IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0340.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Soil Properties and Soil Conservation Investments in Agricultural Production - a Case study of Kenya’s Central Highlands

Author

Listed:
  • Ekbom, Anders

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Sterner, Thomas

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

Abstract

This paper integrates traditional economic variables, soil properties and variables on soil conservation technologies in order to estimate agricultural output among small-scale farmers in Kenya’s central highlands. The study has methodological, empirical as well as policy results. The key methodological result is that integrating traditional economics and soil science is highly worthwhile in this area of research. Omitting measures of soil capital can cause omitted variables bias since farmers’ choice of inputs depend both on the quality and status of the soil capital and on other economic conditions such as availability and cost of labour, fertilizers, manure and other inputs. The study shows that: (i) models which include soil capital and soil conservation technologies yield a considerably lower output elasticity of farm-yard manure; (ii) mean output elasticities of key soil nutrients like nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) are positive and relatively large; (iii) counter to our expectations, the mean output elasticity of phosphorus (P) is negative; (iv) soil conservation technologies like green manure and terraces are positively associated with output and yield relatively large output elasticities. The central policy conclusion is that while fertilizers are generally beneficial, their application is a complex art and more is not necessarily better. The limited local market supply of fertilizers, combined with the different output effects of N, P and K, point at the importance of improving the performance of input markets and strengthening agricultural extension. Further, given the policy debate on the impact and usefulness of government subsidies to soil conservation, our results suggest that soil conservation investments contribute to increase farmers’ output. Consequently, government support to appropriate soil conservation investments arrests soil erosion, prevents downstream externalities and assists farmers’ efforts to increase food production and food security.

