Social Capital and Social Capital and Early Childhood DevelopmentEarly Childhood Development

Evidence from Rural IndiaEvidence from Rural India

Wendy JanssensWashington, 20 May 2004

IntroductionIntroduction

• Background

• Methodology

• Child outcomes

• Conclusion & further research

Social capital and child Social capital and child developmentdevelopment

• Individual level social capital

• Community level social capital

• Social capital and child outcomes– e.g. Runyan et al. (1998), Braatz & Putnam (1998), Willms &

Somers (2001)

HypothesesHypotheses

Programme

Knowledge Collective action

Child outcomes

Externalities in programme Externalities in programme villages?villages?

Programme

Knowledge Collective action

Child outcomes in non-participating households

Child outcomesChild outcomes

• Preschool enrolment

• School enrolment

• Immunization coverage

• Health and hygiene practices

Description of the programmeDescription of the programme

• Context: State of Bihar

• The Mahila Samakhya programme

• Objectives

• Activities e.g.:– training on literacy, health, women’s status– savings and credit groups– informal preschool/school construction

Membership in the programmeMembership in the programmeProgramme villages

MS Members

Non-members

Control villages

Differences between

MS and two comparison

groups: Scheduled Castes 38.9 21.4 19.3 (+) ** Muslim 9.2 11.9 19.5 n.s. Income quintile 1.3 1.6 1.5 (--) *** Household education 2.8 3.1 3.1 (--) * Female education 1.6 1.9 1.9 (--) ** Dependency ratio 0.8 0.7 0.6 (+) ***

• The difference between non-members is never significant at 10% level or less

• The difference between programme villages and control villages never significant at 10% level or less.

Sample selectionSample selection• Sample region

• Sample size and selection:

– 75 programme villages (1500 hh)• 10 participating households (“Members”)• 10 non-participating households (“Non-members”)

– 30 control villages (600 hh)• 20 control households (“Control group”)

• Selection criteria for programme blocks

Sample selectionSample selection

Programme villages

Control villages

Difference

1991 block: % of SC population 15.9 15.2 (+) *

1991 block: % of female literacy 16.3 18.5 (-) ***

1991 village: % of SC population 18.7 17.2 (+) **

1991 village: % of female literacy 14.3 13.5 --

2003 village: mean village income 3.0 3.1 (-) ***

Distance to nearest town 14.8 24.0 (-) *** Distance to health centre 2.2 2.2 --

% villages with: Preschool 63.3 25.6 (+) *** Primary school 85.5 88.3 -- Middle school 24.3 24.5 -- High school 5.9 3.3 --

Data collectionData collection

• Household interviews

• Group interviews / village interviews

• Mahila Samakhya data

• Secondary data

Mahila Samakhya and Mahila Samakhya and educationeducation

• Parental attitudes towards education

• Parental participation in school activities

Parental attitudes towards educationParental attitudes towards education

05

10152025303540

It is each family'sown decision

whether to sendtheir children to

school or not. Youshould not

interfere with that.

Sending girls toschool is a waste

of time and moneybecause they will

have to stay in thehouse anyway.

Young childrenunder 5 do notlearn much by

playing with eachother. To acquireskills it is betterthat they help inthe household.

% t

ha

t a

gre

es

MS members

Non-members

Control

Parental participation in Parental participation in school activitiesschool activities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PTA Schoolactivities

Primaryschool

construction

Preschoolconstruction

% MS members

Non-members

Control

Child outcomes (1)Child outcomes (1)

• Preschool enrolment (3 - 5 years olds)

• School enrolment (6 - 13 year olds)

Preschool enrolment by agePreschool enrolment by age

0102030405060708090

100

3 4 5 age

% MS members

Non-members

Control group

Explanatory variablesExplanatory variables• Child characteristics

– Sex– Age

• Household characteristics– Caste, religion– Household and female education– Income– Female head of household– Household size and dependency ratio

• Programme characteristics– Member of Mahila Samakhya– Programme village

• Community characteristics– Number of preschools (schools, distance to health center)– District dummies– Block characteristics (selection criteria)

Preschool enrolmentPreschool enrolmentPreschool enrolment (all hh) Probit s.e.

