IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v11y2015i1p1-224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Training, Innovation and New Technology on African Smallholder Farmers' Economic Outcomes and Food Security: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth Stewart
  • Laurenz Langer
  • Natalie Rebelo Da Silva
  • Evans Muchiri
  • Hazel Zaranyika
  • Yvonne Erasmus
  • Nicola Randall
  • Shannon Rafferty
  • Marcel Korth
  • Nolizwe Madinga
  • Thea de Wet

Abstract

Many poor people living in Africa depend on their small farms for survival. There has been a lot of interest in trying to reduce poverty in the region by supporting these farmers to produce more and make a profit from their farms. Such interventions include training farmers and introducing them to new farming techniques and products, such as new crop types or fertilisers. Although a substantial amount of money has been invested in these approaches by governments and international donors, the effects of these interventions on food security and economic outcomes are unclear. This review examines the effectiveness of training, innovation and new technology interventions on the economic outcomes and food security of smallholder farmers in Africa. Interest has grown in interventions to support smallholder farmers because such interventions have the potential to improve both household income and food security. This review confirms providing smallholders with new biological or chemical inputs, particularly orange‐fleshed sweet potato, can lead to improved income and nutrition status. More high‐quality studies are needed to assess other types of training, innovation, and new technology interventions. Research is also needed to assess whether such interventions have sustainable, long‐term effects and whether they may cause harm to farmers or their communities. Plain Language Summary BACKGROUND Many poor people living in Africa depend on their small farms for survival. There has been a lot of interest in trying to reduce poverty in the region by supporting these farmers to produce more and make a profit from their farms. This has included providing training programmes for farmers and introducing new products and farming techniques, such as fertilizers or new types of crops. Although a substantial amount of money has been invested in these approaches by governments and international donors, the effects of these interventions on food security and economic outcomes are unclear. We therefore set out to systematically review the available evidence. APPROACH We searched thoroughly in major academic databases related to agricultural development (e.g. CAB abstracts, EbscoHost), as well as in the grey literature for all relevant research about the effects of training or the introduction of new approaches on smallholder farmers in Africa. We took steps to ensure we only selected the research that was relevant to our question and where we had confidence in the results. We synthesised the results of included studies using meta–analysis, although some sub–groups of studies could not be combined due to heterogeneity of outcome measures and lack of consistent reporting of statistical information. FINDINGS Out of the many thousands of research studies available on farming in Africa, we identified 19 relevant studies. Our analysis does not provide a coherent picture of the effects of training, innovation and new technology interventions on smallholder farmers' livelihoods. The conducted meta–analyses are based on very limited samples of rigorous research. Keeping this limitation in mind, there seems to be some promise that agricultural input innovations, in particular orange–fleshed sweet potato (OFSP), might have positive effects on smallholders' levels of food security (g=0.71; 0.44, 0.98). There are also some positive indications that training interventions might have beneficial effects on farming households' income although these findings are not statistically significant (g=0.12; −0.04, 0.27; n=4). IMPLICATIONS Our systematic review presents training, innovation and new technology interventions as holding some potential to support African smallholder farmers' livelihoods. However, the true potential of these interventions is difficult to assess due to a lack of rigorous research evidence, and the prevailing heterogeneity in context and risk of bias in the limited sample of available research. Executive Summary BACKGROUND The majority of the rural poor in Africa depend on smallholder farming as a livelihood strategy. Yet smallholder farming systems are constrained by a lack of agricultural inputs and access to farming resources. Smallholder farming thus rarely exceeds levels of subsistence production. Interest in African smallholders has been growing in the last decade (World Bank, 2007). Improving smallholder farming systems has a direct nexus to agricultural development and poverty reduction. Smallholder farming interventions aim to improve both household income and food security among rural households. As a result they have been presented as a holistic and cost–effective approach to target rural development and poverty reduction. The introduction of innovation and new technologies and the provision of training represent two important interventions targeted at smallholder farmers in Africa. OBJECTIVES To systematically review evidence on the effects of training, innovation and new technology on African smallholder farmers' economic outcomes and food security. SEARCH STRATEGY An exhaustive search of the academic and grey literature covering the literature published between 1990–2014 yielded 18,470 citations derived from 39 sources. Reference lists from previous reviews and from included studies were also examined. A systematic map of evidence further informed the scope and specificity of search terms and sources. Search strings were developed in conjunction with information scientists and covered key terms related to smallholder farming, impact evaluation, Africa, and the interventions of interest. SELECTION CRITERIA This review includes impact evaluations that investigate the effects of training, innovation and new technology on the economic outcomes and food security of African smallholder farmers. To be eligible for inclusion in this review studies were required to: a) be conducted in Africa; b) feature smallholder farmers as the target population; c) evaluate a training programme and/or facilitation of innovation and new technology; d) measure the effects of these interventions on economic outcomes or food security; and e) use experimental or quasi–experimental methods. DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS Data were extracted from the included studies using a detailed coding tool. