Fragility and Conflict

Targeting social assistance in fragile settings: An experiment in community-based targeting

Women’s empowerment and conflict in Burkina Faso: Learning from a randomized trial and non-random conflict

Armed conflict has myriad negative consequences on the wellbeing of women and men, and its non-random nature makes it difficult to study its impacts. We examine the changes in empowerment during the period of 2017-2020 in western Burkina Faso as armed conflict moved closer. We combined data from the randomized-controlled trial of Soutenir l’Exploitation Familiale pour Lancer l’Elevage des Volailles et Valoriser l’Economie Rural (SELEVER) a gender- and nutrition-sensitive poultry production intervention, which collected the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index with geospatial- and date-specific data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project database. To evaluate the effect of conflict on empowerment, we estimated a continuous difference-in-difference model, separately for women and men, across multiple empowerment indicators, in which the primary explanatory variable describes the change in distance to conflict during this time period. Then, to determine if the SELEVER program had a protective effect when there was increased proximity to conflict, we estimated these models separately for the treatment and control groups and compare the difference in the coefficients. As conflict encroached, there was a shift in intrahousehold decision making that suggests less coordination between spouses and fewer decisions made jointly, along with a greater acceptance of intimate partner violence among women. We also found increases in other outcomes, such as men’s group membership, and women’s and men’s access to credit. These changes may be attributable to how communities responded and how humanitarian aid was delivered. We found that the SELEVER program had a protective effect on men’s work balance and the amount of time that both women and men spent working. Notably, however, women spent more time on childcare activities as conflict become closer.

Internal displacement and the promotion of bundled agricultural technologies: Evidence from a fragile setting in Nigeria

Fragile regions within Nigeria face multiple, overlapping challenges including climate volatility, violent conflict, widespread displacement, and persistent malnutrition. These pressures can constrain agricultural production and compromise household welfare, particularly for internally displaced households, who face depleted assets and repeated exposure to shocks. Within the context of Nigeria, addressing these constraints requires interventions that improve access to agricultural technologies and strengthen food systems. This brief summarizes experimental evidence from Gombe State, Nigeria, where we implemented an intervention promoting the adoption of a bundle of agricultural technologies. The intervention specifically disentangled the effects of price discounts and information campaigns on bundle adoption. We collected data on the use of each of the bundle components as well as the implementation of agronomic practices recommended for achieving agricultural intensification benefits, enabling us to document adoption beyond the initial purchase of the bundle in a detailed way. The bundle—which includes biofortified seeds, fertilizers, crop protection products, and weather-risk insurance—was designed to generate an intensification response among farmers and address micronutrient deficiencies among adopting households. In principle, biofortified crops—such as vitamin A maize and high-iron millet—offer a dual benefit: improved crop productivity and improved access to nutritious foods. While Nigerian agricultural policies encourage biofortification, sustained adoption remains limited, and existing studies overwhelmingly focus on peaceful and stable settings. We aim to addresses existing knowledge gaps by implementing a randomized control trial in Gombe State, Nigeria—a fragile and conflict-affected setting with a relatively large displaced population. Existing evidence shows that bundled input packages, rather than interventions promoting a single agricultural input, can generate productivity gains associated with agricultural intensification. Adoption is often hindered by liquidity constraints, perceived risk, and weak extension systems. Moreover, displaced households can face additional barriers due to asset loss and insecure land tenure. This motivates us to specifically investigate whether displaced households respond differently to our intervention than households from the host population.