IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v37y2007is1p225-237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity in Malagasy rice systems: wealth‐differentiated constraints and priorities

Author

Listed:
  • Bart Minten
  • Jean‐Claude Randrianarisoa
  • Christopher B. Barrett

Abstract

This study explores the constraints on agricultural productivity and priorities in boosting productivity in rice, the main staple in Madagascar, using a range of different data sets and analytical methods, integrating qualitative assessments by farmers and quantitative evidence from panel data production function analysis and willingness‐to‐pay estimates for chemical fertilizer. Nationwide, farmers seek primarily labor productivity enhancing interventions, e.g., improved access to agricultural equipment, cattle, and irrigation. Shock mitigation measures, land productivity increasing technologies, and improved land tenure are reported to be much less important. Research and interventions aimed at reducing costs and price volatility within the fertilizer supply chain might help at least the more accessible regions to more readily adopt chemical fertilizer.

Suggested Citation

  • Bart Minten & Jean‐Claude Randrianarisoa & Christopher B. Barrett, 2007. "Productivity in Malagasy rice systems: wealth‐differentiated constraints and priorities," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 225-237, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:37:y:2007:i:s1:p:225-237
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00247.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00247.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00247.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher B. Barrett & Christine M. Moser & Oloro V. McHugh & Joeli Barison, 2004. "Better Technology, Better Plots, or Better Farmers? Identifying Changes in Productivity and Risk among Malagasy Rice Farmers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(4), pages 869-888.
    2. Barrett, Christopher B., 1996. "On price risk and the inverse farm size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, December.
    3. Hanan G. Jacoby & Bart Minten, 2007. "Is Land Titling in Sub-Saharan Africa Cost-Effective? Evidence from Madagascar," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 21(3), pages 461-485, June.
    4. Benjamin, Dwayne, 1995. "Can unobserved land quality explain the inverse productivity relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 51-84, February.
    5. Lamb, Russell L., 2003. "Inverse productivity: land quality, labor markets, and measurement error," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 71-95, June.
    6. Minten, Bart & Barrett, Christopher B., 2008. "Agricultural Technology, Productivity, and Poverty in Madagascar," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 797-822, May.
    7. Barrett, Christopher B. & Bezuneh, Mesfin & Clay, Daniel C. & Reardon, Thomas, 2001. "Heterogeneous Contraints, Incentives, and Income Diversification Strategies in Rural Africa," Working Papers 179567, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    8. Feder, Gershon & Feeny, David, 1991. "Land Tenure and Property Rights: Theory and Implications for Development Policy," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 5(1), pages 135-153, January.
    9. Moser, Christine M. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2003. "The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing, low external-input technology: the case of SRI in Madagascar," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 1085-1100, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kasirye, Ibrahim, 2013. "Constraints to Agricultural Technology Adoption in Uganda: Evidence from the 2005/06-2009/10 Uganda National Panel Survey," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 8(2), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Bonjean, Isabelle & Verardi, Vincenzo, 2017. "Innovation Adoption and Liquidity Constraints in the Presence of Grassroots Extension Agents: Evidence from the Peruvian Highla," CEPR Discussion Papers 12263, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Bonjean, I., 2018. "Heterogeneous return from Agricultural Innovation Adoption: The Role of the price effect," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277257, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Natasha Stoudmann & Lena M. Reibelt & Christian A. Kull & Claude A. Garcia & Mirana Randriamalala & Patrick O. Waeber, 2019. "Biting the Bullet: Dealing with the Annual Hunger Gap in the Alaotra, Madagascar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Bonjean, Isabelle, 2019. "Heterogeneous incentives for innovation adoption: The price effect on segmented markets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Bonjean, Isabelle, 2018. "Heterogeneous Incentives to Innovation Adoption: the Price Effect on Segmented Market," Working Papers 279295, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    7. Nakano, Yuko & Bamba, Ibrahim & Diagne, Aliou & Otsuka, Keijiro & Kajisa, Kei, 2011. "The possibility of a rice green revolution in large-scale irrigation schemes in Sub-Saharan Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5560, The World Bank.
    8. Hailu, Berihun Kassa & Abrha, Bihon Kassa & Weldegiorgis, Kibrom Aregawi, 2014. "Adoption and Impact of Agricultural Technologies on Farm Income: Evidence from Southern Tigray, Northern Ethiopia," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 2(4), pages 1-16, October.
