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 ...
attributed it to the fact that fertilizer was too expensive and another 45 percent explained that their crops do not need fertilizer. Therefore, the low use of fertilizer in Malawi is a combination of both high costs and lack of belief or information about the usefulness of fertilizer. There are wide variations in the extent of fertilizer use by region, gender, farm size, and expenditure group. It also seems to matter whether the farmer is a tobacco grower or not. Figures 5.3 to 5.6 show that fertilizer use is more widespread in the North followed by the Center and the South. Male-headed households are more likely to use fertilizer than female-headed households. Fertilizer use also increases with farm size and expenditure levels, reflecting the fact that bigger and richer farmers have more access or use more fertilizers than smaller and poorer ones. A striking difference in the likelihood of fertilizer use is whether the farmer grows tobacco or not; approximately three-quarter of tobacco growers used fertilizer compared to one-quarter of nontobacco growers. Furthermore, tobacco farmers are three times as likely to fertilize their maize fields than non-tobacco growers. It is likely that producing tobacco affords the farmers extra cash income with which to buy fertilizer. Tobacco growers purchase about 58 percent of all fertilizer purchases by smallholders. For households that do use fertilizer, the average application rate is 157 kg/ha. The most common fertilizers purchased by fertilizer users are CAN (about 60 percent of households), followed by Compound D (about 50 percent of households) and Super D (about 47 percent). Urea was purchased by only 6 percent of fertilizer users. Pesticide or herbicide use is not common as only 7 percent of all households purchased these inputs. Regression analysis of fertilizer use In the regression analysis for fertilizer use, we examine both the determinants of the probability of using fertilizer and the factors that affect the amount of fertilizer used in Malawi. Since there are a large number of households that do not use fertilizer, the error terms will not be normally distributed and the coefficients estimated by ordinary least squares will be biased. On the other hand, limiting the regression to households that use fertilizer will introduce sample selection bias. Therefore, we use the maximum-likelihood estimation of the Heckman model 30 . 30 The Heckman model describes a situation in which a dependent variable, y, is generated by the standard process y = x + u 1 , except that y and possibly some of the x’s are only observed when P = (z + u 2 ) > 0.5, where (.) is the cumulative normal density function, z is a vector of explanatory variables, is a vector of coefficients, and u 2 is an error term distributed N(0,1). If, as is often the case, u 1 and u 2 are correlated, 241
Table 5.14 provides a definition and descriptive statistics for the explanatory variables used in the analysis. Determinants of the decision to use fertilizer in Malawi. Table 5.15 shows the factors that influence the decision to use fertilizer. The results can be summarized as follows: Secondary education has a significant effect on the likelihood to use fertilizer. Presumably, a higher level of education increases the awareness of farmers about the benefits of fertilizer. Age of the household head, household size, and household composition are all statistically insignificant. Keeping everything else constant, female-headed households may be more likely to use fertilizer than male-headed ones, although this effect is only significant at the 8 percent level and the difference in the probability is only 2 percentage points. This suggests that when other factors are controlled for, there is no gender bias against women in fertilizer use. Plot size increases the likelihood of using fertilizer. For each 1 hectare increase, the probability of using fertilizer on the plot rises by 12 percent. The coefficient on the squared plot size variable indicates that this effect tampers off as plot size increases. Total farm size, on the other hand, has no effect on the probability of using fertilizer. The regional dummies suggest that farmers in the North are most likely to apply fertilizer to a given plot, other factors held constant, followed by farmers in the Center and then farmers in the South. This result confirms the evidence that fertilizer use in the South is more limited. The price of fertilizer does not seem to have a significant effect on the probability of using fertilizer. The wage variable and the price of tobacco are also statistically estimating these two relationships separately will generate biased and inconsistent estimates of . Heckman proposed a two-step procedure, but computational capacity now allows simultaneous estimation of , , and =cov(u 1 ,u 2 ) with maximum likelihood methods. Thus, the Heckman procedure generates one set of coefficients predicting the probability that a household will use fertilizer (P) and another set ( ) predicting the volume of fertilizer used (y) provided it uses some. 242
- 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 222 and 223: Table 4.2.34-Distribution of villag
- 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 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
- Page 272 and 273: Housing characteristics The overwhe
- Page 274 and 275: It was also important to find out w
- Page 276 and 277: Surprisingly, tobacco growers are m
- Page 278 and 279: Over three-quarter of the EPAs repo
- Page 280 and 281: The changes in the number and types
- Page 282 and 283: 5.2.11 Storage Facilities On averag
- Page 284 and 285: Table 5.2 - Household characteristi
- Page 286 and 287: Table 5.7 - Percentage of household
- Page 288 and 289: Table 5.12 - Farm labor use and all
- Page 290 and 291: Table 5.15 - Determinants of the de
- Page 292 and 293: Table 5.17 - Sources of fertilizer
- Page 294 and 295: Table 5.22 - Access and use of cred
- Page 296 and 297: Table 5.25 - Percent of households
Table 5.14 provides a definition and descriptive statistics for the explanatory variables used in the<br />
analysis.<br />
Determinants of the decision to use fertilizer in Malawi. Table 5.15 shows the factors<br />
that influence the decision to use fertilizer. The results can be summarized as follows:<br />
<br />
Secondary education has a significant effect on the likelihood to use fertilizer.<br />
Presumably, a higher level of education increases the awareness of farmers about the<br />
benefits of fertilizer. Age of the household head, household size, and household<br />
composition are all statistically insignificant.<br />
<br />
Keeping everything else constant, female-headed households may be more likely to<br />
use fertilizer than male-headed ones, although this effect is only significant at the 8<br />
percent level and the difference in the probability is only 2 percentage points. This<br />
suggests that when other factors are controlled for, there is no gender bias against<br />
women in fertilizer use.<br />
<br />
Plot size increases the likelihood of using fertilizer. For each 1 hectare increase, the<br />
probability of using fertilizer on the plot rises by 12 percent. The coefficient on the<br />
squared plot size variable indicates that this effect tampers off as plot size increases.<br />
Total farm size, on the other hand, has no effect on the probability of using fertilizer.<br />
<br />
The regional dummies suggest that farmers in the North are most likely to apply<br />
fertilizer to a given plot, other factors held constant, followed by farmers in the Center<br />
and then farmers in the South. This result confirms the evidence that fertilizer use in<br />
the South is more limited.<br />
<br />
The price of fertilizer does not seem to have a significant effect on the probability of<br />
using fertilizer. The wage variable and the price of tobacco are also statistically<br />
estimating these two relationships separately will generate biased and inconsistent estimates of .<br />
Heckman proposed a two-step procedure, but computational capacity now allows simultaneous estimation<br />
of , , and =cov(u 1 ,u 2 ) with maximum likelihood methods. Thus, the Heckman procedure generates one<br />
set of coefficients predicting the probability that a household will use fertilizer (P) and another set ( )<br />
predicting the volume of fertilizer used (y) provided it uses some.<br />
242