Download Social Cohesion Interventions in Sub

Social Cohesion Interventions in
Sub-Saharan Africa
Elisabeth King
Cyrus Samii
Columbia University
Synthetic Review
• Systematic review on existing studies on a
topic
• Find out what works?
• Goal of informing policy
Motivation
• Studies suggest that social cohesion is
important for development outcomes and for
post-conflict peacebuilding.
• For these results to be meaningful for policy
we need to know…
• Is social cohesion manipulable? Can you grow
it?
Focus
• Development, reconstruction, and
peacebuilding interventions in sub-Saharan
Africa aiming to generate social cohesion.
• Interventions have beginning and end
• Intervention types include: community-driven
development, social funds and education or
media programs.
What is social cohesion?
• “affective bonds between citizens” (Chipkin
and Ngqulunga 2008), “local patterns of
cooperation” (Fearon et al 2009) and “the glue
that bonds society together, promoting
harmony, a sense of community, and a degree
of commitment to promoting the common
good” (Colletta et al 2001).
• Social cohesion (rather than “social capital”)
to emphasize that we are talking about
attributes of groups
Social cohesion: inter-personal
• Inter-personal: relations between different
groupings of individuals
• Behavioural measures of collective action,
group membership & participation
• Attitudinal measures of participants’ feelings
of trust, harmony and solidarity with other
community members.
Social cohesion: inter-group
• Inter-group: relations across group lines
• Behaviourally, the more socially cohesive the
society, the less sub-group identities are likely
to delimit networks of regular cooperation
and exchange.
• Attitudes of group members express feelings
of trust, harmony and solidarity with members
of other groups.
Questions
What scientific evidence exists on the
effectiveness of social cohesion interventions
in Africa?
1. Minimum standards for inclusion
2. Types of interventions, measures & evaluation
of effectiveness
3. Moving forward
Criteria for Inclusion
Pre-Post
Compari
son
Pre-Post
2
Post only
1
3
None
4
Not
Conditi
random
oned,
or
but not
conditi
random
oned
5
Rando
mized
Comparison
Borrowed from Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS)
Modified Criteria for Inclusion
Pre-Post
Pre-Post
Compari
son
2
3
Post with pre
controls or
retrospective
at post
Post only
4
5
3
4
1
None
Not
Conditi
random
oned,
or
but not
conditi
random
oned
Comparison
Rando
mized
Pre-Post
Studies to
Include
Pre-Post
Compari
son
2
3
Fearon
Chase & et al.;
Sherbur LevynePaluck
Benz;
;
Kumar; Gugert
Vajja &
y&
White Kreme
r
Post with pre
controls or
retrospective
at post
Post only
Staub et Pronyk
al.;
et al.
1
None
Not
Conditi
random
oned,
or
but not
conditi
random
oned
Comparison
Rando
mized
8 Included interventions
CDD
Curriculum
Inter-group
Vajja & White
Levy-Paluck; Staub
Inter-personal
Chase & Sherburne- Levy-Paluck;
Benz; Fearon et al; Pronyk; Gugerty &
Gugerty & Kremer; Kremer
Kumar; Vajja &
White
Interventions in: Benin, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Rwanda, South
Africa & Zambia
Effectiveness
• “Effective” means that the intervention had a
positive effect on social cohesion
• √: effective. There is sufficient evidence to
reject null hypothesis (that is ineffective)
• X: ineffective or insufficient evidence. We
can’t reject the null hypothesis (that is
ineffective)
Effectiveness: inter-personal
Inter-personal
measures
CDD
Curriculum
Attitudes
Chase & SB X
Pronyk et al. √
Kumar √
Vajja & White X
Behaviour (self- Chase & SB X
Pronyk et al. √
reported)
Kumar X
Vajja & White X
Behaviour
(activity
organized by
intervention)
Fearon et al. √
Levy-Paluck √
Behaviour
(routine
activity )
Gugerty &
Kremer X
Gugerty &
Kremer X
Effectiveness: inter-group
Inter-group
measures
CDD
Attitudes
Vajja & White X Levy-Paluck √
Staub √
Behaviour (selfreported)
Behaviour
(activity
organized by
intervention)
Behaviour
(routine
activity )
Curriculum
Moving forward
•
•
•
•
Heterogeneity in findings
None of cells are full – evidence thin
Esp. inter-group
Inconsistency in outcome measures
Moving forward
• If had to make summary judgment, CDD are
potentially ineffective
• Moving forward, want more on mechanisms,
mediators. CDD too much on incentives & not
enough on process/capacity-building?
Moving forward
• If had to make summary judgment on
curriculum, potentially effective.
• Moving forward, what is it about curriculum
that works? Mechanisms & mediators?
Specific messages? Context in which message
delivered? Manner in which message
delivered?
Moving forward
• Useful exercise
• What we know & what we don’t know – help
set a research agenda
Shukran
Elisabeth King
[email protected]
Cyrus Samii
[email protected]
*Pls send us your relevant studies to include*
Types of Measures
Attitudes
Chase &
Sherburne
-Benz;
Kumar;
LevyPaluck;
Pronyk et
al.; Staub
et al.; Vajja
& White
Behaviour
Selfreported
(through
questions
about
behaviour)
Observed Observed
– activity
– routine
organized activity
by
interventio
n
Chase &
Sherburne
-Benz;
Kumar;
Vajja &
White
Fearon et
al.; LevyPaluck
Gugerty &
Kremer;
Type of Intervention
Community participation
project (CBD, CDD, social fund,
etc.)
Most involve setting spending
priorities
Chase & Sherburne-Benz
Fearon et al.
Gugerty & Kremer (PTA
intervention)
Kumar
Vajja & White
Group training or
message/curriculum delivery
Gugerty & Kremer (women’s
group)
Levy-Paluck
Staub et al.
Pronyk
Microfinance
Pronyk
Types of outcomes
Inter-personal
Both
Inter-group
Chase &
Sherburne-Benz;
Fearon et al.;
Gugerty & Kremer;
Kumar; Pronyk et
al.
Levy-Paluck; Vajja
& White
Staub et al.
Intervention Types & Outcomes
Inter-group
measures
CDD
Curriculum
Attitudes
Vajja & White
Levy-Paluck;
Staub
Behaviour (self- Vajja & White
reported)
Behaviour
(activity
organized by
intervention)
Behaviour
(routine
activity )
Levy-Paluck
microfinance