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 ...

ifpri.cgiar.org
from ifpri.cgiar.org More from this publisher
23.01.2014 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!