Using information to break the political resource curse in natural gas management in Mozambique

Armand, Alex; Ncid,; Costa, A.I.A.; Coutts, Alexander; Vicente, Pedro C.; Vilela, Inês; Novafrica,

doi:10.23846/tw8ie93

Cited by 4 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies, Béné et al (2020) and Cocciolo et al (2020), presented their results as robust, based on the general rigour and quality of their methods and data collection. Similarly, eight studies checked potential biases or performed balance checks to prove the effective randomisation and internal validity of the evaluation (Aker et al, 2017;Angeles et al, 2019;Armand et al, 2019;Bandiera et al, 2017;Barnett et al, 2018;Diagne and Cabral, 2017;Källander et al, 2021;Pellegrini, 2018). Several studies also conducted sub-group analysis to assess heterogeneous effects (Gibbs et al, 2020;Khwaja et al, 2020;Najy et al, 2018;Roth et al, 2017;Saboya et al, 2018;Zegarra et al, 2017).…”

Section: Making and Justifying Claims About Intervention Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making and justifying evidence claims: evidence synthesis of impact evaluations and systematic reviews in international development

Bangpan¹,

Draper²,

Minchenko³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last few decades, there has been an increasing use of, and demand for, high-quality evidence among decision makers in international development. Evidence from research leads to claims about the effects of intervening in people’s lives to improve specific outcomes. However, this raises the question of how such evidence claims are framed, justified and communicated. This review aims to address this important question by reviewing research findings from impact evaluations and systematic reviews to understand the nature and the scope of evidence claims in the global South.

show abstract

Section: Making and Justifying Claims About Intervention Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making and justifying evidence claims: evidence synthesis of impact evaluations and systematic reviews in international development

Bangpan¹,

Draper²,

Minchenko³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Largely, explanations consider that this phenomenon may relate with a broader literature dedicated to the Political Resource Curse. Research on the Political Resource Curse suggests that the large public revenues arising from extractive activities may incentivise rentseeking behaviour (Armand et al, 2019). Politicians, for example, may become more interested in securing political power and pursuing corrupt and inefficient policies using these revenues for their private gain (Robinson et al, 2006).…”

Section: Natural Resources Transparency and Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another example by Armand et al (2019) combines a randomised trial with lab-in-thefield experiments in Mozambique. It evaluated the effects of combining greater disclosure of information on the revenues and employment generated from the extractive sector with citizenled meetings discussing priorities for spending public revenues from resource extraction.…”

Section: Natural Resources Transparency and Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Pearl Hypothesis argues that the pressure of socially dysfunctional political behaviour, caused by the contestation of natural resource wealth, can negatively affect trust in societies. While empirical research has continued to improve our understanding of the formation of political distrust surrounding natural resources (particularly noting the exacerbating effects of conflict and corruption), it also highlights that limited evidence exists concerning how public policies might support statesociety relations affected by this issue (Ishiyama et al, 2018;Acemoglu et al, 2018;and Armand et al, 2019). This paper aims to start to address this gap in the literature by examining the role of a leading and long-standing international transparency scheme in the extractives sector, known as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), in helping to build trust in politicians.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Existing evidence examining public trust and transparency interventions in the extractive industries largely focus on shortlived interventions (mostly involving relatively modest degrees of stakeholder interaction) (e.g. see Armand et al 2019 andColeman et al, 2019). Broader theory on the dynamics of trust, however, highlights that it is an intangible form of capital that takes time to accumulate as partnerships and relationships evolve (Lewicki andWiethoff, 2000 andDrescher et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and trust in politicians

Villar

2020

Resources Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PROTOCOL: The effects of agricultural output market access interventions on agricultural, socio‐economic and food and nutrition security outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review

Villar,

Kozakiewicz,

Bachina

et al. 2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development agencies and international donors’ efforts are increasingly focusing on better integrating poor and remote farmers into agricultural markets to address the chronic issues of rural poverty and hunger in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Using systematic methods for information retrieval, critical appraisal and evidence synthesis, this research aims to examine evidence on the effects of five focal types of agricultural market access interventions: (i) farm‐to‐market transport infrastructure interventions; (ii) output market information interventions; (iii) initiatives creating new marketplaces and alternative marketing opportunities; (iv) contract farming initiatives; (v) interventions improving storage infrastructure. In this review, we will study evidence of the magnitude and direction of intervention effects on agricultural, socio‐economic, and food and nutrition security outcomes. We will examine evidence of the distribution of reported effects across different contexts, interventions and sub‐groups of the population (e.g., according to sex, socio‐economic status, farm size, etc.). We will also report on included studies’ risk of bias and on what evidence is available on intervention costs, or their cost‐effectiveness. This protocol outlines this review's planned methods and the criteria for selecting and including studies in its analysis.

show abstract

Using information to break the political resource curse in natural gas management in Mozambique

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Making and justifying evidence claims: evidence synthesis of impact evaluations and systematic reviews in international development

Making and justifying evidence claims: evidence synthesis of impact evaluations and systematic reviews in international development

The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and trust in politicians

PROTOCOL: The effects of agricultural output market access interventions on agricultural, socio‐economic and food and nutrition security outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About