Comparative analysis of five PL-480 Title I impact evaluation studies

480 Title I programs in Bangladesh, Egypt, Jamaica, Peru, and Sri Lanka is presented. Initial sections describe changes in U.S. agriculture and policies since Title I's inception in 1954, and the resulting effect on P.L. 480 programming. Next discussed are the various host country contexts and their evolution, including two cases (Egypt and Peru) where Title I aid was interrupted. A review of socioeconomic development in the five countries highlights differing possibilities for program impact. Assessment of Title I's macroeconomic impact shows that the impact on balance of payments support, while positive in each case, was more apparent in countries with greater economic constraints (Bangladesh, Jamaica) and that the program tended to directly benefit the more affluent in Jamaica and Peru. Evaluation of microeconomic and development impacts reveals a production disincentive effect since the early 1960's for one or more food crops, although these disincentives may be offset by improvements in food import policy. The impact on nutritional status and dietary patterns was found to vary: wheat consumption increased in Egypt and Sri Lanka, while the program helped place a floor on caloric intake in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. A final section notes that Title I has promoted U.S. foreign policy aims but has not strengthened U.S. agricultural markets or (except in Bangladesh) policy dialogue. It is concluded that: either Title I's multiyear option or a modified Title III would provide significant programmatic and policy improvements; self-help agreements are too vague and should be replaced by a rolling 5-year planning exercise, as in Peru; improved coordination between food and nonfood donors, especially the International Monetary Fund, can increase the likelihood of desired policy changes and minimize host country logistical problems. Further data needs are to measure more precisely the long- and short-run disincentive effects of P.L. 480 on large and marginal programs and to better document the nutrition and dietary pattern impacts of food aid, especially Title I. The impact evaluations demonstrate the need to monitor A.I.D. programs continuously.