Agricultural commercialization and nutrition revisited: Empirical evidence from three African countries

Abstract

The transition from subsistence to commercial agriculture is key for economic growth. But what are the consequences for nutritional outcomes? The evidence to date has been scant and inconclusive. This study contributes to the debate by revisiting two prevailing wisdoms: (a) market participation by African smallholders remains low; and (b) the impact of commercialization on nutritional outcomes is generally positive. Using nationally representative data from three African countries, the analysis reveals high levels of commercialization by even the poorest and smallest landholders, with rates of market participation as high as 90%. Female farmers participate less, but tend to sell larger shares of their production, conditional on participation. Second, we find little evidence of a positive relationship between commercialization and nutritional status. As countries and international agencies prioritize the importance of nutrition-sensitive agriculture, better understanding of the transmission channels between crop choices and nutritional outcomes should remain a research priority.

Changing gender roles in agriculture? Evidence from 20 years of data in Ghana

“…We follow Carletto et al. () and construct a Crop Commercialization Index (CCI): …”

“…Yet, several studies exist that contradict or nuance these claims. Female farmers in Uganda, Malawi, and Tanzania are shown to participate less in market activities, but they tend to sell larger shares of their production conditional on participation (Carletto et al., ). Moreover, many crops cannot be categorized as either cash or subsistence crops, with part of the production being consumed in the household and another part being sold for cash income (Carletto et al., ; Doss, ).…”

Agriculture in Africa – Telling myths from facts: A synthesis

“…The following five papers in the special issue query the prevailing notions of continuing factor market imperfection (Dillon and Barrett, 2017, Deininger et al, 2017, Adjognon et al, 2017), limited commercialization and its effect on nutrition (Carletto et al, 2017), and food price seasonality (Gilbert et al, 2017). …”

“…Taking the share of the gross value of crop sales to the gross value of total agricultural production, i.e. the crop commercialization index, as their measure of market participation or agricultural commercialization, Carletto et al (2017) find that farmers sell on average around 20–25 percent of their crop output (a bit less in Malawi, slightly more in Uganda and Tanzania). Conditional on sales the rates amount to 20, 40 and 33 percent in Malawi, Uganda, and Tanzania respectively, indicating that while most farmers sell some crops in these three countries, the marketed shares remain limited.…”

Eyes in the Sky, Boots on the Ground: Assessing Satellite‐ and Ground‐Based Approaches to Crop Yield Measurement and Analysis

“…Accurate measurements of crop production, cultivated area, and yield are at the heart of official agricultural statistics and are key to monitoring progress towards national and international development goals, including SDG 2. Further, the survey data underlying these outcomes are frequently used by agricultural economists to investigate a vast array of policy‐relevant research topics, including ( a ) the scale‐productivity relationship (Larson et al 2014; Julien et al 2019); ( b ) agricultural productivity impacts of fertilizer use (Harou et al 2017), soil quality (Berazneva et al 2018), land misallocation (Restuccia and Santaeulalia‐Llopis 2017), and sustainable land management practices (Arslan et al 2015); ( c ) farm‐ and household‐level impacts of exposure to extreme weather events (Wineman et al 2017; McCarthy et al 2018); ( d ) the extent and cost of gender differences in agricultural productivity (O'Sullivan et al 2014; Kilic et al ); ( e ) the relationships between agricultural and welfare outcomes at the household‐ and/or individual‐level (Carletto, Corral, and Guelfi 2017; Darko et al 2018); and ( f ) the comparative effects of agricultural versus non‐agricultural growth on poverty reduction (Dorosh and Thurlow 2018; Ivanic and Martin 2018).…”