Types of Research
- (-) Remove 2008 filter 2008
- (-) Remove 2014 filter 2014
- (-) Remove Finance & Investment filter Finance & Investment
- (-) Remove 2013 filter 2013
- (-) Remove Information & Mobile Technology filter Information & Mobile Technology
- (-) Remove Political Economy & Governance filter Political Economy & Governance
- (-) Remove Sub-Saharan Africa filter Sub-Saharan Africa
- (-) Remove Poverty filter Poverty
- (-) Remove Risk, Preferences, & Decision-Making filter Risk, Preferences, & Decision-Making
- (-) Remove 2012 filter 2012
- (-) Remove Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management
- (-) Remove East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter East Africa Region and Selected Countries
Donors and governments are increasingly seeking to implement development projects through self-help groups (SHGs) in the belief that such institutional arrangements will enhance development outcomes, encourage sustainability, and foster capacity in local civil society – all at lower cost to coffers. But little is known about the effectiveness of such institutional arrangements or the potential harm that might be caused by using SHGs as ‘vehicles’ for the delivery of development aid. This report synthesizes available evidence on the effectiveness of Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in promoting health, finance, agriculture, and empowerment objectives in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Our findings are intended to inform strategic decisions about how to best use scarce resources to leverage existing SHG interventions in various geographies and to better understand how local institutions such as SHGs can serve as platforms to enhance investments.
Anderson, C. L., Gugerty, M. K., Biscaye, P., True, Z., Clark, C., & Harris, K. P. (2014). Self-Help Groups in Development: A Review of Evidence from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. EPAR Technical Report #283. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington. Retrieved <Day Month Year> from https://epar.evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/epar_283_shg_evidence_review_brief_10.23.20.pdf
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.
The FAO defines a farming system as “a population of individual farm systems that have broadly similar resource bases, enterprise patterns, household livelihoods and constraints, and for which similar development strategies and interventions would be appropriate. Depending on the scale of the analysis, a farming system can encompass a few dozen or many millions of households.” We use the farming systems as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for Sub-Saharan Africa. The FAO identifies eight main farming systems in Tanzania 1) maize mixed, 2) root crop, 3) coastal artisanal fishing, 4) highland perennial, 5) agro-pastoral millet/sorghum, 6) tree crop, 7) highland temperate mixed, and 8) pastoral. This analysis uses data from the Tanzanian National Panel Survey (TZNPS) LSMS – ISA to provide a comparison of farming systems throughout Tanzania. The TZNPS is a nationally-representative panel survey that includes households from seven of the eight FAO farming systems with only the smallest farming system, pastoral, lacking any representation.
In this brief we analyze patterns of intercropping and differences between intercropped and monocropped plots among smallholder farmers in Tanzania using data from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). Intercropping is a planting strategy in which farmers cultivate at least two crops simultaneously on the same plot of land. In this brief we define intercropped plots as those for which respondents answered “yes” to the question “Was cultivation intercropped?” We define “intercropping households” as those households that intercropped at least one plot at any point during the year in comparison to households that did not intercrop any plots. The analysis reveals few significant, consistent productivity benefits to intercropping as currently practiced. Intercropped plots are not systematically more productive (in terms of value produced) than monocropped plots. The most commonly cited reason for intercropping was to provide a substitute crop in the case of crop failure. This suggests that food and income security are primary concerns for smallholder farmers in Tanzania. A separate appendix includes the details for our analyses.
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.
This brief present our analysis of sorghum and millet cultivation in Tanzania using data from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). In the 2007-2008 long and short rainy seasons, 13% of Tanzanian farming households cultivated sorghum and 6% cultivated millet, making these crops some of the least frequently cultivated priority crops in Tanzania. As a result, detailed analysis and determining statistical significance was limited by the low number of observations, particularly of millet. While sorghum and millet are often grouped together, our results suggest that in Tanzania there were differences among the households that cultivated these distinct crops. A separate appendix includes additional detail on our analyses.
This report provides a genderal overview of the sweet potato value chain in Ethiopia. The first section describes trends in sweet potato production and consumption since the early 1990s. The second section describes the uses and importance of sweet potatoes in Ethiopia. The final section discuss major issues in production, post-production, and marketing. The literature available on sweet potetoes in Ethiopia was quite limited and draws on the wider literature on sweet potatoes in East Africa where needed. We find that Ethiopia ranks fifteenth in the world in terms of sweet potato production. Production has been rising quickly since 2008, following a period of slow decline in the early 2000s. Yields have also been rising slowly since 2008, but are below their peak from 2001. Sweet potato roots are consumed domestically, mostly by poor rural households. The vines also provide an important source of feed for livestock during the dry season. Major constraints to sweet potato production in Ethiopia include a lack of quality planting materials, pests and disease, and underdeveloped markets.
Uganda is the biggest sweet potato producer in Africa in terms of area harvested and production, although Burundi, Rwanda and Madagascar have significantly higher yields. Sweet potato is a major crop in Uganda, ranking third in cultivated area following plantains and cassava. Sweet potato ranks fourth in gross agricultural production value. The Government of Uganda has recognized sweet potatoes as an important crop for the country and a research priority, especially through establishing the National Agricultural Research Organization potato center. This report provides a general overview of the sweet potato value chain in Uganda. The first section describes trends in sweet potato production and consumption since 1996. The second section describes the varieties grown and their uses. The final section summarizes current practices and constraints in production, processing, and marketing.
This desk study reports on the small-scale machinery sector in China and a selection of SSA countries: Ethiopia, Tanzania, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, and Uganda. The report is organized into three sections. Section 1 discusses the current state of small-scale agricultural machinery in SSA for crop and livestock production in each of the SSA countries identified. It also seeks to identify major areas of need in terms of agricultural mechanization and major constraints to agricultural machinery adoption, dissemination and maintenance. Section 2 focuses on the agricultural machinery sector in China and Chinese Africa relationships in agricultural development. It also identifies the major government players in the Chinese agricultural machinery sector. Section 3 is a “directory” of small-scale agricultural machinery manufactured in China with potential relevance for SSA smallholder farmers. We divide machines by function (e.g. threshing) although many Chinese machines are multi-function and can serve multiple purposes. We also note applicable crops, if listed by the manufacturers, and technical specifications as available.
This report provides a general overview of the sweet potato value chain in Tanzania. The first section describes trends in sweet potato production and consumption since 1990. The second section describes the uses and importance of sweet potatoes in Tanzania. The final section outlines current practices and constraints in production, post-production, and marketing. Tanzania ranks fifth in the world in quantity of sweet potatoes produced. Production and consumption of sweet potatoes have been relatively constant over the past 10 years, although both production and consumption in this period have been high in comparison to earlier decades. We find that sweet potato yields increased in the early 2000s, but have stagnated since, and are far short of potential yields. Sweet potato consumption is almost entirely domestic and plays an important role in nutrition and food security for smallholder farmers. Sweet potato production faces a variety of constraints, including pests and disease, short shelf life, lack of planting materials, damage during handling, and lack of market access.