Types of Research
- (-) Remove 2013 filter 2013
- (-) Remove Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management
- (-) Remove LSMS & LSMS-ISA filter LSMS & LSMS-ISA
- (-) Remove Smallholder Farmers filter Smallholder Farmers
- (-) Remove Aid & Other Development Finance filter Aid & Other Development Finance
- (-) Remove 2020 filter 2020
- (-) Remove Other Datasets filter Other Datasets
In this database, we compile current project data from three major international financial institutions (or IFIs) - the World Bank, African Development Bank, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development - to understand
- how much countries are borrowing from each institution. and
- how much of that funding is devoted to small scale producer agriculture.
We begin by gathering publicly accessible data through downloads and webscraping Python and R scripts. These data are then imported into the statistical software program, Stata, for cleaning and export to Excel for analysis. This data set contains rich information about current projects (active, in implementation, or recently approved), such as project title, project description, borrowing ministry, commitment amount, and sector. We then code relevant projects into two categories: On Farm (projects pertaining directly to small scale producer agriculture) and Rural/Agricultural Economies (inclusive of On Farm, but broader to include projects that impact community livelihoods and wellbeing). Finally, we annualize and aggregate these coded projects by IFI and then by country for analysis. Bilateral funding, government expenditures on agriculture, and development indicators are also included as supporting data to add context to a country's progress towards agricultural transformation.
The primary utility of this dataset is having all projects collected in a single spreadsheet where it is possible to search by key terms (e.g. commodity, market, financial, value chain) for lending by IFI and country, and to get some level of project detail. We have categorized projects by lending category (e.g. irrigation, livestock, agricultural development, research/extention/training) to aggregate across IFI so that the total funding for any country is easier to find. For example, Ethiopia and Nigeria receive the most total lending from these IFIs (though not on a per capita basis), with each country receiving more than $3 billion per year on average. Ethiopia receives the most lending devoted to On Farm projects, roughly $585 million per year. Overall, these data provide a snapshot of the magnitude and direction of these IFI's lending over the past several years to sub-Saharan Africa.
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.
Local crop diversity and crop cultivation patterns among smallholder farmers have implications for two important elements of the design of agricultural interventions in developing countries. First, crop cultivation patterns may aid in targeting by helping to identify geographic areas where improved seed and other productivity enhancing technologies will be most easily applicable. Second, these patterns may help to identify potential unintended consequences of crop interventions focused on a single crop (e.g. maize). This report analyzes the distribution of crop diversity and crop cultivation patterns, and factors that can lead to changes in these patterns among smallholder farmers in Tanzania with a focus on regional patterns of crop cultivation and changes in these patterns over time, the factors that affect crop diversity and changes in crop diversity, and the level of substitutability between crops grown by smallholder farmers. All analysis is based on the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS) datasets from 2008 and 2010. The paper is structured as follows. Section I provides a description of regional patterns of crop cultivation and crop diversity between the two years of the panel. Section II presents background on the theoretical factors affecting crop choice, and presents our findings on the results of a multivariate analysis on the factors contributing to crop diversity. Finally, Section 3 provides a preliminary analysis of the level of substitutability between cereal crop of importance in Tanzania (maize, rice and sorghum/millet) and also between these cereal crops and non-cereal crops.