* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Social Cohesion Interventions in Sub
Survey
Document related concepts
Social Darwinism wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Community development wikipedia , lookup
Social theory wikipedia , lookup
History of social work wikipedia , lookup
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Anthropology of development wikipedia , lookup
Social norms approach wikipedia , lookup
Social psychology wikipedia , lookup
Biology and consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Inclusive fitness in humans wikipedia , lookup
Tribe (Internet) wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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