Are rural energy access programs pro-poor? Some are, many are not

This perspective article discusses whether energy access programs in rural Sub-Saharan Africa reach the poor in a way that most policy actors claim. We examine on- and off-grid electrification as well as improved cooking. We focus on whether the poor adopt the respective technology in typical access programs and on the triggered productive use potentials to examine both direct and indirect potential pro-poor effects. Backed by the most recent literature, we argue that energy access interventions do not naturally deliver on pro-poor targets. If these pro-poor claims are to be met, programs need to improve their targeting. Subsidizing end-user prices is required for all technologies. Energy-efficient biomass cookstoves are most promising in terms of their pro-poor effects. Especially for electrification, the absence of substantial productive electricity use, and the low uptake among the poor suggests that care must be taken to also reach those too impoverished to afford connection costs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Energy Research & Social Science
Published
2024-12-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103871
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Energy and Environment Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.06
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Are rural energy access programs pro-poor? Some are, many are not

Jörg Peters, Mascha Rauschenbach, Maximiliane Sievert, Gunther Bensch et al.
8 citations
Energy Research & Social Science
Energy and Environment Impacts
1.06
article

Are rural energy access programs pro-poor? Some are, many are not

Jörg Peters, Mascha Rauschenbach, Maximiliane Sievert, Gunther Bensch, A. Köngeter
article en
8 citations

Abstract

This perspective article discusses whether energy access programs in rural Sub-Saharan Africa reach the poor in a way that most policy actors claim. We examine on- and off-grid electrification as well as improved cooking. We focus on whether the poor adopt the respective technology in typical access programs and on the triggered productive use potentials to examine both direct and indirect potential pro-poor effects. Backed by the most recent literature, we argue that energy access interventions do not naturally deliver on pro-poor targets. If these pro-poor claims are to be met, programs need to improve their targeting. Subsidizing end-user prices is required for all technologies. Energy-efficient biomass cookstoves are most promising in terms of their pro-poor effects. Especially for electrification, the absence of substantial productive electricity use, and the low uptake among the poor suggests that care must be taken to also reach those too impoverished to afford connection costs.

Energy Research & Social ScienceVol. 120
RWI – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research (DE), German Institute of Development and Sustainability (DE), University of Passau (DE), DEval – Deutsches Evaluierungsinstitut der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Energy and Environment Impacts
1.06
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Are rural energy access programs pro-poor? Some are, many are not — Jörg Peters, Mascha Rauschenbach, et al. · Energy Research & Social Science (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS