Policy interventions and productive employment in rural sub-Saharan Africa: a gender-differentiated meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The farm sector is crucial for rural poverty alleviation, alongside the non-farm sector, which contributes to mitigating risks associated with crop failures. This paper investigates the effects of public policies on productive employment within both the farm and non-farm sectors in sub-Saharan Africa. Design/methodology/approach A meta-analysis is conducted exclusively on the results of the Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP)-funded studies under the Policy Analysis on Growth and Employment (PAGE II) initiative. Selected studies focused on the impact of public policies on productive employment in rural farm and non-farm sectors, encompassing a total of nine sub-Saharan Africa countries in: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Lesotho, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa. Findings The results indicate that public investments in rural areas and public policies that facilitate access to productive resources are likely to enhance productive employment. The overall effect size is positive and significant, ranging from 2% to 10% increases in productive employment. Sources of variation include the sector of activity and the policy instrument. In addition, the policy effects are gender-sensitive and seem more consistent in the non-farm sector. Research limitations/implications Although the selected working papers addressed several aspects of productive employment, other aspects warrant further investigation. Policies involving restrictions or regulations have received little attention in the impact analysis. Researches to fill this gap would be important. Another suggestion for further research is the analysis of the relative importance of non-farm employment in rural areas in developing countries. It is always assumed that rural households depend heavily on agriculture for their subsistence. Originality/value The contribution of the paper lies in the comparative analysis of numerous public policies implemented in nine distinct countries. By consolidating data from fourteen 14 different experiences into a single study, the paper offers valuable insights on factors that determine policy effectiveness and contribute to understanding what worked for whom and why.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".