InovAgro Impact Evaluation Midline Survey, 2017

This dataset presents data collected for the midline survey that is the second round of a three-part study performed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The data collection effort is part of the impact evaluation of Phase II of the Innovation for Agribusiness (INOVAGRO II) intervention in northern Mozambique. INOVAGRO II is a development program intended to decrease rural poverty by improving the connectedness of farmers to market systems. The survey started in 2015 (Baseline survey), a follow-up was conducted in 2017 (Midline survey), and the last round (Endline survey) was conducted in 2019. The objective of the study is to better understand the linkages between small producers and the market in selected areas in Mozambique. The treatment unit of this evaluation is the community (comunidade) level. Communities are administrative units within localities (localidades), which in turn are administrative units inside administrative posts (posto administrativos)—the largest units on a district level. Initially the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), SDC, and the implementing agency Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) agreed that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) (or experimental) approach would be used in the impact evaluation, and the research proposal was designed based on this approach. Shortly before conducting the baseline survey, however, it was determined that the experimental design, in which the treatment and control areas are selected randomly, was not feasible due to the following factors: (1) ethical issues were involved with the exclusion of subjects for a control group; (2) the MSD (systemic) approach adopted by InovAgro project made strict exclusion criteria impossible (it was hard to contain treatment activities from spilling over into control group areas); and (3) the adaptive nature of the MSD approach (which is highly responsive to supply and demand forces) made it difficult to randomize treatment (exposure to the program). Instead, the implementing agency selected four communities in each district where InovAgro’s intervention would be carried out. All selected treatment communities were located in the same administrative post within each district. The control communities were selected from comparable localities in a different administrative post from where the treatment communities are located. We chose a different administrative post for the control communities to limit spillovers effects. The household listing exercise in both treatment and control areas secured information about the households regarding age and gender of household head and their soybean and/or pigeon pea production. This listing information was used to select the final set of control communities based on the extent of soybean and/or pigeon pea cultivation. The final sample is drawn from 16 communities in four administrative posts in two districts.