Suggested Citation

  • Ekbom, Anders & Sterner, Thomas, 2009. "Soil Properties and Soil Conservation Investments in Agricultural Production - a Case study of Kenya’s Central Highlands," Working Papers in Economics 340, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/19233
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emmanuel Skoufias, 1994. "Using Shadow Wages to Estimate Labor Supply of Agricultural Households," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(2), pages 215-227.
    2. Christensen, Laurits R & Jorgenson, Dale W & Lau, Lawrence J, 1973. "Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 55(1), pages 28-45, February.
    3. Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Pender, John L. & Jagger, Pamela & Sserunkuuma, Dick & Kaizzi, Crammer & Ssali, Henry, 2004. "Strategies for sustainable land management and poverty reduction in Uganda:," Research reports 133, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Peter Berck & Gloria Helfand, 1990. "Reconciling the von Liebig and Differentiable Crop Production Functions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(4), pages 985-996.
    5. Simmons, Peter & Weiserbs, Daniel, 1979. "Translog Flexible Functional Forms and Associated Demand Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(5), pages 892-901, December.
    6. Widawsky, David & Rozelle, Scott & Jin, Songqing & Huang, Jikun, 1998. "Pesticide productivity, host-plant resistance and productivity in China," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 19(1-2), pages 203-217, September.
    7. Catalina Carrasco-Tauber & L. Joe Moffitt, 1992. "Damage Control Econometrics: Functional Specification and Pesticide Productivity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(1), pages 158-162.
    8. Mundlak, Yair & Larson, Don & Butzer, Ritz, 1997. "The determinants of agricultural production : a cross-country analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1827, The World Bank.
    9. Hanan G. Jacoby, 1993. "Shadow Wages and Peasant Family Labour Supply: An Econometric Application to the Peruvian Sierra," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(4), pages 903-921.
    10. Fidele Byiringiro & Thomas Reardon, 1996. "Farm productivity in Rwanda: effects of farm size, erosion, and soil conservation investments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(2), pages 127-136, November.
    11. Michael D. Frank & Bruce R. Beattie & Mary E. Embleton, 1990. "A Comparison of Alternative Crop Response Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 597-603.
    12. Berndt, Ernst R & Christensen, Laurits R, 1974. "Testing for the Existence of a Consistent Aggregate Index of Labor Inputs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(3), pages 391-404, June.
    13. Peter Berck & Jacqueline Geoghegan & Stephen Stohs, 2000. "A Strong Test of the von Liebig Hypothesis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 948-955.
    14. Obare, G. A. & Omamo, S. W. & Williams, J. C., 2003. "Smallholder production structure and rural roads in Africa: the case of Nakuru District, Kenya," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 245-254, May.
    15. Sherlund, Shane M. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Adesina, Akinwumi A., 2002. "Smallholder technical efficiency controlling for environmental production conditions," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 85-101, October.
    16. Lilyan E. Fulginiti & Richard K. Perrin, 1998. "Agricultural productivity in developing countries," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 19(1-2), pages 45-51, September.
    17. Gerdin, Anders, 2002. "Productivity and economic growth in Kenyan agriculture, 1964-1996," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 7-13, May.
    18. Carter, Michael R, 1984. "Identification of the Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of Peasant Agricultural Production," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 131-145, March.
    19. Heltberg, Rasmus, 1998. "Rural market imperfections and the farm size-- productivity relationship: Evidence from Pakistan," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(10), pages 1807-1826, October.
    20. Deolalikar, Anil B & Vijverberg, Wim P M, 1987. "A Test of Heterogeneity of Family and Hired Labour in Asian Agriculture," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 49(3), pages 291-305, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ekbom, Anders & Sterner, Thomas, 2008. "Production Function Analysis of Soil Properties and Soil Conservation Investments in Tropical Agriculture," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-20-efd, Resources for the Future.
    2. Ekbom, Anders & Alem, Yonas & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "Integrating soil science into agricultural production frontiers," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 291-308, June.
    3. Ali, Daniel Ayalew & Deininger, Klaus, 2014. "Is there a farm-size productivity relationship in African agriculture ? evidence from Rwanda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6770, The World Bank.
    4. Wang, Xiaobing & Herzfeld, Thomas & Glauben, Thomas, 2007. "Labor allocation in transition: Evidence from Chinese rural households," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 287-308.
    5. Almeida, Alexandre N. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E., 2019. "Agricultural productivity, shadow wages and off-farm labor decisions in Nicaragua," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 99-110.
    6. Kilic, Talip & Zezza, Alberto & Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara, 2017. "Missing(ness) in Action: Selectivity Bias in GPS-Based Land Area Measurements," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 143-157.
    7. Larson,Donald F. & Muraoka,Rie & Otsuka,Keijiro, 2016. "On the central role of small farms in African rural development strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7710, The World Bank.
    8. Federico Perali & Furio Rosati & Martina Menon, 2004. "Estimation of the Contribution of Child Labour to the Formation of Rural Incomes: An Application to Nepal," CHILD Working Papers wp10_05, CHILD - Centre for Household, Income, Labour and Demographic economics - ITALY.
    9. Ekbom, Anders, 2009. "Determinants of Soil Capital," Working Papers in Economics 339, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    10. M. Menon & F. Perali & F. Rosati, 2005. "The Shadow Wage of Child Labour: An Application to Nepal," UCW Working Paper 11, Understanding Children's Work (UCW Programme).
    11. Christopher B. Barrett & Shane M. Sherlund & Akinwumi A. Adesina, 2008. "Shadow wages, allocative inefficiency, and labor supply in smallholder agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 21-34, January.
    12. Pender, John & Nkonya, Ephraim & Jagger, Pamela & Sserunkuuma, Dick & Ssali, Henry, 2004. "Strategies to increase agricultural productivity and reduce land degradation: evidence from Uganda," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 181-195, December.
    13. Pender, John & Ssewanyana, Sarah & Edward, Kato & Nkonya, Ephraim M., 2004. "Linkages between poverty and land management in rural Uganda: evidence from the Uganda National Household Survey, 1999/00," EPTD discussion papers 122, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J. & Reig-Martínez, Ernest, 2005. "Calculating shadow wages for family labour in agriculture : An analysis for Spanish citrus fruit farms," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 75.
    15. Livanis, Grigorios T. & Salois, Matthew J. & Moss, Charles B., 2009. "A Nonparametric Kernel Representation of the Agricultural Production Function: Implications for Economic Measures of Technology," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51063, Agricultural Economics Society.
    16. Henning, Christian H.C.A. & Henningsen, Arne, 2005. "Modeling Price Response of Farm Households Under Imperfect Labor Markets: A Farm Household Approach to Family Farms in Poland," 94th Seminar, April 9-10, 2005, Ashford, UK 24431, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Matchaya, Greenwell C., 2007. "Does size of operated area matter? Evidence from Malawi's agricultural production," MPRA Paper 11948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S. Jayne, 2021. "Factor Market Activity and the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Tanzania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(3), pages 443-464, March.
    19. World Bank, 2005. "Uganda : Policy Options for Increasing Crop Productivity and Reducing Soil Nutrient Depletion and Poverty," World Bank Publications - Reports 8647, The World Bank Group.
    20. Klaus Moeltner & A. Ford Ramsey & Clinton L. Neill, 2021. "Bayesian Kinked Regression with Unobserved Thresholds: An Application to the von Liebig Hypothesis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1832-1856, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    micro analysis of farm firms; resource management;

    JEL classification:

    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ann-Christin Räätäri Nyström (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.