Skip to main content

Table 5 Findings from the cost-effectiveness analysis

From: An evaluation framework and empirical evidence on the effect of pay-for-results programs on the development of markets for welfare-enhancing agricultural technologies

Cost-effectiveness analysis: Was the PfR cost-effective?
Prize amounts paid as a proportion of costs of prize amounts paid, project design, management and verification [FS] Nigeria: Less than 30 percent was spent on prize award with evidence of development impact. 28% of expenses were spent the prize, in large part owing to high management and verification costs
Kenya: Majority of the expenditure was on prizes but with no evidence of development impact. 82% of expenses were spent on the prize
Uganda: 0% was spent on the prize
Zambia: 20% was spent on the prize
Cost per persons reached, volumes traded Nigeria:$134 cost per smallholder farmer adopting Aflasafe as a result of PfR
Kenya: $39 cost per smallholder farmer adopting improved on farmer storage as a result of PfR
Uganda: N/A
Zambia: N/A
Cost per unit of ‘result’ (“R” in PfR) achieved Nigeria: $34 cost per MT of Aflasafe-treated maize aggregated
Kenya: $26 cost per added MT of storage capacity sold
Uganda: N/A
Zambia: N/A
Costs per unit of final outcomes measured Nigeria: The program cost was $85 per $100 increase in smallholder incomes, not counting the health benefits that smallholder families would have experienced
Kenya: No impact found
Uganda: N/A
Zambia: N/A