Year Published
- 2008 (0)
- 2009 (0)
- 2010 (0)
- 2011 (1) Apply 2011 filter
- 2012 (0)
- 2013 (1) Apply 2013 filter
- 2014 (0)
- (-) Remove 2015 filter 2015
- 2016 (0)
- 2017 (5) Apply 2017 filter
- 2018 (0)
- 2019 (0)
- (-) Remove 2020 filter 2020
- 2021 (0)
Research Topics
Populations
- Countries/Governments (0)
- Rural Populations (1) Apply Rural Populations filter
- (-) Remove Smallholder Farmers filter Smallholder Farmers
- Women (0)
Types of Research
- Data Analysis (1) Apply Data Analysis filter
- Literature Review (1) Apply Literature Review filter
- Portfolio Review (0)
- Research Brief (0)
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (1) Apply East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- Global (0)
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (1) Apply Sub-Saharan Africa filter
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
Dataset
- ASTI (0)
- FAOSTAT (0)
- Farmer First (0)
- (-) Remove LSMS & LSMS-ISA filter LSMS & LSMS-ISA
- Other Datasets (0)
Current search
- (-) Remove Smallholder Farmers filter Smallholder Farmers
- (-) Remove 2020 filter 2020
- (-) Remove LSMS & LSMS-ISA filter LSMS & LSMS-ISA
- (-) Remove 2015 filter 2015
Recent research has used typologies to classify rural households into categories such as “subsistence” versus “commercialized” as a means of targeting agricultural development interventions and tracking agricultural transformation. Following an approach proposed by Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, we examine patterns in two agricultural transformation hallmarks – commercialization of farm output, and diversification into non-farm income – among rural households in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania from 2008-2015. We classify households into five smallholder farm categories based on commercialization and non-farm income levels (Subsistence, Pre-commercial, Transitioning, Specialized Commercial, and Diversified Commercial farms), as well as two non-smallholder categories (Largeholder farms and Non-farm households). We then summarize the share of households in each of these categories, examine geographic and demographic factors associated with different categories, and explore households’ movement across categories over time. We find a large amount of “churn” across categories, with most households moving to a different (more or less commercialized, more or less diversified) category across survey years. We also find many non-farm households become smallholder farmers – and vice versa – over time. Finally, we show that in many cases increases in farm household commercialization or diversification rates actually reflect decreased total farm production, or decreased total income (i.e., declines in the denominators of the agricultural transformation metrics), suggesting a potential loss of rural household welfare even in the presence of “positive” trends in transformation indicators. Findings underscore challenges with using common macro-level indicators to target development efforts and track progress at the household level in rural agrarian communities.
Common estimates of agricultural productivity rely upon crude measures of crop yield, typically defined as the weight harvested of a crop divided by the area harvested. But this common yield measure poorly reflects performance among farm systems combining multiple crops in one area (e.g., intercropping), and also ignores the possibility that farmers might lose crop area between planting and harvest (e.g., partial crop failure). Drawing on detailed plot-level data from Tanzania’s National Panel Survey, our research contrasts measures of smallholder productivity using production per hectare harvested and production per hectare planted.
An initial analysis (Research Brief - Rice Productivity Measurement) looking at rice production finds that yield by area planted differs significantly from yield by area harvested, particularly for smaller farms and female-headed households. OLS regression further reveals different demographic and management-related drivers of variability in yield gains – and thus different implications for policy and development interventions – depending on the yield measurement used. Findings suggest a need to better specify “yield” to more effectively guide agricultural development efforts.