Year Published
- 2008 (1) Apply 2008 filter
- 2009 (20) Apply 2009 filter
- 2010 (6) Apply 2010 filter
- 2011 (4) Apply 2011 filter
- 2012 (16) Apply 2012 filter
- 2013 (10) Apply 2013 filter
- (-) Remove 2014 filter 2014
- 2015 (5) Apply 2015 filter
- 2016 (5) Apply 2016 filter
- 2017 (7) Apply 2017 filter
- 2018 (0)
- (-) Remove 2019 filter 2019
- 2020 (1) Apply 2020 filter
- 2021 (0)
Research Topics
Populations
- Countries/Governments (0)
- Rural Populations (1) Apply Rural Populations filter
- Smallholder Farmers (0)
- Women (0)
Types of Research
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (1) Apply East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- Global (1) Apply Global filter
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (0)
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
Dataset
- ASTI (0)
- FAOSTAT (0)
- Farmer First (0)
- LSMS & LSMS-ISA (1) Apply LSMS & LSMS-ISA filter
- Other Datasets (0)
Current search
- (-) Remove 2019 filter 2019
- (-) Remove Political Economy & Governance filter Political Economy & Governance
- (-) Remove 2014 filter 2014
- (-) Remove Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management
While literature on achieving Inclusive Agricultural Transformation (IAT) through input market policies is relatively robust, literature on the effect of output market policies on IAT is rarer. We conduct a selective literature review of output market policies in low- and middle-income countries to assess their influence on IAT and find that outcomes are mixed across all policy areas. We also review indicators used to measure successful IAT, typologies of market institutions involved in IAT, and agricultural policies and maize yield trends in East Africa. This report details our findings on these connected, yet somewhat disparate elements of IAT to shed more light on a topic that has not been the primary focus of the literature thus far.
This technical report is an analysis of current trends and theories in consumer protection from both a legal and economic perspective. Traditional economic theory, especially the work of Akerlof (1970), suggests there are situations in which consumer protection is necessary to maintain healthy markets. Still, debate continues on the best methods of consumer protection. As an example, some economists argue for information disclosure, others paternalism, and still others so-called soft- or libertarian-paternalism. Any of these forms can be acheived through different bodies including government agencies, consumer associations, self-regulation, statutory and non-statutory standards bodies, ombudsman and professional organizations. Finally, the transition to digital economies has presented new challenges for consumer protection including security, privacy, complex liability chains, and the complexity of the products themselves.
This poster presentation summarizes research on changes in crop planting decisions on the extensive and intensive margin in Tanzania, with regards to changes in agricultural land that a farmer has available and area planted in the context of smallholders and farming systems. We use household survey data from the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS), part of the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study–Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS – ISA) to test how much the agricultural land available to households changes, how much farmers change the proportion of land decidated to growing priority crops, and how crop area changes vary with changes in landholding. We find that almost half of households had a change of agricultural land area of at least half a hectare from 2008-2010. Smallholder farmers on average decreased the amount of available land between 2008 and 2010, while non-smallholder farmers increased agricultural land area during that time period, but that smallholder households planted a greater proportion of their agricultural land than nonsmallholders. Eighty percent of households changed crop proportions from 2008 to 2010, yet aggregate level indicators mask household level changes.