340 likes | 543 Views
AAMP Training Materials. T.S. Jayne & William Burke, (MSU) jayne@msu.edu, burkewi2@msu.edu. Module 2.1: Factors Affecting Smallholder Commercialization. Contents. Agricultural commercialization Definition Indicators – Labor productivity Pros and cons
E N D
AAMP Training Materials T.S. Jayne & William Burke, (MSU) jayne@msu.edu, burkewi2@msu.edu Module 2.1: Factors Affecting Smallholder Commercialization
Contents • Agricultural commercialization • Definition • Indicators – Labor productivity • Pros and cons • Agricultural commercialization and the Structural Transformation framework • Constraints and challenges facing the promotion of agricultural commercialization • Market participation modeling: strengths, weaknesses, and an example of an applied model
Agricultural Commercialization (Definition) • The degree to which agricultural production and marketing is based on market exchange and specialization vs. internalized within the household
Agricultural Commercialization (Indicators) • Household Commercialization Index (HCI) • HCI = value of farm sales / value of farm production • Ranges from 0 – 1.0 • The higher the number, the more commercialized the household • Existence of / degree of reliance on: • Factor markets (fertilizer, labor, etc) • Financial markets (loans) • Output markets (crop sales) • Rising labor productivity in agriculture…
Labor Productivity Where: Y = Net output L = Labor A = Area Y= Y*AL A L Y/L = Labor productivity A/L = Land to Labor Ratio Y/A = Yield
Commercialization: Some Pros and Cons • Pros: • Can achieve growth in net output per unit area (Y/A) with shifts in cropping patterns toward higher value crops • Can be the result of input intensification, as long as the value of output exceeds the costs of the additional inputs. • Cons: • Dependence on markets, both for the commercialized crops as well as the food market. • Competition from large-scale farming • Important: Commercialization only works if the food market is functioning well!
Agricultural commercialization and the Structural Transformation framework • Structural transformation / Demographic Transition • Based on economic history of Asia and Europe (B. Johnston, J. Mellor, Binswanger, Lipton) • In early stages of development, 80% of population is primarily engaged in staple food production • Broad-based rural productivity growth triggers demographic transition
Ag Commercialization & Structural Transformation • There is a symbiotic relationship between rural farms and towns • Urban areas provide a market for surplus farm output • Farmers with cash generate demand for urban employment • As demand for off-farm jobs rises people migrate to towns • Increased urbanization “pulls” rural labor to urban areas • birth rates declineand levels of education rise FUNDAMENTALLY A SMALLHOLDER-LED MODEL!
Key elements of structural transformation • Growth processes that effectively reach a large proportion of the population • Especially the poor – equitable growth • That being said, broad based equitable growth is difficult to achieve.
Extreme concentration of marketed maize output – Malawi, 2008/09 Source: Agricultural Inputs Support Survey (n=1904 farm households), sample frame from National Statistical Office, Government of Malawi
Challenges to commercialization • The major challenge to the success of smallholder-led commercialization strategies is to address the asset constraints that prevent such a large % of the rural population from being able to respond to growth opportunities and incentives.
Most smallholders lack the land and other resources to produce a surplus hectares
Relationship between landholding size and farm household income
Labor Productivity Where: Y = Output L = Labor A = Area Y= Y*AL A L Y/L = Labor productivity A/L = Land to Labor Ratio Y/A = Yield
Evidence shows that broad-based ag commercialization is associated with: • Relatively equitable initial distribution of productive assets and resources within society • Agricultural growth in agrarian-based economies • Public support for investments that most of the population can take advantage of: infrastructure, seed research, extension programs
Evidence shows that inequitable commercialization is associates with: • Highly concentrated initial distribution of productive assets and resources within society • e.g., latifundia-type landholding systems • Elite capture of political process • Use of public funds to invest in ways that are primarily appropriated by elites • Marketing board operations that raise prices with regressive income distributional effects • Input subsidy programs that are disproportionately targeted to better-off farmers (not in all cases though)
Now let’s move to methods for assessing the factors associated with smallholders’ ability to participate in markets (commercialization)
Econometric Modeling Example Example of a basic econometric model • Assumes the “dependent” variable y, is continuous (e.g. every mobile phone owner uses at least sometalktime.