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool developed by the Cochrane Methods group (Higgins et al. 2011) and adapted for non–randomised studies (Sterne et al. 2013). To ensure the uniform application of these tools, we evaluated the reliability of reviewers' assessments through the calculation of an inter–reviewer Cohen's kappa score. Coding, screening and quality appraisal was done on EPPI–Reviewer (Version 4.3.6.0), which was further used to store data throughout the review process. We conducted a statistical meta–analysis of standardised mean differences for agricultural input innovations and training interventions. Due to heterogeneity and lack of statistical information the studies assessing the effects of agricultural practice innovation were synthesised narratively. RESULTS A total of 19 studies reported in 32 papers (comprising a total of 4,493 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. These studies assessed mainly the effects of innovation and new technology interventions (n=14). Agricultural input innovations, such as biofortified food crops present the most common form of innovation (n=12). Only five studies investigated the effects of training interventions. Of these, three training programmes assessed the effects of farmer field schools. The overall quality of the included studies was mixed and roughly split into two halves. The first half (11 studies) consisted of reliable evidence with nine low and two moderate risk of bias ratings. The second half consisted of eight studies and presented less reliable evidence as six studies were judged at serious risk of bias and two at critical risk of bias. Of the nine studies rated as low risk of bias, seven used randomised control trial designs (RCTs) and two evaluations applied rigorous quasi–experimental designs. We are unable to reach definitive findings regarding the effects of the reviewed smallholder farming interventions on farmers' economic outcomes and food security. The conducted meta–analyses are based on very small samples of evidence and are further compromised by large heterogeneity across studies' effect sizes and risk of bias. In this context we present the detailed results of our statistical syntheses: Synthesising the effect sizes of six agricultural input innovations, we identified an improvement in farmers' levels of food security as measured by nutritional indicators (g=0.71; 0.44, 0.98). Synthesising the effects of five OFSP interventions, we identify an improvement in farmers' levels of food security as measured by nutritional indicators (g=0.86; 0.59, 1.13). Synthesising the effects of three agricultural input innovations, we identify an improvement in farmers' income as modelled on the increased monetary value of their total harvest (g=0.26; 0.1, 0.41). Synthesising the effects of five training interventions, we fail to find an effect on farmers' income as modelled on the monetary value of their total harvest (g=0.12; −0.04, 0.27). We caution against using these pooled effect sizes as rigorous evidence of the positive effects of the reviewed interventions on smallholder farmers' livelihoods in Africa. Given the small sample and its risk of bias, the findings of our limited statistical analyses merely provide evidence that innovation and new technology, as well as training interventions hold potential to support smallholder farmers. As we did not identify evidence of harm caused by these programmes, the small amount of the available and synthesised evidence does lend some cautious support to the positive effects of these interventions. Within the reviewed interventions OFSP, as a Vitamin A rich staple food, presented the most promising intervention approach. OFSP programmes yielded positive effects on nutrition in four different contexts and programmes have successfully been taken to scale. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence identified by our systematic review does not allow for definite conclusions on the effects of training, innovation and new technology interventions on smallholder farmers' economic outcomes and food security in Africa. The limited synthesised evidence suggests agricultural input innovations might increase the nutritional status of farming households. They might also, albeit to a lesser degree, increase the monetary value of famers' harvest. Training programmes potentially might lead to increased household income as well; similarly through an increase of the monetary value of farmers' harvests. However, more rigorous research, that is theory–based impact evaluations of smallholder farming interventions, is required to explore these promising findings. In the context of renewed interest in smallholder farming as a key approach to rural development, this review provides cautious support to sustain this focus on smallholder farmers. The limited synthesised evidence points into the direction that efforts to support smallholder farmers have the potential to improve rural livelihoods. We made specific recommendations to policy–makers, researchers, and future review teams.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth Stewart & Laurenz Langer & Natalie Rebelo Da Silva & Evans Muchiri & Hazel Zaranyika & Yvonne Erasmus & Nicola Randall & Shannon Rafferty & Marcel Korth & Nolizwe Madinga & Thea de Wet, 2015. "The Effects of Training, Innovation and New Technology on African Smallholder Farmers' Economic Outcomes and Food Security: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 1-224.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:11:y:2015:i:1:p:1-224
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2015.16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2015.16
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2015.16?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davis, K. & Nkonya, E. & Kato, E. & Mekonnen, D.A. & Odendo, M. & Miiro, R. & Nkuba, J., 2012. "Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 402-413.
