received a credit
Generation
2000
+10
-31.2 (o)
+12.3
-52 (o)
-5
-50 (**)
-4.7
Total
+10
-3.7
-24.0
10
-17
+9
+12.8 (**)
-1.0
+1.2
Generation 2004
Rural Roads NMT Tracks
+22 (*)
-15 (o)
+1.5
-62.3 (o)
-57.6 (o)
+88.2
+41 (o)
-16
-17
-26
+20
0
+15.0 (**)
0.0
+2.1
-1.3
(o) significant at 20 percent; (*) significant at 10 percent; (**) significant at 5 percent; (***) significant at 1 percent;
Effects of income and poverty. Evaluation shows a strong, short-term and significant
positive impact on households’ income for NMT tracks. On the other hand, households
living nearby “generation 2000” roads seem to have undergone a limited reduction of
their income. This result should be nuanced (i) by the fact it is significant at only 20
percent, (ii) because the 2004 evaluation reported an increase in income so that the net
benefit may still remain positive, and (iii) by the fact that income from people who
migrated are not taken into account. In terms of composition of households’ income, a
sharp decrease in revenues from cattle breeding, as main productive activity of rural
households, was observed. As reported in the literature, this diversification could be
explained by the fact that households have more confidence in the future (and in the
sustainability of transport conditions’ improvement) so that they invest less in buying
cattle (generally considered a saving behavior). It also seems that the significant income
increase for population benefiting from improved NMT tracks comes from a
diversification of productive activities outside subsistence agriculture (in petty commerce
and other services). In terms of impact on poverty (national definition), a significant
short-term increase of non-poor was observed for NMT tracks. This suggests that this
type of basic transport infrastructure alone can make a strong difference for the most
remote communities, by bringing them access and allowing them to trade their products
in local markets. On the other hand, the poverty effect of rural roads’ investments is less
obvious (results for generation 2000 even suggest that, in the long-term, extreme poverty
increases, possibly from as a consequence the migration of the “wealthier households”).
One interpretation should be that rural roads alone, despite their other benefits on
78