HARITA Data Assessment: Comparison of Pilot Study with Most Recent Expansion
This document serves as a brief summary of the newest HARITA data results compared with the results from the Pilot study. Therefore, this write-up uses the information that is presented in the Excel file, “HARITA Data 7-20”. There are a few key areas that we are looking at, which include: •
Comparison of take-up rates with the break-down between cash and labor, as well as female and male-headed households.
•
Comparison of premiums paid per household (along with the break-down of cash versus labor payments).
•
Establish amount insured in Birr and area in hectares (along with the break-down of cash versus labor).
•
Compare insurance type – Slight Dry versus Very Dry
According to Malgosia the overall insurance take-up rate for five villages (Adi Ha, Hadush Adi, Awet Bikalsi, Genetie, and Hade Alga) was 19 percent, which was based on a simple calculation of total insurance participants with tabia populations. She also calculated the take-up rate disaggregated by village, which are the following: •
Genetie – 6%
•
Hade Alga – 12%
•
Hadush Adi – 31%
•
Adi Ha – 29%
•
Awet Bikalsi – 36%
Genetie is particularly low compared to the other villages and we should look further into why this is the case.
In the more recent study consisting of these five villages, there were a total of 1,308 participants—with 38.84 percent being female-headed households and 61.16 percent were male-headed households. This
1
is relatively the same distribution that we saw in the pilot study, with 37.5 percent were female-headed households and 62.5 percent were male-headed households.
Since a distinct aspect of HARITA is the ability to purchase insurance through labor, it is important to see the break-down of how the participants in this program are purchasing the insurance. In the longer term it is hoped to shift the number of people that would have to purchase this product through labor to buy with cash—thus, allowing this program to become more self-sustaining (however, given the nature of this program it would not shift entirely to those purchasing insurance by cash because it would defeat the purpose of providing this financial service to the “unserviceable”). At first glance, it appears that there is shift where more people are buying insurance through labor, and less with cash. However, it is important to note that this is an overall estimate of the five villages, where the comparison (pilot results) was only in Adi Ha. The results are as follows:
Pilot Study: •
5.5% female-headed households paid in cash and 32% paid in labor
•
29.5% male-headed households paid in cash and 33% paid in labor
*The percents are calculated using the total number of participants as the denominator 2
Recent Study with 5 Villages: •
1.91% female-headed households paid in cash and 36.93% paid in labor
•
15.06% male-headed households paid in cash and 46.10% paid in labor
*The percents are calculated using the total number of participants as the denominator
Given this shift, there must be a follow-up study as to why this happened (whether it was an aggregate force from an economic stand-point, or disaggregate, where some of these villages might be poorer than others) in order to truly understand whether these numbers are “a cause for concern for the program”, or if it is some external, uncontrollable (but explainable) cause.
For the most recent study, the average premium paid per household in Birr (or its equivalency in labor) ranged from 224.16 for those paid with cash to 487.92 for those paid by labor. Therefore, the average premium paid per household for all participants was 356.04. This is an overall increase compared to the Pilot study in Adi Ha, with the average premium paid per household in Birr (or its equivalency in labor) ranged from 95 paid in cash and 161 paid with labor. Therefore, the average premium paid per household for all participants in the Pilot study was 138.
The remaining results are discussed below, however not compared to the initial Pilot results because they were not obtained. The average amount that was insured (in Birr) ranged from 422.24 for those paying in cash to 864.13 for those paying with labor. Therefore, the average premium paid per household (in Birr) for all participants was 643.18. The village break-down of this data is in the following table and chart.
Average Amount Insured in Birr By Village
Farmers Paying in Cash
Farmers Paying in Labor
Total
3
Hadush Adi
540.00
831.25
685.63
Adi Ha Awet Bikalsi Genete
259.26 309.68 628.57
835.59 758.45 895.35
547.42 534.07 761.96
Hade Alga
373.68
1000.00
686.84
In terms of hectares, the average amount insured was 0.06 for those paying in cash and 0.12 for those paying with labor (an average of 0.09 hectares). The total hectares that are insured by cash were 12.03, and 139.56 hectares were insured through labor.
With insurance type, there was not an equal distribution between the two options: Slight Dry and Very Dry. There were a total of 1,308 Slight Dry policies, where 221 were purchased with cash and 1,080 by labor. On the other spectrum, there were only seven Very Dry policies, with one being purchase with cash and six with labor. Therefore, it is safe to say that Slight Dry insurance was widely popular. It
4
would be good to fully understand what the differences are between these two insurance types; and more importantly to follow-up on why Slight Dry was the consistent choice of the two.
5