    2. Nava Ashraf & Xavier Giné & Dean Karlan, 2009. "Finding Missing Markets (and a Disturbing Epilogue): Evidence from an Export Crop Adoption and Marketing Intervention in Kenya," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 973-990.
    3. Kijima, Yoko, 2014. "Enhancing Rice Production in Uganda: Impact Evaluation of a Training Program and Guidebook Distribution in Uganda," Working Papers 80, JICA Research Institute.
    4. Janice Tripney & Jorge Hombrados & Mark Newman & Kimberly Hovish & Chris Brown & Katarzyna Steinka‐Fry & Eric Wilkey, 2013. "Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) Interventions to Improve the Employability and Employment of Young People in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 1-171.
    5. Matsumoto, Tomoya, 2014. "Disseminating new farming practices among small scale farmers: An experimental intervention in Uganda," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 43-74.
    6. World Bank, 2003. "Reaching the Rural Poor : A Renewed Strategy for Rural Development," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 14084, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brander, Michael & Bernauer, Thomas & Huss, Matthias, 2021. "Improved on-farm storage reduces seasonal food insecurity of smallholder farmer households – Evidence from a randomized control trial in Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    2. Bola Amoke Awotide & Adebayo Ogunniyi & Kehinde Oluseyi Olagunju & Lateef Olalekan Bello & Amadou Youssouf Coulibaly & Alexander Nimo Wiredu & Bourémo Kone & Aly Ahamadou & Victor Manyong & Tahirou Ab, 2022. "Evaluating the Heterogeneous Impacts of Adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural Technologies on Rural Households’ Welfare in Mali," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Dario Schulz & Jan Börner, 2023. "Innovation context and technology traits explain heterogeneity across studies of agricultural technology adoption: A meta‐analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 570-590, June.
    4. Etienne Lwamba & Shannon Shisler & Will Ridlehoover & Meital Kupfer & Nkululeko Tshabalala & Promise Nduku & Laurenz Langer & Sean Grant & Ada Sonnenfeld & Daniela Anda & John Eyers & Birte Snilstveit, 2022. "Strengthening women's empowerment and gender equality in fragile contexts towards peaceful and inclusive societies: A systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), March.
    5. Ashrita Saran & Howard White & Kerry Albright & Jill Adona, 2020. "Mega‐map of systematic reviews and evidence and gap maps on the interventions to improve child well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), December.
    6. Garbero, A. & Marion, P., 2018. "IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 28 - Understanding the dynamics of adoption decisions and their poverty impacts: the case of improved maize seeds in Uganda," IFAD Research Series 280077, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    7. Schulz, Dario & Börner, Jan, 2021. "Context and Technology Traits Explain Heterogeneity Across Adoption Studies of Agricultural Innovations: A Global Meta-Analysis," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315003, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Linus Nyiwul & Niraj P. Koirala, 2022. "Role of foreign direct investments in agriculture, forestry and fishing in developing countries," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Raghav Gaiha & Shantanu Mathur, 2018. "Agricultural research, technology and nutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 292018, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    10. Rosenberg, Adam M. & Maluccio, John A. & Harris, Jody & Mwanamwenge, Marjolein & Nguyen, Phuong H. & Tembo, Gelson & Rawat, Rahul, 2018. "Nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions, agricultural diversity, food access and child dietary diversity: Evidence from rural Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 10-23.