Child characteristicsSex .246 .156

Age .254 .084***

Household characteristicsMuslim -.671 .397*

Female head of household -.837 .384***

Household size .044 .027*

Dependency ratio .332 .123***

Programme variablesMember of MS (instrumented) 3.372 1.640**

MS village .945 .323***

Community variablesNumber of preschools .744 .141***

Sitamarhi district 1.633 .318***

Darbhanga district -.095 .335

Number of observations 964

*: p<0.10, **: p<0.05, ***: p<0.01

School enrolment by genderSchool enrolment by gender

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

girls 6-13 boy 6-13

%MS members

Non-members

Control group

School enrolment by casteSchool enrolment by caste

0102030405060708090

100

SC/ST Otherbackward

castes

Generalcastes

Minorities(Muslims)

MS members

Non-members

Control group

School enrolmentSchool enrolmentPrimary / middle school enrolment Probit s.e.

Child characteristics Sex -.084 .125

Age .108 .035***

Preschool .171 .175

Household characteristics

Scheduled Castes -.514 .297*

Other Backward Castes -.501 .254*

Household education .097 .045**

Female education .035 .112

Income .108 .063*

Household size -.029 .033

Programme variables

Member of MS (instrumented) 1.060 .357***

MS village .054 .141

Community variables

Number of government primary schools -.162 .101

Number of private primary schools -.484 .224**

Sitamarhi district .084 .195

Darbhanga district -.148 .198

Number of observations 2383

Primary / middle school enrolment Only GIRLS Only SC

Child characteristicsSex -.104 .150Age .080 .047* .077 .044*

Household characteristics

Scheduled Castes -.874 .3756**Other Backward Castes -.782 .329**Household education .474 .167*** .564 .183***Female education 1.382 .695** 2.211 .822***Income .021 .088 .299 .082***Household size -.079 .029*** -.094 .059

Programme variables

Member of MS (instrumented) .590 .416 .567 .601MS village .379 .183** .637 .252**

Community variables

Number of private primary schools -.681 .227*** -.813 .340**Sitamarhi district .146 .249 .006 .259Darbhanga district -.166 .229 -.444 .318

Number of observations 1085 639

Child outcomes (2)Child outcomes (2)

• Immunization coverage (0 - 13 year olds):– polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, measles

• Health and hygiene practices (household):– prevalence and treatment of diarrhea

Immunization coverageImmunization coverage

0

1020

30

4050

60

70

8090

100

Polio Tuberculosis Diphtheria Measles

% MS members

Non-members

Control group

ImmunizationImmunizationDependent variable: Diphtheria s.e. Only SC s.e.

Child characteristics Sex -.167 .071** -.305 .131**

Age -.030 .011*** -.031 .027

Household characteristics

Scheduled Castes -.571 .253**

Other Backward Castes -.576 .235**

Muslim -.868 .280*** -2.976 .477***

Household education .118 .044*** .3449 .187*

Female education .239 .081*** 1.353 .806*

Income

Female head of household -.130 .352 -1.513 .805*

Programme variables

Member of MS (instrumented) 1.056 .310*** .574 .401

MS village .276 .187 .888 .403**

Community variables

Sitamarhi district .269 .316 .123 .556

Darbhanga district -.539 .381 -.976 .496*

Number of observations 4113 1206

Summary immunizationSummary immunization

Total Total girls

Total boys

SC total

SC girls

SC boys

Membership * ** -- ** ** * Polio

MS village -- -- -- -- * --

Membership *** *** ** -- -- -- Diphtheria

MS village -- -- -- ** *** --

Membership *** *** *** -- -- -- Tuberculosis

MS village * -- ** ** ** **

MS village *** *** ** -- -- -- Measles

MS village -- -- -- ** *** **

Prevalence of diarrhea in the Prevalence of diarrhea in the last monthlast month

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

MS members Non-members

Control

Both adults andchildren

Only children

Only adults

No diarrhea

Treatment of diarrheaTreatment of diarrhea

MS membersReduced orspecial food

ORT

Medecines

No treatment

Non-members Control group

Conclusion (1)Conclusion (1)Evidence suggests positive impact of the

programme on participants:

• increased awareness of parents• increased participation in education• increased child outcomes (preschool,

school, immunization, incidence of diarrhea)

Conclusion (2)Conclusion (2)

External effects of the programme on non-participating households seem substantial:

• increased participation in school activities

• increased child outcomes (preschool, school, immunization) especially for girls and children from Scheduled Castes

Conclusion (3)Conclusion (3)

Importance of good comparison groups in programme evaluation

in order to avoid:

- underestimation of effect on participants- underestimation of externalities

Further researchFurther research

• Other measures of child outcomes

• Mechanisms:– Processes that lead to external effects (role of social

networks in knowledge transmission)– Dynamics of collective action