IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kob/dpaper/dp2015-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Agricultural Extension Programmes Reduce Poverty and Vulnerability? Farm Size, Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Katsushi S. Imai

    (School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester (UK) and RIEB, Kobe University (Japan))

  • Md. Faruq Hasan

    (Department of Agricultural Extension, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Bangladesh)

  • Eleonora Porreca

    (University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy)

Abstract

The present study examines the relationship between farm size, agricultural productivity and access to agricultural extension programmes in reducing poverty and vulnerability drawing upon LSMS panel data in Uganda in 2009-2012 covering three rounds. We first estimate household crop productivity using stochastic frontier analysis that can allow for stochastic shocks in the production function. Second, we have found a negative association between farm size and agricultural productivity for output per hectare, intensity of land use and net profit per hectare, but not for technical efficiency, suggesting that smallholders are generally more productive than large-holders. It is misleading to consolidate land or neglect smallholders in favour of large farmers on the grounds of economy of scale in crop production. Third, the effect of different types of agricultural extension programmes - namely NAADS or government, NGO, cooperatives, large farmer, input supplier and other types extension service providers - on the crop productivity is estimated by treatment effects model which controls for the sample selection bias associated with household participation in the agricultural extension as well as unobservable factors at household levels. It is found that participation in agricultural extension programs significantly raised crop productivity only in a few cases, but increased household expenditure per capita in all cases. Fourth, a substantial share of households was found to be vulnerable and education was found to be the key to reducing poverty and vulnerability. Finally, improvement in agricultural productivity reduces static poverty, but does not lead to reduction in household vulnerability. Agricultural policies tailored to local needs, such as agricultural extension programmes, should be thus combined with poverty or vulnerability alleviation policies targeting smallholders or the landless households.

Suggested Citation

  • Katsushi S. Imai & Md. Faruq Hasan & Eleonora Porreca, 2015. "Do Agricultural Extension Programmes Reduce Poverty and Vulnerability? Farm Size, Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in Uganda," Discussion Paper Series DP2015-06, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    • Handle: RePEc:kob:dpaper:dp2015-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieb.kobe-u.ac.jp/academic/ra/dp/English/DP2015-06.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Hoddinott, John & Quisumbing, Agnes, 2003. "Methods for microeconometric risk and vulnerability assessments," Social Protection Discussion Papers and Notes 29138, The World Bank.
    3. Andrew Street, 2003. "How much confidence should we place in efficiency estimates?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 895-907, November.
    4. Katsushi S. Imai & Bilal Maleb, 2015. "Rural and Urban Poverty Estimates for Developing Countries: Methodologies," Discussion Paper Series DP2015-07, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    5. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2005. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521848053.
    6. Katsushi S. Imai & Raghav Gaiha, 2014. "Dynamic and Long-term Linkages among Growth, Inequality and Poverty in Developing Countries," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1410, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    7. Katsushi S. Imai & Gordon Abekah-Nkrumah & Purnima Purohit, 2014. "Is Rural Contribution to Aggregate Poverty Reduction Substantial? New Evidence," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 20814, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    8. Md. Shafiul Azam & Katsushi Imai, 2009. "Vulnerability and Poverty in Bangladesh," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0905, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    9. Foster, Andrew D, 1995. "Nutrition and Health Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 148-152, May.
    10. Tsunehiro Otsuki, 2011. "Effect of International Standards Certification on Firm-Level Exports: An Application of the Control Function Approach," OSIPP Discussion Paper 11E005, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University.
    11. Katsushi S. Imai, 2011. "Poverty, undernutrition and vulnerability in rural India: role of rural public works and food for work programmes," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 669-691, November.
    12. Katsushi Imai & Xiaobing Wang & Woojin Kang, 2010. "Poverty and vulnerability in rural China: effects of taxation," Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 399-425.
    13. Juliano J. Assunção & Luis H. B. Braido, 2007. "Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 980-990.
    14. Assunção, Juliano & Braido, Luis H.B., 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1-8, November.
    15. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    16. Fan, Shenggen & Brzeska, Joanna & Keyzer, Michiel & Halsema, Alex, 2013. "From subsistence to profit: Transforming smallholder farms," Food policy reports 26, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Dasgupta, Partha, 1997. "Nutritional status, the capacity for work, and poverty traps," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 5-37, March.
    18. Md. Faruq Hasan & Katsushi S. Imai & Takahiro Sato, 2012. "Impacts of Agricultural Extension on Crop Productivity, Poverty and Vulnerability: Evidence from Uganda," Discussion Paper Series DP2012-34, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, revised Feb 2013.
    19. Asep Suryahadi & Sudarno Sumarto, 2003. "Poverty and Vulnerability in Indonesia Before and After the Economic Crisis," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 45-64, March.
    20. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-332.
    21. Collier, Paul & Dercon, Stefan, 2014. "African Agriculture in 50Years: Smallholders in a Rapidly Changing World?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 92-101.
    22. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    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. Lisa Capretti, 2023. "Technology adoption constraints and Laser Land Levelling: evidence from Karnataka, India," Working Papers 1/23, Sapienza University of Rome, DISS.

