Local Solutions to Poverty Library
PNPM Rural Impact Evaluation Report 2012
Publish Year: 2012
Publisher: PNPM Support Facility - PSF, Jakarta
Topic: Evaluation, new publication, PNPM Rural
This paper reports on a quasi–experimental evaluation of the PNPM–Rural program designed to assess the impact of the project on household welfare, poverty, access to services, employment, social dynamics and governance. Across 17 provinces, a panel of 6319 households and 26,811 individuals from 300 sub–districts were interviewed at baseline in 2007 and again in 2009/2010. A propensity score matching approach was used to select the sample of sub–districts participating in PNPM beginning in 2007 and a comparison sub–district group that has similar characteristics based on data taken from the 2005 national village census that began participation in 2009/2010. Qualitative studies were also conducted in eighteen villages in 3 provinces in 2007 and 2010 to enhance understanding of the findings from the quantitative analysis. The study found that households participating in the program experienced positive benefits with respect to household welfare via increased real per capita consumption and increased chances of escaping poverty. Households participating in the project also saw access to outpatient health services increase and increased chances of being employed. While these positive impacts were strong amongst poorer households, marginalized groups (including female–headed households and households with lower levels of education) did not see the same benefits from the project with respect to household welfare and poverty reduction, but did see increased access to outpatient health services. With respect to social dynamics and governance, PNPM created positive impacts on measures of social capital and governance within the program but these impacts did not spill over into larger village decision–making processes. Impacts are strongest in poor and remote areas where the interests of the poor and the community as a whole are aligned around filling critical infrastructure gaps. The project is less effective for less poor and less remote areas where infrastructure gaps are not as significant, leading to a divergence between communities who still seek to utilize funding for additional infrastructure and the poor who seek skill training, access to capital, and improved access to and quality of health and education services.