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

Jörg Peters, Gunther Bensch, A. Köngeter, Mascha Rauschenbach, Maximiliane Sievert · 2024 · Energy Research & Social Science

Summary. Energy access programs in rural Sub-Saharan Africa often fail to reach the poorest populations despite claims of pro-poor benefits. The paper examines on- and off-grid electrification and improved cooking technologies, finding that poor households rarely adopt these technologies without targeted interventions. Price subsidies are essential for all technologies, and energy-efficient biomass cookstoves show the most promise for reducing poverty. Electrification programs particularly struggle because connection costs exclude the poorest and productive electricity uses remain limited.

Read the original

@article{peters-2024-rural-energy-access-programs-pro,
  title   = {Are rural energy access programs pro-poor? Some are, many are not},
  author  = {Jörg Peters and Gunther Bensch and A. Köngeter and Mascha Rauschenbach and Maximiliane Sievert},
  journal = {Energy Research & Social Science},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.erss.2024.103871},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103871}
}

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Are rural energy access programs pro-poor? Some are, many are not
AU  - Jörg Peters
AU  - Gunther Bensch
AU  - A. Köngeter
AU  - Mascha Rauschenbach
AU  - Maximiliane Sievert
JO  - Energy Research & Social Science
PY  - 2024
DO  - 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103871
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103871
ER  - 

Details

DOI

10.1016/j.erss.2024.103871

Countries

Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Regions

Africa

Categories

energy, policy

Added

2026-04-28