    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. Md. Faruq Hasan & Katsushi S. Imai & Takahiro Sato, 2012. "Impacts of Agricultural Extension on Crop Productivity, Poverty and Vulnerability: Evidence from Uganda," Discussion Paper Series DP2012-34, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, revised Feb 2013.
    2. Katsushi S. Imai & Bilal Maleb, 2015. "Rural and Urban Poverty Estimates for Developing Countries: Methodologies," Discussion Paper Series DP2015-07, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    3. Imai, Katsushi S. & Gaiha, Raghav & Thapa, Ganesh, 2015. "Does non-farm sector employment reduce rural poverty and vulnerability? Evidence from Vietnam and India," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 47-61.
    4. Katsushi S. Imai & Raghav Gaiha & Woojin Kang & Samuel Annim & Ganesh Thapa, 2012. "Does Risk Matter? A Semi-parametric Model for Educational Choices in the Presence of Uncertainty," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1226, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    5. Raghbendra Jha & Katsushi S. Imai & Raghav Gaiha, 2008. "Poverty, Undernutrition and Vulnerability in Rural India: Public Works versus Food Subsidy," ASARC Working Papers 2008-08, The Australian National University, Australia South Asia Research Centre.
    6. Ferreira, Marcelo Dias Paes & Féres, José Gustavo, 2020. "Farm size and Land use efficiency in the Brazilian Amazon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    7. Gautam, Madhur & Ahmed, Mansur, 2019. "Too small to be beautiful? The farm size and productivity relationship in Bangladesh," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 165-175.
    8. Katsushi S. Imai, 2011. "Poverty, undernutrition and vulnerability in rural India: role of rural public works and food for work programmes," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 669-691, November.
    9. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Omotilewa, Oluwatoba J. & Jayne, T.S. & Muyanga, Milu & Aromolaran, Adebayo B. & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Awokuse, Titus, 2021. "A revisit of farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from a wide range of farm sizes in Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    13. Desiere, Sam & Jolliffe, Dean, 2018. "Land productivity and plot size: Is measurement error driving the inverse relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 84-98.
    14. Ferreira, M. & Feres, J.G., 2018. "Farm Size and Productive Efficiency in Brazilian Amazon," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Cheng, Shen & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Zheng, Zhihao & Sun, Hao, 2017. "Land Consolidation, Productivity and Technical Efficiency: Evidence from a Cross Section of Farm Households in China," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258533, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing & Liu, Yanyan & Singh, Sudhir, 2015. "Labor Market Performance and the Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Rural India," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212720, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Greene, William, 2007. "Functional Form and Heterogeneity in Models for Count Data," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 1(2), pages 113-218, August.
    18. William Griffiths & Xiaohui Zhang & Xueyan Zhao, 2010. "A Stochastic Frontier Model for Discrete Ordinal Outcomes: A Health Production Function," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1092, The University of Melbourne.
    19. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Yanyan Liu & Sudhir K. Singh, 2018. "Can Labor-Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size–Productivity Relationship? Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(2), pages 239-258.
    20. Wollni, Meike & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2012. "Productive efficiency of specialty and conventional coffee farmers in Costa Rica: Accounting for technological heterogeneity and self-selection," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 67-76.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural productivity; Farm size; Agricultural extension; Poverty; Vulnerability; Treatment effects model; Uganda;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C31 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
    • N57 - Economic History - - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Extractive Industries - - - Africa; Oceania
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • O16 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance

    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:kob:dpaper:dp2015-06. 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: Office of Promoting Research Collaboration, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rikobjp.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.