AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016

Table 2.4. Average annual change in outcomes, by year of signing CAADP compact (%, 2003–2014)
Average annual percent change, 2003-2008
Agriculture expenditure (% of
total expenditure)
Agriculture expenditure (% of
agricultural GDP)
2007–2009 (t=1) 2010–2012
(t=2)
Signed CAADP compact in:
2013–2014 (t=3) Never (t=∞)
Significant
differences
9.65 -1.40 4.76 -8.30 1∞, 3∞, 12, 123
13.21 2.47 11.00 -1.20 1∞, 3∞, 12, 123
Land productivity 5.39 2.11 4.25 0.18 1∞, 12, 123
Labor productivity 5.35 1.05 2.91 0.54 1∞, 12, 123
Agricultural growth 6.01 2.81 4.51 0.37 1∞, 12
GDP per capita 6.07 2.70 5.33 3.46 1∞, 12, 123
Undernourished -7.57 -3.25 -5.73 -1.35 1∞, 2∞, 3∞, 12, 123
Average annual percent change, 2008-2014
Agriculture expenditure (% of
total expenditure)
Agriculture expenditure (% of
agricultural GDP)
-1.38 2.44 -6.51 -2.21 13, 23, 123
-5.29 5.39 -12.53 -2.43 2∞, 2∞, 12, 23, 123
Land productivity 5.23 4.68 7.13 2.14 3∞
Labor productivity 4.72 3.17 3.02 3.27 13
Agricultural growth 5.48 5.18 4.52 2.48
GDP per capita 3.42 2.43 2.67 1.26 1∞, 2∞, 3∞,
Undernourished -0.15 -2.11 -5.19 -0.91 3∞, 13, 23
Average annual percent change, 2003-2014
Agriculture expenditure (% of
total expenditure)
Agriculture expenditure (% of
agricultural GDP)
1.82 2.37 -2.64 -6.58 1∞, 2∞
1.14 5.00 -4.09 -3.08 2∞, 23
Land productivity 6.60 4.20 5.67 2.08 1∞, 2∞, 3∞, 12, 123
Labor productivity 5.95 2.98 2.99 2.89 1∞, 12, 13, 123
Agricultural growth 6.67 4.88 4.55 2.39 1∞, 2∞, 12, 13, 123
GDP per capita 4.29 2.39 3.51 2.24 1∞, 12, 123
Undernourished -3.31 -2.38 -5.73 -1.19 3∞, 23
Source: Based on Benin (2016)
Because the CAADP processes take time to safeguard
the expected benefits, and because accessing external
funding can broaden or deepen the investments portfolio
and related programs for achieving the agricultural
development objectives, the generally positive and larger
changes associated with countries that signed their
compacts early, as well as for those that have advanced
in the process and secured multiple sources of external
funding, are not surprising. A rigorous assessment of the
impact of CAADP has to control for the factors that affect
not only countries’ decisions to implement CAADP, but
also the factors that affect realization of the outcomes. The
implementation of CAADP involves several processes,
besides signing a compact (see Figure 2.1), that take
time to be effective; these also have to be considered.
Basically, the quality of the processes in developing and
implementing CAADP in the different countries needs to
be factored in, which should help explain, for example, the
generally lower performance associated with the group of
countries that signed their compact in later compared to
those that signed in 2007–2009. Furthermore, isolating the
different pathways of impact, for example, showing the links
among the different CAADP inputs, outputs and outcomes,
will require a complex simultaneous-equations model that
36 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016