Year Published
- 2008 (0)
- (-) Remove 2009 filter 2009
- 2010 (2) Apply 2010 filter
- 2011 (0)
- (-) Remove 2012 filter 2012
- 2013 (0)
- 2014 (0)
- 2015 (1) Apply 2015 filter
- 2016 (0)
- 2017 (0)
- 2018 (1) Apply 2018 filter
- 2019 (1) Apply 2019 filter
- (-) Remove 2020 filter 2020
- 2021 (1) Apply 2021 filter
Research Topics
Populations
- Countries/Governments (0)
- (-) Remove Rural Populations filter Rural Populations
- (-) Remove Smallholder Farmers filter Smallholder Farmers
- Women (0)
Types of Research
- Data Analysis (0)
- Literature Review (2) Apply Literature Review filter
- Portfolio Review (0)
- Research Brief (0)
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Global (0)
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- (-) Remove Sub-Saharan Africa filter Sub-Saharan Africa
- 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 Household Well-Being & Equity filter Household Well-Being & Equity
- (-) Remove Research & Development filter Research & Development
- (-) Remove 2009 filter 2009
- (-) Remove 2012 filter 2012
- (-) Remove Smallholder Farmers filter Smallholder Farmers
- (-) Remove Sub-Saharan Africa filter Sub-Saharan Africa
- (-) Remove Environment & Climate Change filter Environment & Climate Change
- (-) Remove Finance & Investment filter Finance & Investment
- (-) Remove Development Finance & Policy filter Development Finance & Policy
- (-) Remove 2020 filter 2020
- (-) Remove Rural Populations filter Rural Populations
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.
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.