Silwal presentation [PDF 9.79MB]

“To live in villages is an order”:The long-term consequences of villagization in Tanzania

Ani Rudra Silwal

Sussex Economics DPhil ConferenceDecember 5, 2014

Ani Rudra Silwal The Long-Run Impact of Villagization in Tanzania 1 / 18

Introduction

Research question: Did Tanzania’s villagization program during1967-82 leave a persistent legacy in living standards?Why is this topic important?

I Govts have relocated citizens, often with disastrous consequencesI Tanzania: 13 mn (78% of population) in government-villages in 1978

Timeline:

What I do:I Model current household outcomes in 2011/12 as a function of

district-level intensity of villagization in 1978I Instrument intensity of villagization with rainfall shock during 1973-75

My main results:I Villagization left a persistent and negative impact on consumptionI Retreat into agriculture may partly explain negative long-run impact


Relevant literature

History matters: AJR (2001), Dell (2010), Nunn (2014);Weather matters in history: Dell (2012), Fenske and Kala (2013)

Previous mass relocation programs in: Russia, China, Ethiopia,Mozambique, Mexico, Rwanda, etc.

Rwanda: Kondylis (2008), Isakson (2013)

Tanzania:I 1980s: Collier et al. (1986); Bevan et al. (1988); Collier (1988);

Boesen et al. (1986); Ellis (1984)I Recent: Osafo-Kwaako (2012); Edwards (2014); Schneider (2014);

Lofchie (2014)

I build on Osafo-Kwaako (2012) by:I Focus on consumptionI Improving the instrumentation strategyI Alternative measures of: program implementation, outcome, datasetsI Agriculture as a channel of persistence


Villagization in Tanzania

Population 94.3% rural: 1967 Census; half of urban population in Dar

Population scattered: Poor soil, plenty land, slave trade, colonization

Rationale for villagization (Arusha Declaration in 1967):

“If we want to develop. . . The first and absolutely essential thing todo. . . is to begin living in proper villages. . . to develop our land and toraise our standard of living.” (Julius Nyerere, 1962).

Different stages of villagization:I Stage 1 (1967-72): Voluntary, 15% of population moved by 1972I Stage 2 (1973-75): Mandatory relocation to government villagesI Stage 3 (1976-82): Stagnation and end

How did it affect daily life?I Living together: 78% of total population in government villages in 1978I Working together: not followed through

Short-run consequences: economic disaster; IMF/WB’s SAP


Source: Nyerere (1973)


Source: Thomas (1985)Ani Rudra Silwal The Long-Run Impact of Villagization in Tanzania 6 / 18

Source: Nyerere (1973)


Data

Datasets used:I Primary: Household Budget Survey 2011/12 (10,016 households)I Secondary: National Panel Survey (2008-13); Census: 1967, 1978.

Outcome measures: Consumption, asset index, income

Primary dependent variable:I Intensity of villagization: Share of district population living in

government-villages in the 1978 CensusI Alternative measure of villagization (only in NPS): Was this community

location newly-established during villagization?

Controls:I Geography: District’s latitude, longitude, LR mean/SD rainfallI Pre-villagization characteristics of district (1967 Census): Urbanization,

education, health, economyI HH characteristics, HBS: size, dependency ratio, head age/gender/educI Administrative zone


Summary statistics


Intensity of villagization:Share of district population living ingovernment villages in 1978 Census

Local polynomial regression:log of HH per capita consumption in

2011/12 vs. intensity of villagization in 1978


Selection bias in implementation of villagization?

No obvious pattern in villagization across districts.

Village sites often chosen near roads, schools, health posts, etc.

Voluntary during 1967-72, no systematic sequencing during 1973-75.


Empirical strategy

Primary specification:

yij = β0 + β1x1ij + X2jβ2 + X3ijβ3 + εij

where,yij : Log of per capita consumption of HH i living in district j in 2011/12x1j : Intensity of villagization in district j in 1978 CensusX2j : Vector of pre-villagization (1967) characteristics of district jX3ij : Vector of household characteristics in 2011/12

Estimation: OLS, IV

Instrument: Sporadic droughts across Tanzania during 1973-75

Robustness checks: Alternative outcomes, dataset (NPS), measure ofvillagization; outliers.


Instrument for intensity of villagization

Instrument: Z-score of rainfall in district during 1973-75

Drought-relief often used as a threat by military and governmentofficials to move people to government villages

Rainfall data from 332 stations for 1940-2000; average Z-score fordistrict after spatial interpolation in ArcGIS

Placebo: Z-score for 1970-72 and 1976-78


Results: First stage of IV

Rainfall shock a strong predictor of villagization during 1973-75Placebos: rainfall during 1970-72 or 1976-78


Main result

Interpretation: If a household’s current district had 1 percentage pointhigher intensity of villagization in 1978, its consumption in 2011/12 wouldbe 0.519 percent lower on average, ceteris paribus.


Robustness checks


Mechanism

Severe short-term blow to agriculture (Kjekshus, 1977) and livingstandards (Bevan et al., 1988)

Terms of trade in farming worsened in the 1970s (Ellis 1984) butprivate activity curtailed ⇒ retreat into subsistence


Conclusion

Research question: What were the long-run consequences of thevillagization program in Tanzania?

Primary finding: Villagization left a persistent and negative impact onliving standards (consumption, assets, and income).

Possible channel: Households may have gotten stuck in agriculture asa consequence of this program.

Channels not yet examined: migration, infrastructure, public services,ethnic diversity

Central planning does not seem to have worked in Tanzania


Reserve slides

1 / 4

Manual IV

2 / 4

3 / 4

4 / 4

Documents

Silwal presentation [PDF 9.79MB]