Impact Of Agricultural Market Reforms On Smallholder Farmers In ...
Impact Of Agricultural Market Reforms On Smallholder Farmers In ... Impact Of Agricultural Market Reforms On Smallholder Farmers In ...
Table 4.2.34-Distribution of villages by the change in production since 1992 Increased No change Decreased Not applicable Total Maize 66% 13% 22% 100% Rice 20% 8% 3% 69% 100% Sorghum/millet 18% 13% 15% 55% 100% Bean 43% 24% 29% 4% 100% Groundnut 46% 23% 16% 15% 100% Manioc 64% 16% 10% 9% 100% Yams 29% 11% 7% 53% 100% Tomatoes 37% 32% 10% 21% 100% Onion 3% 8% 3% 86% 100% Cotton 45% 6% 10% 40% 100% Cashew 18% 7% 75% 100% Source: IFPRI-LARES Community Survey 215
Table 4.2.35-Change in production of each crop since 1992 by region Region North Center South Total Maize Increased 75% 68% 59% 66% No change 9% 11% 16% 13% Decreased 16% 21% 25% 22% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Rice Increased 52% 21% 20% No change 10% 5% 8% 8% Decreased 8% 2% 3% Not applicable 31% 74% 90% 69% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Sorghum/millet Increased 54% 5% 18% No change 15% 21% 8% 13% Decreased 27% 32% 15% Not applicable 3% 42% 92% 55% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Bean Increased 59% 26% 41% 43% No change 24% 47% 15% 24% Decreased 12% 21% 42% 29% Not applicable 5% 5% 2% 4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Groundnut Increased 52% 37% 47% 46% No change 18% 42% 18% 23% Decreased 11% 21% 17% 16% Not applicable 19% 18% 15% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Manioc Increased 47% 47% 82% 64% No change 15% 37% 9% 16% Decreased 14% 11% 7% 10% Not applicable 24% 5% 2% 9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Yams Increased 73% 22% 4% 29% No change 9% 17% 10% 11% Decreased 7% 22% 2% 7% Not applicable 11% 39% 85% 53% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Tomatoes Increased 33% 11% 50% 37% No change 13% 68% 29% 32% Decreased 7% 16% 10% 10% Not applicable 47% 5% 11% 21% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Onion Increased 3% 4% 3% No change 4% 26% 4% 8% Decreased 3% 11% 3% Not applicable 90% 63% 92% 86% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Cotton Increased 88% 72% 8% 45% No change 2% 6% 8% 6% Decreased 4% 11% 14% 10% Not applicable 7% 11% 71% 40% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Cashew Increased 37% 33% 18% No change 4% 13% 8% 7% Not applicable 59% 53% 92% 75% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: IFPRI-LARES Community Survey 216
- Page 172 and 173: Table 4.1.98-Percent of households
- Page 174 and 175: Table 4.1.102-Area allocation by cr
- Page 176 and 177: Table 4.1.106-Area allocation by cr
- Page 178 and 179: Table 4.1.110-Marketed share of out
- Page 180 and 181: Table 4.1.114-Marketed share of out
- Page 182 and 183: Table 4.1.117-Regression for market
- Page 184 and 185: Table 4.1.120-Change in the type of
- Page 186 and 187: Table 4.1.128-Perceived change in r
- Page 188 and 189: Table 4.1.135-Main reason for stori
- Page 190 and 191: Table 4.1.140-Summary of food expen
- Page 192 and 193: Table 4.1.142-Percent of households
- Page 194 and 195: Table 4.1.144-Food consumption by e
- Page 196 and 197: Table 4.1.149-Results of regression
- Page 198 and 199: Table 4.1.152-Value of household as
- Page 200 and 201: Table 4.1.156-Value of household as
- Page 202 and 203: Table 4.1.160-Housing characteristi
- Page 204 and 205: Table 4.1.162-Housing characteristi
- Page 206 and 207: Table 4.1.165-Main source of water
- Page 208 and 209: Table 4.1.170-Source of information
- Page 210 and 211: Table 4.1.176-Source of information
- Page 212 and 213: Table 4.1.181-Regression for percei
- Page 214 and 215: Table 4.2.5-Change in number of veh
- Page 216 and 217: Table 4.2.12-Availability and sourc
- Page 218 and 219: Table 4.2.21-Number of GFs per vill
- Page 220 and 221: Table 4.2.30-Percentage of villages
- Page 224 and 225: Table 4.3.1-Distribution of GVs by
- Page 226 and 227: Table 4.3.9-Number of each type of
- Page 228 and 229: Table 4.3.12-Percentage of secretar
- Page 230 and 231: Table 4.3.19-Distribution of GVs by
- Page 232 and 233: Table 4.3.24-Percentage of inputs s
- Page 234 and 235: Table 4.3.32-Average value of curre
- Page 236 and 237: Table 4.3.40-Percentage of GVs in w
- Page 238 and 239: CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS FROM THE MALAWI
- Page 240 and 241: The weights are used to calculate a
- Page 242 and 243: On average, around 20 percent of th
- Page 244 and 245: agricultural work. Other less commo
- Page 246 and 247: 5.1.4 Time allocation In Malawi, as
- Page 248 and 249: attributed it to the fact that fert
- Page 250 and 251: insignificant. The coefficient on t
- Page 252 and 253: As in the results from the previous
- Page 254 and 255: most important sources of input on
- Page 256 and 257: applied for credit compared to 20 p
- Page 258 and 259: less than 1 mt per ha which are fai
- Page 260 and 261: 5.1.9 Agricultural marketing Market
- Page 262 and 263: Households that belong to a club al
- Page 264 and 265: most important contractors are the
- Page 266 and 267: indicates that the extent of povert
- Page 268 and 269: wheat, and fruits and nuts, a highe
- Page 270 and 271: Surprisingly, the education of the
Table 4.2.34-Distribution of villages by the change in production since 1992<br />
<strong>In</strong>creased No change Decreased Not applicable Total<br />
Maize 66% 13% 22% 100%<br />
Rice 20% 8% 3% 69% 100%<br />
Sorghum/millet 18% 13% 15% 55% 100%<br />
Bean 43% 24% 29% 4% 100%<br />
Groundnut 46% 23% 16% 15% 100%<br />
Manioc 64% 16% 10% 9% 100%<br />
Yams 29% 11% 7% 53% 100%<br />
Tomatoes 37% 32% 10% 21% 100%<br />
<strong>On</strong>ion 3% 8% 3% 86% 100%<br />
Cotton 45% 6% 10% 40% 100%<br />
Cashew 18% 7% 75% 100%<br />
Source: IFPRI-LARES Community Survey<br />
215
Change language