Upload
zewdu-ayalew
View
156
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Growth Plus: Policies for Agricultural Productivity Growth
and Poverty Reduction inRural Ethiopia
Zewdu Ayalew Abro
Bamlaku Alamirew Alemu (PhD)
Munir A. Hanjra (PhD)
CSAE conference
March 24 2014
Oxford, UK
Outline of the presentation
1. Brief introduction
2. Data
3. Research Method
4. Findings
5. Concluding remarks
1. Introduction
Poverty is pervasive in rural Ethiopia (Bogale et al., 2005; Dercon and Christiaensen, 2011; Dercon et al., 2012; Kumar and Quisumbing, 2012).
29.6% of the population are below the poverty line. Of which 30.4% are rural and 25.7% are urban (MOFED,2012)
Other studies also indicated that poverty disproportionately affects the rural poor (IFAD, 2001; Bogale et al., 2005; World Bank, 2008; IFAD, 2010).
1. Introduction
Since agriculture is the main source of income and livelihood, growth in agricultural productivity directly affects the welfare of the poor (Irz et al., 2001).
The empirical evidence at country level and cross country studies indicated that productivity growth has a positive effect (eg. Christiaensen and Demery, 2007; Christiaensen et al., 2010; Minten and Barrett, 2008; Thirtle et al., 2003)
1. Introduction
The linkages between agricultural productivity and poverty in Ethiopia has been studied by (Alemu, 2010; Geda et al., 2009; Tafesse, 2003)
But this studies used a static framework lacking the analytical ability to see the dynamics of productivity and poverty.
Using the advantages of having panel data, this study attempted to fill this gap by analyzing the impact of agricultural productivity on household poverty.
2. Data
Ethiopian Rural Household Survey (ERHS). The survey spans 16 years with 7 rounds. We took four rounds for this study. We created the panel based on two criteria.
households must have cultivated some plot of land and They have to have positive value of production. We omitted households with zero or missing values for
these two variables. Finally, a balanced panel of 1007 households consisting of
4028 observations over four rounds was created.
3. Research Methods
We used fixed effects regressionTwo approaches are widely used in modeling poverty.
Direct approach: modeling poverty as binary outcome as a function of regressors.
Indirect approach: two step procedure.
We followed a two step procedure. First, we undertake a regression of consumption per
capita per month,Second, predict poverty using the Foster et al. (1984) class
of poverty measures.
3. Research Methods
Our model is:
is measured by TE, land and Labor productivity.Corresponding to every predicted level of
consumption per capita, we calculated a class of decomposable poverty measures ( using:
where =0 if , 1 otherwise; Z is the poverty line; is weight for the ith household. is poverty aversion parameter.
3. Research Methods
The problem in equation (1) is that the productivity indicator is endogenous.
To mitigate the problem, we used 2SLS by finding “appropriate” instruments.
we rewrite the endogenous variable as:
Two identification conditions for the IV to work (Wooldridge, 2009). The , : cannot be tested. , : can be tested against the two side alternative that
3. Research Methods
Instruments for technical Efficiency:a) number of plots,
b) If crop failure due to drought,
c) If output affected because someone in the family labor was too ill
d) participation in the extension program,
e) If farmers used irrigation and
f) If farmers owned more than one ploughing oxen.
Variables (a) and (e) are used for land productivity and (c)-(f) for labor productivity.
Credit: area cultivated and value of farming assets (Geda et al, 2006).
4. FindingsA) Poverty Profiles
What explains the rise in poverty in the ERHS villages?Localized droughts in several villages(Dercon et al., 2012). the global food price rise in 2008 and the subsequent high village
inflation.
Year Head count poverty Poverty gap Squared poverty gap
1994 46.18 23.858 13.9191999 37.84 16.308 8.1492004 35.85 15.012 7.872009 49.45 21.069 11.013
1995/96 45.5 12.9 5.11999/00 44.2 11.9 4.52004/05 38.7 8.3 2.72010/11 29.6 7.8 3.1
National Poverty Figures
ERHS Village Poverty Figures
4. Findings
B) Movements in and out of Poverty 21 %
9%
70%
4. FindingsC) From cross tabulation of variables with persistence of poverty four important points emerged.
First, the poorest households have significantly lower amount of farming assets. eg.
Area(hectare) Coef. Std. Err. z P>z 95% Conf. intervalAlways-poor -1.20505 0.12917 -9.33 0.000 -1.458 -0.952
Sometimes-poor -0.54744 0.082245 -6.66 0.000 -0.709 -0.386
dummy1999 -0.23005 0.044716 -5.14 0.000 -0.318 -0.142
dummy2004 0.175699 0.044716 3.93 0.000 0.088 0.263
dummy2009 0.164376 0.044716 3.68 0.000 0.077 0.252
Constant 2.018175 0.077226 26.13 0.000 1.867 2.170
4. Findings
Second, the poorest households are more prone to shocks such as illness of a cultivator and
drought which affect their production. eg.
drought Coef. Std. Err. z P>zAlways-poor 0.13445 0.031854 4.22 0.000 0.072 0.197Sometimes-poor 0.113184 0.020282 5.58 0.000 0.073 0.153dummy1999 -0.03774 0.020424 -1.85 0.065 -0.078 0.002dummy2004 -0.16683 0.020424 -8.17 0.000 -0.207 -0.127dummy2009 -0.0427 0.020424 -2.09 0.037 -0.083 -0.003Constant 0.327368 0.02176 15.04 0.000 0.285 0.370
95% Conf. interval
4. Findings
Third, wealth represented by ownership of livestock was also the lowest among the poorest households. eg.