Market participation models • Modeling market participation (e.g. how much maize is bought/sold per household in Zambia), can be a bit tricky because not all households sell their crops. • Often, “Two-stage” or “Double Hurdle” models are used to address this issue. • These models include two steps reflecting the dual decision making process: Decision 1: Whether to participate Decision 2: How much to buy or sell
2-Tiered Market Participation Model (Ex 1) Producing Household Decision 1 Participate in the Market? Do not Buy or Sell Market Participant Decision 2 How much will market participants buy or sell 0 Net Purchases Net Sales
2-Tiered Market Participation Model (Ex. 2) Producing Household Decision 1 Participate in the market as a buyer, seller or not at all? Do not Buy or Sell Net Buyer Net Seller Decision 2 If I participate, how much am I buying and selling? 0 0 Net Purchases Net Sales
Market participation models • The previous models include two steps reflecting the dual decision making process: Decision 1: Whether to participate Decision 2: How much to buy or sell • The weakness of the two-tiered models discussed so far is that it requires all observations to be producers • Can’t extrapolate to entire country • May under-estimate the effects of a given policy on marketing behaviour (i.e. if policy affects the decision to produce) • The Triple Hurdle Model (Burke, 2009) can give a more comprehensive perspective
Triple Hurdle Model: Market Participation with Production Decision Nationally Representative Sample Decision 1 Whether to produce Producing Household Non-Producers Decision 2 Participate as buyer, seller or not at all Autarkic Net Sellers Net Buyers Decision 3 Quantity bought or sold among participants Quantity Bought Quantity Sold
Insights from the Triple Hurdle Market Participation Model • The Triple-Hurdle Model provides the probability of: • Not producing • Producing, but also being a net buyer. • Producing, but not participating in the market • Producing and selling • Expected value of market participants net purchases or net sales • Expected value of sales and purchases of any household (per household expected values)
Kenyan dairy example • About 85% of East Africa’s 3.5 million dairy cattle in are raised in Kenya • Compared to Maize • Although nearly all households produce maize, • Less than ½ of maize producers sell to generate cash • On the contrary, about 70% of dairy producers are net sellers • Top 10% of households generate ~ 80% of maize revenue, versus ~ 55% of dairy revenue
Kenyan dairy example (2) • Since private dairy purchasing enterprises became legal, there are four principle buyers of dairy: • Kenya Creamery Company • Other co-ops • Private processors • Informal dairy “hawkers” tolerated, not legal • Despite growth, domestic supply is outpaced by domestic demand and export. • Why?
What explains market participation? • Transfer cost determinants • Endowments • Access to production inputs • Market Prices • Production shocks
Triple Hurdle Model Simulation (Exercises) • Open the Excel workbook corresponding to this presentation • Read the information in the [NOTES] sheet carefully • You will use the output from a triple-hurdle model of market participation in the Kenyan Dairy sector to evaluate the impacts of various shocks on dairy market participation • Changes to yellow-highlighted values in [Simulation values] sheet create changes in the probabilities listed in row 3 of the [Simulation results] sheet
Triple Hurdle Model Simulation(Exercise 1: Baseline) • At the mean data values provided, what is the probability that the average household does not produce dairy? • What is the probability that they are a producer, but net buyer of dairy? • What is the probability that they produce, but neither buy nor sell dairy? • What is the probability that they are a producer and net seller of dairy? • Finally, what is the unconditional expected value of net sales at the data means?
Triple Hurdle Model SimulationExercise 2: Distance to Electricity • Holding all other factors at their data means, what is the expected value of net sales for a given household that is 10 kilometers from the nearest source of electricity? (Change cell 22E to 10 in [Simulation values] sheet) • What is the expected value of net sales for a given household that has electricity nearby? (Change cell 22E to 0) • Why would a dairy farmer closer to electricity be expected to sell more dairy?
Triple Hurdle Model SimulationExercise 3: Land Holdings Return cell E22 to it’s data mean value (4.17). • What is the likelihood of being a producer when lagged acres owned is 15? (Cell E30 = 15) • What is the likelihood of being a producer when lagged acres owned is 0.5? (Cell E30 = 0.5) • What does this tell us about dairy farming in Kenya, and what are the policy implications of this result?
Triple Hurdle Model SimulationExercise 3: Land Holdings Reset lagged acres owned to the mean (Cell E30 = 3.5). • Simulate an observation in which no organized purchasers are present. (Change E25:E28 = 0) What are the unconditional expected net sales? • Is it feasible that this household could be a net seller? How? • The presence of which buying agent is correlated with the highest unconditional expected net sales, and how many litres of milk per year are sold by the average household? • What are the policy implications of this finding?
Resources • Bellemare, M.F., and C.B. Barrett. 2006. “An Ordered Tobit Model of Market Participation: Evidence from Kenya and Ethiopia.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88: 324-337 • Burke, W.J. 2009. "Triple Hurdle Model of Smallholder Production and Particiaption in Kenya's Dairy Sector." MS Thesis. Department of Agriculture Food and Resource Economics. Michigan State University. • Goetz, S.J. 1992. “A Selectivity Model of Household Food Marketing Behavior in Sub-Saharan Africa.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74: 444-452. • Key, N., E. Sadoulet, and A. DeJanvry. 2000. “Transactions Costs and Agricultural Household Supply Response.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82:245-259.