CÓMO SE CONSIGUE LA MEJORA EDUCATIVA

We first test the third hypothesis which predicted that pastoralists that enrolled in the marketing training have more market knowledge than the pastoralists in the control group. We test this hypothesis with data of MK1 and MK2. We first analyse the impact of marketing training on MK1. To analyse the responses on the multiple-choice questions on the market and market exchange concepts, we rated the correct answer provided as 1 and the incorrect answers as 0. The number of correct answers of the experimental group was then compared against the number of correct responses of the control group using a 2x2 cross-tabulation (Chi-Square). For the true/false questions on market dynamics, we compare the number of correct answers (out of 20) in the experimental group with the number of correct answers provided by respondents in the control group using a t-test. Likewise, the number of correct responses provided by the experimental group and control group for the nine yes/no questions for customer-oriented activities and the three yes/no questions for target buyer selection used to capture customer-centric business were compared using t-tests. The question on prioritizing (ranking order) business elements is analysed using kruskal-wallis nonparametric ranking test (Chi-Square). For competition, we compared the number of correct responses of each group out of five yes/no questions using a t-test. The questions on marketing instruments were tested by comparing the number of correct responses for the three questions on product and price using a t-test. For the multiple-choice question on negotiation, we use a 2x2 crosstabulation (Chi-Square) (correct answer rated as 1 and incorrect answer rated as 0).

Table 5.4 presents description of the exam content, number of correct responses or mean for each group, the effect size (λ), the mean differences, χ2, and t-value. The results in this table show significant differences between the two groups for all variables, except for competition and negotiation. For example, the multiple choice questions for market and market exchange were answered considerably better by the training participants than by the members of the control group (33 respondents in the experimental group versus 13 respondents in the control group answered question about the market concept correctly, and 38 respondents in the experimental group versus 23 respondents in the control group answered the questions for market exchange correctly). For market dynamics the difference was smaller (11.65 versus 10.72 correct answers), but still significant. Competition appeared however a concept that caused great difficulties for pastoralists in the experimental and control groups. In both groups, participants identified on average not even two out of the five potential competitor groups in their market. Also negotiation was not performed significantly better by the experimental than by the control group.

123 Only 32 respondents in the experimental group chose to negotiate price based on market value of their animals (while the remaining agreed to accept the price offered by the trader from their clan) while 29 respondents in the control group chose to negotiate (above half chose to accept the price offered by the trader from their clan member).

Second, we test the hypothesis on the data of MK2 collected at M0 and M8 using the difference-in-differences estimation method (hereafter Diff-in-Diff). We used this method because it compares the changes in outcomes over time periods between a group enrolled in a program and a control group by removing time-invariant unobserved factors (Imbens &

Wooldridge, 2009; Gertler et al., 2011). The difference-in-differences estimation is recommended, for example, by the World Bank for training impact evaluation because the treatment effect relies on the collection of data before and after the treatment from both the experimental and comparison units, and provides a controllable, intuitive way to account for selection on unobserved characteristics (Khandker, Koolwal, & Samad, 2010). The double differencing removes biases in second period comparisons between the enrolled group and non-enrolled group that could be the result from permanent differences between those groups, as well as biases from comparisons over time that could be the result of other factors over time trends unrelated to the training program (Gertler et al., 2011). Specifically, we used the following model to analyse the impact of our training program:

Y = β0 + β1 E + β2 after + β3 E*after + e

Where Y is the dependent variable, namely MK2 (or as we will report below: market-oriented breeding, market-market-oriented fattening, market-market-oriented quality care, target market selection, market-oriented communication, value-informed pricing, competition-informed pricing, negotiation, price satisfaction and livelihood performance), that indicate the changes because of the training program given to the experimental group; E = 1 if in experimental group, 0 if in control group; after = 1 if after training program, 0 if before training program.

β0 = the mean outcome for the control group before the training program (at the baseline or M0) β0 + β2 = the mean outcome for the control group in the follow-up (after the training or M8 ) β₀ + β₁ = the mean outcome for the experimental group before the training program (at the

baseline or M₀ )

β0 + β₁ + β₂ + β₃ = the mean outcome for the experimental group in the follow-up (after the training or M₈ )

β3 = the impact of the training program (the difference-in-differences)

The results show that the market knowledge (MK2) of pastoralists in the experimental group increased from an average of 2.91 at M0 to 3.25 at M8. At M8 the experimental group also

Chapter 5

124 shows a higher level of knowledge than the control group (3.25 versus 2.93 , p < .05). The diff-in-diff (i.e., the overall difference from M0 and M8) is significant at p < .10 (one-tailed) (Figure 5.3 and Table 5.5). We therefore find marginal support for hypothesis 3 on the basis of the MK2 measure for market knowledge. However, the support from the more elaborate measures included in MK1 generally support the hypothesis, with the exception of the competition and negotiation elements of the training.

