Poverty and technical efficiency in presence of heterogeneity in household behaviours

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between poverty and technical efficiency (TE) of paddy farmers in presence of their heterogeneous selling behaviours. This paper explains how such behavioural heterogeneity affects this relationship in south-western Bangladesh. Design/methodology/approach Translog production frontier model was used to estimate TE since it fitted the data set better. On the other hand, poverty indices were constructed by using P-α method. Then, multinomial logit models examined the existence of heterogeneous selling behaviours. It revealed adequate evidences in favour of behavioural heterogeneity. Finally, the authors employed a series of two stage instrumental variable regression models to relate poverty and TE with and without considering the behavioural heterogeneity. Findings The study finds that around 18, 39 and 44 per cent of households exhibit autarkic, non-wholesaling and wholesaling behaviour, respectively. Market failure due to transaction cost and credit constraints leads to emergence of such heterogeneity. Across these heterogeneous behaviours, impact of improving TE on poverty status significantly differs. Without controlling behavioural heterogeneity, TE significantly improves the poverty status of the rural farm households. However, scenario is changed after controlling this heterogeneity. After behavioural segregations, TE improves poverty status only for wholesalers. In contrary to prior expectation, it worsens the poverty situation for both autarkic and non-wholesaling households. Simultaneous failure in both credit and product market for these households might be the plausible reason behind this heterodox finding. Credit market failure compels these households to borrow from local money lenders with costlier terms. This effort might improve their TE. But, product market failure makes their additional production due to improved TE unsold. Thus, repayment of credit directly reduces their consumption expenditure. Therefore, an effort to improve TE might increase prevalence and depth of poverty when market failure exists. Henceforth, the improvement of TE appears as an effective policy instrument only when households exhibit wholesaling behaviour. Originality/value The earlier studies show the relationship between TE and poverty status but did not account behavioural heterogeneity. The authors attempt to overcome this shortcoming and show how market failure induced behavioural heterogeneity affects the effectiveness of TE on improving poverty status of farm households.

How does farmers' field schooling impact eco-efficiency? Empirical evidence from paddy farmers in Bangladesh

“…The SFA includes both – idiosyncratic disturbance and inefficiency – terms which are responsible for any deviation from the production frontier (Coelli, 1995). The advantage of SFA is that it controls the effect of disturbance term while estimating efficiency (Afrin et al , 2017b; Islam and Haider, 2018). However, SFA imposes strict assumptions about both the distributions (i.e.…”

A review of model-based scenario analysis of poverty for informing sustainability

“…These studies suggested that poverty alleviation benefited from the growth of agricultural production and productivity, increased agricultural investment, appropriate amount and method of fertilizers application. In addition, around 9% of existing studies accounted for progress evaluation and interactions between SDGs (Allen et al, 2017;Allen et al, 2021), assessing the influence of various factors on poverty including health policies (Shrime et al, 2016), disease spread (Chitiga-Mabugu et al, 2021), technical efficiency (Islam and Haider, 2018), population aging (X. Wang et al, 2017), and urban characteristics (Duque et al, 2015).…”

“…However, the two indicators mentioned above ignore the depth of poverty, signifying that the poverty rate remains constant if the poor become poorer (Foster et al, 2010). Some researchers thus used the poverty gap index to measure the depth of poverty, which is defined as the ratio by which the average income of the poor falls below the poverty line (C. Cororaton et al, 2018;Islam and Haider, 2018). Although the poverty gap index can indicate the depth of poverty, it cannot capture the inequality between the people living below the poverty line.…”

Ramifications of Households’ Nonfarm Income on Agricultural Productivity: Evidence From a Rural Area of Pakistan

“…Participation in nonfarm activities provides livelihood opportunities for poor rural households. It plays a pivotal role in economic development and poverty alleviation if nonfarm prospects are available to rural poor households (Islam & Haider, 2018). Therefore, rural households' engagement in nonfarm activities can obstruct their own farms' productivity (Ellis & Freeman, 2004).…”