Livestock ownership (TLUs Coef. Std. Err. z P>z 95% Conf. interval
Always-poor -3.27792 0.401232 -8.17 0.000 -4.06 -2.49
Sometimes-poor -2.12055 0.255471 -8.3 0.000 -2.62 -1.62
dummy1999 0.260528 0.115581 2.25 0.024 0.03 0.49
dummy2004 0.385151 0.115581 3.33 0.001 0.16 0.61
dummy2009 2.583694 0.115581 22.35 0.000 2.36 2.81
Constant 4.692473 0.235198 19.95 0.000 4.23 5.15
4. Findings
Fourth, Productivity is invariably lower among the poorest households. eg.
Labor productivity (Real VP in Birr/no. of labor) Coef. Std. Err. z P>z 95% Conf. interval
Always-poor -870.893 91.12924 -9.56 0.000 -1049.50 -692.28
Sometimes-poor -466.368 58.02331 -8.04 0.000 -580.09 -352.64
dummy1999 223.7107 49.05364 4.56 0.000 127.57 319.85
dummy2004 478.3434 49.05364 9.75 0.000 382.20 574.49
dummy2009 510.9694 49.05364 10.42 0.000 414.83 607.11
Constant 1010.314 59.1398 17.08 0.000 894.40 1126.23
4. Findings
The poor are not only poor but also inefficient!
the next question will be, controlling for other factors, to what extent productivity affects household welfare measured by RCPC and hence poverty ?
Technical Efficiency Coef. Std. Err. z P>z95% Conf.Interval]
Always-poor -0.08999 0.018232 -4.94 0.000 -0.126 -0.054
Sometimes-poor -0.04865 0.011609 -4.19 0.000 -0.071 -0.026
dummy1999 0.056529 0.000726 77.88 0.000 0.055 0.058
dummy2004 0.110226 0.000726 151.87 0.000 0.109 0.112
dummy2009 0.160061 0.000726 220.53 0.000 0.159 0.161
Constant 0.571706 0.010202 56.04 0.000 0.552 0.592
4. Findings
Summary of variables used for the FEVariables 1994 1999 2004 2009Real consumption per capita 71.7 86.1 91 61.5 Sex of the head of the household 0.86 0.83 0.85 0.68Age of the head of the household 45 49 51 53Head’s years of schooling 1.76 1.81 1.91 2.44Household size 6.57 6.32 6.02 5.95Dependency ratio 1.49 0.47 0.55 0.5Percentage of households who have access to credit (1=Yes,0 otherwise) 0.13 0.54 0.56 0.64
Livestock ownership in tropical livestock units (TLUs)
2.9 3.16 3.29 5.49
Village food price index 100 114 115 352Participation in off-farm activities (1=Yes,0 otherwise)
0.35 0.22 0.36 0.41
Technical efficiency 0.53 0.59 0.64 0.69
Distance to the nearest towns in kilometers 11.3 10.2 9.6 12
4. FindingsExplanatory Variables:
Coefficients: dependent variable log
RCPPMModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Technical Efficiency 2.49**
Logarithm of labor productivity (Birr/labor) 0.16**
Logarithm of land productivity (Birr/hectare) 0.19* 0.18*
Land to family labor ratio 0.05*
Sex of the head of the household 0.16* 0.13* 0.08*** 0.09**
Household head’s years of schooling 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01***
Age of the head of the household 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Household size -0.11* -0.10* -0.12* -0.11*
Dependency ratio -0.07*** -0.14* -0.12* -0.12*
Logarithm of Village food price index -0.48* -0.31* -0.29* -0.29*
Probability of obtaining credit 0.38*** 0.10 1.25* 1.07*
Participation in off-farm activities (1=Yes,0 No) 0.08* 0.09* 0.07** 0.07*
Livestock ownership (Tropical Livestock Units) 0.02* 0.01*** 0.00 0.00
Distance to the nearest towns in km -0.01* -0.01* -0.01* -0.01*
Constant 5.36* 5.11* 4.11* 4.25*
Overall Wald test statistic 174361* 172434* 170134* 171481*
R-squared 0.17 0.24 0.18 0.19
corr(ai, Xb) -0.33 0.06 -0.03 -0.01
F test that all ai =0 1.84* 1.74* 1.85* 1.86*
Wald test statistic for random effects 1567.7* 88.37* 951.41* 522.16*
4. Conclusion
Agricultural productivity growth could benefit the poor. But the poor
possess fewer farm assets Less productive farm implements and face other socioeconomic constraints in factor-product markets and thus benefitted less from growth.
The econometric results show productivity indeed helps to reduce poverty. Other factors are also at work:
inflationary pressures, Demographic variables (eg. dependency ratio), Liquidity constraints and Availability of off-farm work opportunities.
Poverty reduction needs combined efforts : GROWTH PLUS.
4. Conclusion
Caveats and further research: further analysis is necessary to make more tangible claims
about the poverty impact of agricultural productivity. Because the research focused on the direct effects of farm
productivity. It is also good to see the general equilibrium effect to the
rural sector and its linkage with other sectors. The indicator of welfare used is also weak:
Good to expand the welfare measures using MPI, asset based poverty measures and food security indicators among others.
Small sample, use of nationally representative data