    9. Bonjean, Isabelle, 2017. "Heterogeneous Gains From Agricultural Innovation Adoption: The Role Of The Price Effect In Peru," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260891, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Ulimwengu, John & Sanyal, Prabuddha, 2011. "Joint estimation of farmers' stated willingness to pay for agricultural services:," IFPRI discussion papers 1070, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Ozaki, Ryosuke & Sakurai, Takeshi, 2020. "The Adoption of Upland Rice by Lowland Rice Farmers and Its Impacts on Their Food Security and Welfare in Madagascar," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 22.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bevis, Leah EM. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2020. "Close to the edge: High productivity at plot peripheries and the inverse size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    2. Barrett, Christopher B. & Bellemare, Marc F. & Hou, Janet Y., 2010. "Reconsidering Conventional Explanations of the Inverse Productivity-Size Relationship," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 88-97, January.
    3. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Awudu Abdulai & Wallace Huffman, 2014. "The Adoption and Impact of Soil and Water Conservation Technology: An Endogenous Switching Regression Application," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(1), pages 26-43.
    5. Klasen, Stephan & Reimers, Malte, 2017. "Looking at Pro-Poor Growth from an Agricultural Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-168.
    6. Abay, Kibrom A. & Abate, Gashaw T. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Bernard, Tanguy, 2019. "Correlated non-classical measurement errors, ‘Second best’ policy inference, and the inverse size-productivity relationship in agriculture," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 171-184.
    7. Fang Xia & Lingling Hou & Songqing Jin & Dongqing Li, 2020. "Land size and productivity in the livestock sector: evidence from pastoral areas in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 867-888, July.
    8. Mensah, Edouard R. & Kostandini, Genti, 2020. "The inverse farm size-productivity relationship under land size mis-measurement and in the presence of weather and price risks: Panel data evidence from Uganda," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304477, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Donald F. Larson & Keijiro Otsuka & Tomoya Matsumoto & Talip Kilic, 2014. "Should African rural development strategies depend on smallholder farms? An exploration of the inverse-productivity hypothesis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 355-367, May.
    10. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Rada, Nicholas & Wang, Chenggang & Qin, Lijian, 2015. "Subsidy or market reform? Rethinking China’s farm consolidation strategy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-103.
    12. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S. Jayne, 2021. "Factor Market Activity and the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Tanzania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(3), pages 443-464, March.
    13. Yao, Ling & Chen, Qihui & Wu, Laping, 2018. "Heterogeneous supply response: Does high price expectation attenuate the inverse farm size-productivity relationship in China?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274363, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Kilic, Talip & Zezza, Alberto & Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara, 2017. "Missing(ness) in Action: Selectivity Bias in GPS-Based Land Area Measurements," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 143-157.
    15. Larson,Donald F. & Muraoka,Rie & Otsuka,Keijiro, 2016. "On the central role of small farms in African rural development strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7710, The World Bank.
    16. Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara & Zezza, Alberto, 2013. "Fact or artifact: The impact of measurement errors on the farm size–productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 254-261.
    17. Taylor, Matthew P.H. & Helfand, Steven M., 2021. "The Farm Size – Productivity Relationship in the Wake of Market Reform: An Analysis of Mexican Family Farms," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315138, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Sébastien Desbureaux & Sigrid Aubert & Laura Brimont & Alain Karsenty & Alexio Clovis Lohanivo & Manohisoa Rakotondrabe & Andrianjakarivo Henintsoa Razafindraibe & Jules Razafiarijoana, 2015. "The impact of Protected Areas on Deforestation? An Exploration of the Economic and Political Channels for Madagascar's Rainforests (2001-12)," Working Papers hal-01176860, HAL.
    19. Marijn Verschelde & Marijke D’Haese & Glenn Rayp & Ellen Vandamme, 2013. "Challenging Small-Scale Farming: A Non-Parametric Analysis of the (Inverse) Relationship Between Farm Productivity and Farm Size in Burundi," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 319-342, June.
    20. Holden, Stein & Fisher, Monica, 2013. "Can area measurement error explain the inverse farm size productivity relationship?," CLTS Working Papers 12/13, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 10 Oct 2019.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:37:y:2007:i:s1:p:225-237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.