    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. Ruth Stewart & Yvonne Erasmus & Hazel Zaranyika & Natalie Rebelo Da Silva & Evans Muchiri & Marcel Korth & Laurenz Langer & Nolizwe Madinga & Nicola Randall & Thea de Wet, 2014. "PROTOCOL: The Effects of Training, Innovation and New Technology on African Smallholder Farmers' Wealth and Food Security: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-87.
    2. Sylvester Ochieng Ogutu & Andrea Fongar & Theda Gödecke & Lisa Jäckering & Henry Mwololo & Michael Njuguna & Meike Wollni & Matin Qaim, 2020. "How to make farming and agricultural extension more nutrition-sensitive: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Kenya [Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 47(1), pages 95-118.
    3. Hammond, Jim & Rosenblum, Nathaniel & Breseman, Dana & Gorman, Léo & Manners, Rhys & van Wijk, Mark T. & Sibomana, Milindi & Remans, Roseline & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Schut, Marc, 2020. "Towards actionable farm typologies: Scaling adoption of agricultural inputs in Rwanda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    4. Jacopo, Bonan & Stefano, Pareglio & Valentina, Rotondi, 2015. "Extension Services, Production and Welfare: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Ethiopia," Working Papers 312, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 30 Oct 2015.
    5. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    6. Wang, Xiaobing & Yu, Xiaohua, 2011. "Scale Effects, Technical Efficiency and Land Lease in China," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115736, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Jinyang Cai & Fengxiang Ding & Yu Hong & Ruifa Hu, 2021. "An Impact Analysis of Farmer Field Schools on Hog Productivity: Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    8. Sardorbek Musayev & Jonathan Mellor & Tara Walsh & Emmanouil Anagnostou, 2021. "Development of an Agent-Based Model for Weather Forecast Information Exchange in Rural Area of Bahir Dar, Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, April.
    9. Maja Micevska & Dil Bahadur Rahut, 2008. "Rural Nonfarm Employment and Incomes in the Himalayas," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 163-193, October.
    10. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    11. Beatriz Oliver & Leticia Ama Deawuo & Sheila Rao, 2022. "A Food Sovereignty Approach to Localization in International Solidarity," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, October.
    12. Ariel BenYishay & A. Mushfiq Mobarak, 2014. "Social Learning and Communication," NBER Working Papers 20139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Kumse, Kaittisak & Suzuki, Nobuhiro & Sato, Takeshi & Demont, Matty, 2021. "The spillover effect of direct competition between marketing cooperatives and private intermediaries: Evidence from the Thai rice value chain," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    14. Andre Croppenstedt & Markus Goldstein & Nina Rosas, 2013. "Gender and Agriculture: Inefficiencies, Segregation, and Low Productivity Traps," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 79-109, February.
    15. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa, 2020. "A meta-analysis understanding smallholder entry into high-value markets," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    16. Fafchamps, Marcel, 2010. "Vulnerability, risk management and agricultural development," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, September.
    17. Mikami, Satoru & Furukawa, Mitsuaki, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Conditions for Successful Knowledge Transfer in Training Programs," Working Papers 85, JICA Research Institute.
    18. Magnan, Nicholas & Hoffmann, Vivian & Opoku, Nelson & Gajate Garrido, Gissele & Kanyam, Daniel Akwasi, 2021. "Information, technology, and market rewards: Incentivizing aflatoxin control in Ghana," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    19. Tanguy Bernard & Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse & Eleni Gabre‐Madhin, 2008. "Impact of cooperatives on smallholders' commercialization behavior: evidence from Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 147-161, September.
    20. Muriithi, Beatrice W. & Matz, Julia Anna, 2015. "Welfare effects of vegetable commercialization: Evidence from smallholder producers in Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 80-91.

    More about this item

    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:wly:camsys:v:11:y:2015:i:1:p:1-224. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    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.