IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277054.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improved Post-Harvest Technology: What Impact on Nigeria s Smallholder Cassava Starch Processors Welfare?

Author

Listed:
  • Adejumo, O.
  • Okoruwa, V.
  • Abass, A.

Abstract

This study examined the adoption of improved post-harvest technology for cassava processing and its impacts on welfare of Smallholder cassava starch processors. The study relied mainly on cross-sectional data collected through a survey conducted in the forest and guinea savanna zones of Nigeria. A multi-stage sampling procedure was used in selecting a sample frame of five hundred and seventy (570) cassava starch processors. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, logit model and the propensity score matching method. Smallholder cassava starch processing in Nigeria is mostly a female enterprise. The average age of the processors was 48 years, with an average household size of six. The decision to use improved technology is explained by number of income earners in the household, years of processing experience, cost of acquiring technology and the capacity of technology. This study found a positive and significant impact of improved post-harvest technology on output and income of smallholder cassava starch processors. Therefore, designing mechanisms to help promote use of improved technology among small-scale processors by developing affordable technologies appears to be a rational policy instrument to improve cassava starch processors welfare. Key words: cassava processing, improved technologies, output, income, Nigeria JEL: C21, D13, O33, Q12 Acknowledgement : Acknowledgments The study is an output of the Cassava Web Project funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft f r Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. The Research Fellowship offered by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria to the first author is gratefully acknowledged. The research is supported by CGIAR Program on Humidtropics and the Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB).

