Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chase, R. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow I21 - Analysis of Education
Right arrow O22 - Project Analysis
Right arrow P25 - Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Right arrow P33 - International Trade, Finance, Investment, and Aid
Right arrow P35 - Public Economics
Right arrow P36 - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions: Consumer Economics; Health, Education and Training, Welfare, and Poverty
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

THE WORLD BANK ECONOMIC REVIEW, VOL. 16, NO. 2, 219-240
© 2002 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank


Impact Evaluation of Social Funds

Supporting Communities in Transition: The Impact of the Armenian Social Investment Fund

Robert S. Chase

Robert S. Chase is an assistant professor of International Economics at the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University; Senior Economist and Social Capital Coordinator in the World Bank's Social Development Family; and Research Associate of the William Davidson Institute. His e-mail address is rchase{at}worldbank.org.

Abstract

The Armenian Social Investment Fund supports communities' efforts to improve local infrastructure during Armenia's economic transition away from central planning, financing community-designed and -implemented projects to rehabilitate primary schools, water systems, and other infrastructure. This article considers the targeting, household impact, and community effects of the social fund's activities. It relies on a nationally representative household survey, oversampled in areas where the social fund was active. Using propensity and pipeline matching techniques to control for community self-selection into the social fund, it evaluates the household effects of rehabilitating schools and water systems. The results show that the social fund reached poor households, particularly in rural areas. Education projects increased households' spending on education significantly and had mild effects on school attendance. Potable water projects increased household access to water and had mild positive effects on health. Communities that completed a social fund project were less likely than the comparison group to complete other local infrastructure projects, suggesting that social capital was expended in these early projects. By contrast, communities that joined the social fund later and had not yet completed their projects took more initiatives not supported by the social fund.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.