125 Table 5.4: Description and results of the exam on marketing training components (MK1)

Training

Market (λ) In a multiple choice question with five alternatives (one correct answer and four destructors), the respondents were asked on what livestock market is.

The experimental group and control group were compared based on the number of correct responses in each group.

33

In a multiple choice question with five alternatives (one correct answer and four destructors), the respondents were asked on what market exchange implies. The experimental group and control group were compared based on the number of correct responses in each group.

38 influence demand for and supply of livestock that generally including:

- Changes in consumers consumption preferences, income.

- Changes in policy related to domestic consumption and export/import - Changes in supply of livestock by other producers

- Absence/availability of livestock buyers

Chapter 5

Respondents were asked to respond on nine yes/no items whether they agree that a pastoralists who wants to convert his livestock into cash should:

- Separate his livestock he intends to sell from others in feeding, mobility - Continuously follow changes in the preferences of traders

- Intentionally breeding and crossbreeding animals for market

- Sell livestock only when he needs cash (in a reversed question form)

5.43 4.78 .65** 2.39

Target buyer selection

The respondents were provided with three questions (with yes/no response) that describe the attributes of three animals and identify who the most potential target buyer (fattening operator, slaughterhouse or exporter) each could be.

1.92 1.48 .44** 2.03

Competition Respondents were provided with the list of potential competitors (other pastoralists, agropastralists, farmers, fattening operators, I don’t have competitors) to rate as their competitors in the market (yes/no/I don’t know).

1.65 1.23 .40 1.50

127

In three multiple choice questions with two choices each, respondents were:

- provided with information on attributes of two oxen (weight, age, castrated/uncastrated) to identify which one can be sold at a higher price (value-informed pricing decision)

- provided with information to image that they have good quality bull, they don’t need cash to cover immediate expenditure, high current price (cost or market informed selling decision).

- Provided information to imagine that there are many suppliers and that price is low, but they need cash now to decide whether to sell a fattened one or an old one and borrow any extra money needed from a microfinance.

1.58 1.25 .33** 2.03

Negotiation (λ)

Respondents were provided with information that they want to sell an animal and attributes of the animal; a rural trader from their clan has offered them a price; and opportunity to negotiate other buyers based on market conditions.

32

Not included in the exam to avoid lengthy and complicated exam content. NA NA NA NA

Value chain Not included in the exam to avoid lengthy and complicated exam content. NA NA NA NA

***p<.01, **p<.05, two-tailed significance; NA = not applicable

Chapter 5

128 5.4.2. Effects of the marketing training on value creation, price satisfaction and livelihood

performance

In addition to the effects on market knowledge, we further examined whether trained pastoralists engage more in value creating activities and whether they exhibit higher levels of price satisfaction and livelihood performance. Figure 5.3 and Table 5.5 presents the mean differences and diff-in-diff estimation for customer value creation indicators, price satisfaction and livelihood performance based on the M₀ and M₈ surveys.

As becomes clear from Table 5.5 (and also the figure), the experimental group scores higher after the training than before on nine value creation activities. It also shows that their average scores at M₈ are higher than those of the control group for market-oriented breeding (2.50 versus 2.06), market-oriented fattening (2.48 versus 2.01), market-oriented quality care (3.69 versus 2.97), relative product quality (3.20 versus 2.86), target market selection (2.90 versus 2.47), market-oriented communication (2.70 versus 2.16) and value-informed pricing (3.45 versus 2.97) of the value creation activities. The diff-in-diff results show that the experimental group significantly differs from the control group on market-oriented breeding (p <

.05) and market-oriented quality care (p < .01). The effect of relative product quality is however marginal (p < .10). The diff-in-diff result is significant for market-oriented communication (p <

.01) and marginally significant for value-informed pricing (p < .10). Consistent with the findings for market knowledge (MK1), the diff-in-diff results for competition-informed pricing and negotiation are not significant (see Figure 5.3). Interestingly, the results show that the experimental group exhibits higher levels of price satisfaction (mean = 2.33) and livelihood performance (mean = 2.79), than the control group (respectively 1.88 and 2.50) at M8. The diff-in-diff for livelihood performance is significant at p < .05 while it is marginally significant for price satisfaction (p < .10).

We also compared the experimental group and comparison group on their level of market interaction (measured based on the number of livestock they sold and bought within eight months before the training and within eight months after the training) to understand whether the differences in value creation and livelihood performance are caused by selling more rather than by selling better. We did however not find a significant difference on market interaction between the experimental group and control group.

129

Chapter 5

130

Figure 5.3: Comaprison of the exprimental group (EG) and control group (CG). NS= not significat; Sig= significatnt. “(a)” represnets the mean the difefrences of the EG and CG at baseline (M0) and “(b)” represnets the mean difference at follow-up (M8). “(c)” is the diff-in-diff (or β3).

131

*** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.10, one tailed significance.