IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iefpro/9512011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dana Desa on clean water and sanitation access in Indonesia: Does Cash-for-work (PKT) matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Isnawati Hidayah

    (Wageningen University and Research)

  • Imam Mukhlis

    (State University of Malang)

Abstract

This paper estimates the impact of Dana Desa as a form of the community-driven development program (CDD) on clean water and sanitation improvement in Indonesia. The data used is Indonesian National Socioeconomic Survey (SUSENAS) from Statistics Indonesia (BPS) and the amount of Dana Desa?s money transfer in districts level from Ministry of Village, Development of Disadvantaged Regions And Transmigration (KEMENDESA) in 2015. The baseline data used is SUSENAS in 2014, and SUSENAS in 2016 as the data of post-intervention. The study used is quantitative analysis named difference-in-difference estimation (DID) which compare the outcome before (2014) and after (2016) the program using fixed-effect regressions. The analysis involves 405 districts and 810 observations of rural area. The study aims to assess the impact of Dana Desa on clean water and sanitation. The findings show that Dana Desa gives a positive and significant impact on sanitation access and clean water access in the districts where more people are working in informal sectors. Because they have more time to participate on supporting the program by joining cash-for-work (Padat Karya Tunai). This research is important to evaluate Dana Desa program as the biggest CDD program under President Joko Widodo?s era.

Suggested Citation

  • Isnawati Hidayah & Imam Mukhlis, 2019. "Dana Desa on clean water and sanitation access in Indonesia: Does Cash-for-work (PKT) matter?," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 9512011, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:sek:iefpro:9512011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iises.net/proceedings/12th-economics-finance-conference-dubrovnik/table-of-content/detail?cid=95&iid=008&rid=12011
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howard White, 2009. "Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 271-284.
    2. Ravallion, Martin, 2001. "Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond Averages," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1803-1815, November.
    3. White, Howard, 2009. "Theory-Based Impact Evaluation," 3ie Publications 2009-3, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
    4. Eduardo Amaral Haddad & Fernando Salgueiro Perobelli & Edson Paulo Domingues & Mauricio Aguiar, 2011. "Assessing the ex ante economic impacts of transportation infrastructure policies in Brazil," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 44-61.
    5. Ariel BenYishay & Rebecca Tunstall, 2011. "Impact evaluation of infrastructure investments: the experience of the Millennium Challenge Corporation," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 103-130.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henrik Hansen & Ole Winckler Andersen & Howard White, 2011. "Impact evaluation of infrastructure interventions," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1-8.
    2. Kabeer, Naila, 2020. "‘Misbehaving’ RCTs: The confounding problem of human agency," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Johnson, Nancy L. & Atherstone, Christine & Grace, Delia, 2015. "The potential of farm-level technologies and practices to contribute to reducing consumer exposure to aflatoxins: A theory of change analysis:," IFPRI discussion papers 1452, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Cornwall, Andrea & Aghajanian, Alia, 2017. "How to Find out What’s Really Going On: Understanding Impact through Participatory Process Evaluation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 173-185.
    5. Naila Kabeer & Munshi Sulaiman, 2015. "Assessing the Impact of Social Mobilization: Nijera Kori and the Construction of Collective Capabilities in Rural Bangladesh," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 47-68, February.
    6. Sara Rafael Almeida & Joana Sousa Lourenco & Francois J. Dessart & Emanuele Ciriolo, 2017. "Insights from behavioural sciences to prevent and combat violence against women. Literature review," JRC Research Reports JRC103975, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Quentin Ssossé & Johanna Wagner & Carina Hopper, 2021. "Assessing the Impact of ESD: Methods, Challenges, Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-26, March.
    8. Joana Silva Afonso, 2020. "Impact evaluation, social performance assessment and standardisation: reflections from microfinance evaluations in Pakistan and Zimbabwe," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2020-14, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    9. Oya, Carlos & Schaefer, Florian & Skalidou, Dafni, 2018. "The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: A systematic review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 282-312.
    10. Gwenolé Le Velly & Céline Dutilly, 2016. "Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services: Methodological Challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Calina-Ana Butiu, 2017. "Evidence based practice in academic dropout policy. The pro-integra model," Journal of Community Positive Practices, Catalactica NGO, issue 1, pages 3-12.
    12. Channarith Meng & Wade Pfau, 2012. "Simulating the Impacts of Cash Transfers on Poverty and School Attendance: The Case of Cambodia," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 436-452, December.
    13. Johnson, Nancy L. & Guedenet, Hannah & Saltzman, Amy, 2015. "What will it take for biofortification to have impact on the ground? Theories of change for three crop-country combinations:," IFPRI discussion papers 1427, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Jorge García Hombrados & Maira Devisscher & María Herreros Martínez, 2015. "The Impact of land titling on agricultural production and agricultural investments in Tanzania: a theory-based approach," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 530-544, December.
    15. Sarah Bracking, 2012. "How do Investors Value Environmental Harm/Care? Private Equity Funds, Development Finance Institutions and the Partial Financialization of Nature-based Industries," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 271-293, January.
    16. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    17. Colin Kirkpatrick, 2012. "Economic Governance: Improving the Economic and Regulatory Environment for Supporting Private Sector Activity," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2012-108, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    18. Jabeen, Sumera, 2016. "Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 144-154.
    19. Ron Bose, 2010. "CONSORT Extensions for Development Effectiveness: guidelines for the reporting of randomised control trials of social and economic policy interventions in developing countries," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 173-186.
    20. Pablo Vidueira & José M. Díaz-Puente & María Rivera, 2014. "Socioeconomic Impact Assessment in Ex Ante Evaluations," Evaluation Review, , vol. 38(4), pages 309-335, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dana Desa; Community-driven development; difference-in-difference; cash-for-work; community participation; rural area;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • C19 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Other
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sek:iefpro:9512011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klara Cermakova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://iises.net/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.