Types of Research
- (-) Remove 2015 filter 2015
- (-) Remove Sub-Saharan Africa filter Sub-Saharan Africa
- (-) Remove Smallholder Farmers filter Smallholder Farmers
- (-) Remove Household Well-Being & Equity filter Household Well-Being & Equity
- (-) Remove Market & Value Chain Analysis filter Market & Value Chain Analysis
- (-) Remove 2020 filter 2020
- (-) Remove 2009 filter 2009
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.
Smallholder farmers in Africa are largely located in poor rural areas, are often geographically dispersed, and have limited access to road and communication infrastructure, thus raising the cost of market participation. This is especially true for farmers growing relatively low value staple crops. This literature review summarizes research on the challenges and innovations in linking smallholder producers of staple grains to markets in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a focus on post-harvest issues including storage, aggregation, and transportation. For each post-harvest stage, we describe challenges faced by farmers and current efforts to address these challenges. In our review, we find a large amount of literature on the constraints to smallholder production and marketing but relatively few examples of innovative or novel technologies designed to improve storage and transportation for rural smallholder producers in Africa. Existing technologies have often been available for some time but have not seen widespread adoption, apparently due to high costs or inadequate funding for on-farm testing and extension. We conclude that the literature is somewhat divided as to whether interventions linking smallholder farmers to markets should be entirely market-driven and focus on linkages that can be profitable without subsidization, or whether NGO- and donor-driven interventions should play a role.
Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are generally defined as geographically delimited areas administered by a single body, offering certain incentives (duty-free importing and streamlined customs procedures, for instance) to businesses that physically locate within the zone. This literature review provides a baseline analysis of SEZs and their potential impacts on smallholder farmers in SSA. Criticism on SEZs is distinctly divided between those who criticize on social or environmental grounds versus those who question the economic impact of SEZs. SEZs are often criticized based on perceived negative socio-economic impacts—particularly their negative impact on women, labor, and working conditions. This review includes several country-specific studies that find evidence that SEZs actually have higher environmental standards and higher worker satisfaction than outside the SEZ. Most responses to criticisms do note, however, that the case studies’ results are not necessarily generalizable to SEZs throughout the world. The literature review includes key elements of successes and failures pulled from the case studies of SEZs in SSA. Though the evidence is insufficient to conclusively determine if smallholder farmers receive direct benefits from SEZs and their associated agroindustrial contracts, this review finds that resources provided to farmers (credit at rates lower than bank rates, technical or managerial assistance, pesticides, seeds, and fertilizer on credit) tend to be concentrated among larger farmers. The report concludes with a note on donor involvement as well as recommendations for further research.