How effective are public sector supply chains’ policies for rural

poverty reduction?

Phase 1: An econometric analysis of the effectiveness of supply chain public policy in promoting competitiveness and reducing poverty

Policy Framework

Law 811 9 Strategic Objectives

Decree 3800

Formalization

Res. 186 Planning Monitoring

Focus on Competitiveness

and Inclusion

• Technical Secretary• Competitive

Agreement• Annual Action Plan,

Follow-up • Regional Secretary• Competitive

Agreement• Annual Action Plan,

Follow-up

National Council

Regional Committee

Regional Committee

Regional Committee

Thematic Committees or

Tables

Technical Secretary

Structure of National Supply Chain Organizations

Policy Focus

Indicators• High Poverty

• High Rural Poverty

• Low Human Development

• Land Inequality

• Property Inequality

Number of Supply Chains by Department

Policy Focus

10 Chains Studied • Avocado• Rice• Cocoa• Rubber• Citrus

• Fique• Fruit• Guava• Mango • Plantain

Policy not well focused on populations with

most poverty, underdevelopment and

inequality.

Targeted Poverty Intervention Programs

Alianzas Productivas

MADR

Oportunidades Rurales MADR

MIDAS USAID

ADAM USAID

Not necessarily well focused, potentially due to program objectives

Policy Effectiveness

Yield growth as a function of political performance

Policy Improved Yield

Better Income

Reduced Poverty

Calculating the Institutional Strength Index (IFI)

Regional Committee

0: None1/3: Inactive2/3: Active, Infrequent1: Active, Regular

Regional Secretary

0: None1: Regional Secretary

Competitive Agreement

0: None1/3: In Progress2/3: Approved, Inactive1: Approved, Active

IFI ScoreScale: 0-3

Higher Score, Stronger Political

Presence

Policy Strength and Variability

Average IFI Score and Degree of Variability by Supply Chain

Average IFI ScoreAverage IFI Score Degree of Variability

Policy Strength by Region

Strong positive relationship between number of supply chains and variability

Unclear relationship between IFI and number of regional committees

How effective are public sector supply chains’ policies for rural

poverty reduction?

Phase 2: A meso-regional analysis of the implementation of supply chain policy to promote competitiveness and reduce poverty

Policy Implementation

Analyze the structure, function and results of policy implementation at the regional level in terms of:• Competitiveness• Governance• Equity • Social Inclusion • Poverty

Structured interviews with key representatives of three selected regional supply chains:

• Cocoa, Santander• Plantain, Quindio• Vegetables, Boyacá

Preliminary Findings Cacao, Santander

• Competitiveness: Improved production and yield; improved health, sanity, and maintenance of crops; lack of technical assistance

• Governance: Weak, unrepresentative strucuture; strong integration with national committee; variable support by local government

• Equity: Lack of negotiating power; stagnant market access; failure to exploit new market advantages

• Social Inclusion: Many small producers associated and represented in committee; training and education initiatives;

• Poverty: Improved production leads to better income; price fluctuation vulnerability; correspondence with poverty intervention programs

Preliminary Findings Vegetables, Boyaca

• Competitiveness: Improved production and yield; improved health, sanity, and maintenance of crops; limited spectrum

• Governance: Organized, inclusive structure; strong leadership; strong integration with national committee; under-representation of some sectors; lack of support by local government

• Equity: Improved negotiating power; improved market access; foreign/export markets identified; reduced intermediation

• Social Inclusion: Small producer associations very present and represented in committee; training and education initiatives; direct contact producer-comercializer

• Poverty: Limited Scope; price fluctuation vulnerability; limited correspondence with poverty intervention programs

Project Timeline

Phase 1: Econometric Study • May 2011- May 2012

Phase 2: Meso Study • May 2012- October 2012

Phase 3: Household Study• November 2012-September 2012