Suggested Citation

  • Adejumo, O. & Okoruwa, V. & Abass, A., 2018. "Improved Post-Harvest Technology: What Impact on Nigeria s Smallholder Cassava Starch Processors Welfare?," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277054
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277054/files/757.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277054?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karanja, D. D. & Renkow, M. & Crawford, E. W., 2003. "Welfare effects of maize technologies in marginal and high potential regions of Kenya," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 331-341, December.
    2. Obisesan, Adekemi A. & Amos, Taiwo T. & Akinlade, Roseline J., 2016. "Causal Effect Of Credit And Technology Adoption On Farm Output And Income: The Case Of Cassava Farmers In Southwest Nigeria," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246443, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    3. Akhter Ali & Awudu Abdulai, 2010. "The Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton and Poverty Reduction in Pakistan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 175-192, February.
    4. Owusu, Victor & Abdulai, Awudu & Abdul-Rahman, Seini, 2011. "Non-farm work and food security among farm households in Northern Ghana," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 108-118, April.
    5. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
    6. Loi, Massimo & Rodrigues, Margarida, 2012. "A note on the impact evaluation of public policies: the counterfactual analysis," MPRA Paper 42444, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Verkaart, Simone & Munyua, Bernard G. & Mausch, Kai & Michler, Jeffrey D., 2017. "Welfare impacts of improved chickpea adoption: A pathway for rural development in Ethiopia?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 50-61.
    8. Carolyn Afolami & Abiodun Obayelu & Ignatius Vaughan, 2015. "Welfare impact of adoption of improved cassava varieties by rural households in South Western Nigeria," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele & Muricho, Geoffrey, 2011. "Agricultural Technology, Crop Income, and Poverty Alleviation in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1784-1795.
    10. Abdul Nafeo Abdulai, 2016. "Impact of conservation agriculture technology on household welfare in Zambia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(6), pages 729-741, November.
    11. Akinola, Adebayo A. & Alene, Arega D. & Adeyemo, Remi & Sanogo, D. & Olanrewaju, A.S. & Nwoke, C. & Nziguheba, G., 2010. "Determinants of adoption and intensity of use of balance nutrient management systems technologies in the northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 49(1), pages 1-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Martey, Edward & Etwire, Prince Maxwell & Abdoulaye, Tahirou, 2020. "Welfare impacts of climate-smart agriculture in Ghana: Does row planting and drought-tolerant maize varieties matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Dan Pan, 2014. "The Impact of Agricultural Extension on Farmer Nutrient Management Behavior in Chinese Rice Production: A Household-Level Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Paudel, G. & Krishna, V. & McDonald, A., 2018. "Why some inferior technologies succeed? Examining the diffusion and impacts of rotavator tillage in Nepal Terai," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277149, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Bairagi, Subir & Bhandari, Humnath & Kumar Das, Subrata & Mohanty, Samarendu, 2021. "Flood-tolerant rice improves climate resilience, profitability, and household consumption in Bangladesh," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    5. Felister Y. Tibamanya & Mursali A. Milanzi & Arne Henningsen, 2021. "Drivers of and Barriers to Adoption of Improved Sun- flower Varieties amongst Smallholder Farmers in Singida, Tanzania: the Double-Hurdle Approach," IFRO Working Paper 2021/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Manda, Julius & Alene, Arega D. & Tufa, Adane H. & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Wossen, Tesfamicheal & Chikoye, David & Manyong, Victor, 2019. "The poverty impacts of improved cowpea varieties in Nigeria: A counterfactual analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 261-271.
    7. Gideon Danso-Abbeam & Lloyd J. S. Baiyegunhi & Mark D. Laing & Hussein Shimelis, 2022. "Productivity and Welfare Impacts of Dual-Purpose Sweetpotato Varieties’ Adoption Among Smallholder Farmers in Rwanda," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(2), pages 1097-1117, April.
    8. Nsabimana, Aimable & Adom, Philip Kofi, 2024. "Heterogeneous effects from integrated farm innovations on welfare in Rwanda," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    9. Santosh K. Sahu & Sukanya Das, 2016. "Impact of Agricultural Related Technology Adoption on Poverty: A Study of Select Households in Rural India," India Studies in Business and Economics, in: N.S. Siddharthan & K. Narayanan (ed.), Technology, pages 141-156, Springer.
    10. Jourdain C. Lokossou & Hippolyte D. Affognon & Alphonse Singbo & Michel B. Vabi & Ayoni Ogunbayo & Paul Tanzubil & Alcade C. Segnon & Geoffrey Muricho & Haile Desmae & Hakeem Ajeigbe, 2022. "Welfare impacts of improved groundnut varieties adoption and food security implications in the semi-arid areas of West Africa," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(3), pages 709-728, June.
    11. Jorge Leonardo Rueda Gil, 2017. "Cambio tecnológico y mejoras en el bienestar de los caficultores en Colombia: el caso de las variedades resistentes a la roya," Documentos CEDE 15665, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    12. Duong, Pham Bao & Thanh, Pham Tien, 2019. "Adoption and effects of modern rice varieties in Vietnam: Micro-econometric analysis of household surveys," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 282-292.
    13. Ainembabazi, John Herbert & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Feleke, Shiferaw & Alene, Arega & Dontsop-Nguezet, Paul M. & Ndayisaba, Pierre Celestin & Hicintuka, Cyrille & Mapatano, Sylvain & Manyong, Victor, 2018. "Who benefits from which agricultural research-for-development technologies? Evidence from farm household poverty analysis in Central Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-46.
    14. Aynalem Shita & Nand Kumar & Seema Singh, 2021. "Technology, poverty and income distribution nexus: The case of fertilizer adoption in Ethiopia," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 33(4), pages 742-755, December.
    15. Jelliffe, Jeremy L. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Deom, C. Michael & Okello, David Kalule, 2016. "The Sustainability Of Project Outcomes From Farmer-Led Dissemination Of High-Yielding Groundnut Rosette Disease Resistant Groundnut Varieties," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246450, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    16. Jeremy Jelliffe & Boris E. Bravo-Ureta & C. Michael Deom & David Kalule Okello, 2016. "The Sustainability Of Farmer-Led Multiplication And Dissemination Of High-Yield And Disease Resistant Groundnut Varieties," Zwick Center Research Reports 04, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    17. Bahta, Y. & Owusu-Sekyeer, E., 2018. "Nexus between homestead food garden programme and land ownership in South Africa: Implication on the income of vegetable farmers," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277732, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Ayala Wineman & Timothy Njagi & C. Leigh Anderson & Travis W. Reynolds & Didier Yélognissè Alia & Priscilla Wainaina & Eric Njue & Pierre Biscaye & Miltone W. Ayieko, 2020. "A Case of Mistaken Identity? Measuring Rates of Improved Seed Adoption in Tanzania Using DNA Fingerprinting," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 719-741, September.
    19. Maren Radeny & Elizaphan J. O. Rao & Maurice Juma Ogada & John W. Recha & Dawit Solomon, 2022. "Impacts of climate-smart crop varieties and livestock breeds on the food security of smallholder farmers in Kenya," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(6), pages 1511-1535, December.
    20. Baffour-Kyei, Vasco & Mensah, Amos & Owusu, Victor & Horlu, Godwin S.A.K., 2021. "Artisanal small-scale mining and livelihood assets in rural southern Ghana," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Productivity Analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:iaae18:277054. 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: AgEcon Search (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.