IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaa122/99359.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Methodological innovations in estimating the (inverse) relationship between farm productivity and farm size in a developing economy: a case study of Burundi

Author

Listed:
  • Verschelde, Marijn
  • Vandamme, Ellen
  • D'Haese, Marijke F.C.
  • Rayp, Glenn

Abstract

We use a nonparametric estimation of the production function to investigate the relationship between farm productivity and farming scale in poor smallholder agricultural systems in the north of Burundi. Burundi is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a predominant small scale subsistence farming sector. A Kernel regression is used on data of mixed cropping systems to study the determinants of production including different factors that have been identified in literature as missing variables in the testing of the inverse relationship such as soil quality, location and household heterogeneity. Household data on farm activities and crop production was gathered among 640 households in 2007 in two Northern provinces of Burundi. Four production models were specified each with different control variables. For the relatively small farms, we find clear evidence of an inverse relationship. The relatively large farms show a different pattern. Returns to scale are found to be farm scale dependent. Parametric Cobb-Douglass models tend to over-simplify the debate on returns to scale because of not accounting for the different effects of large farms. Other factors that significantly positively affect production include the soil quality and production orientation towards banana or cash crop production. Production seems to be negatively affected by field fragmentation.

Suggested Citation

  • Verschelde, Marijn & Vandamme, Ellen & D'Haese, Marijke F.C. & Rayp, Glenn, 2011. "Methodological innovations in estimating the (inverse) relationship between farm productivity and farm size in a developing economy: a case study of Burundi," 122nd Seminar, February 17-18, 2011, Ancona, Italy 99359, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa122:99359
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.99359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/99359/files/verscheldevandammedhaeserayp.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.99359?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. Juliano J. Assunção & Luis H. B. Braido, 2007. "Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 980-990.
    2. Assuncao, Juliano J. & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2003. "Can unobserved heterogeneity in farmer ability explain the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 189-194, 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. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Yanyan Liu & Sudhir K. Singh, 2018. "Can Labor-Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size–Productivity Relationship? Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(2), pages 239-258.
    3. Marijn Verschelde & Marijke D’Haese & Glenn Rayp & Ellen Vandamme, 2013. "Challenging Small-Scale Farming: A Non-Parametric Analysis of the (Inverse) Relationship Between Farm Productivity and Farm Size in Burundi," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 319-342, June.
    4. Desiere, Sam & Jolliffe, Dean, 2018. "Land productivity and plot size: Is measurement error driving the inverse relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 84-98.
    5. Gourlay, Sydney & Kilic, Talip & Lobell, David B., 2019. "A new spin on an old debate: Errors in farmer-reported production and their implications for inverse scale - Productivity relationship in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Yanyan Liu & Sudhir K Singh, 2016. "Can Labor Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size–Productivity Relationship? Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India," Working Papers id:10987, eSocialSciences.
    7. Hailu, Getu & Weersink, Alfons & Minten, Bart, 2018. "Farming practices and productivity," IFPRI book chapters, in: The economics of teff: Exploring Ethiopia’s biggest cash crop, chapter 9, pages 205-235, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. James Roumasset, 2010. "Wither the Economics of Agricultural Development?," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, June.
    9. Rada, Nicholas & Wang, Chenggang & Qin, Lijian, 2015. "Subsidy or market reform? Rethinking China’s farm consolidation strategy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-103.
    10. Gautam, Madhur & Ahmed, Mansur, 2019. "Too small to be beautiful? The farm size and productivity relationship in Bangladesh," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 165-175.
    11. Luo, Yufeng & Chen, Feifei & Qiu, Huanguang, 2018. "Plot size and maize production efficiency in China: agricultural involution and mechanization," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274364, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. 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.
    13. Cheng, Shen & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Zheng, Zhihao & Sun, Hao, 2017. "Land Consolidation, Productivity and Technical Efficiency: Evidence from a Cross Section of Farm Households in China," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258533, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing & Liu, Yanyan & Singh, Sudhir, 2015. "Labor Market Performance and the Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Rural India," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212720, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Mburu, Samuel & Ackello-Ogutu, Chris & Mulwa, Richard, 2015. "Analysis of Economic Efficiency and Farm Size: A Case Study of Wheat Farmers in Nakuru District, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212452, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute, 2016. "Can Labour Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship?: Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India," Working Papers id:11007, eSocialSciences.
    17. Juliano Junqueira Assunção, 2005. "Non-agricultural land use and land reform: theory and evidence from Brazil," Textos para discussão 496, Department of Economics PUC-Rio (Brazil).
    18. Klaus Deininger & Denys Nizalov & Sudhir K Singh, 2013. "Are mega-farms the future of global agriculture? Exploring the farm size-productivity relationship for large commercial farms in Ukraine," Discussion Papers 49, Kyiv School of Economics.
    19. Klasen, Stephan & Reimers, Malte, 2017. "Looking at Pro-Poor Growth from an Agricultural Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-168.
    20. Fang Xia & Lingling Hou & Songqing Jin & Dongqing Li, 2020. "Land size and productivity in the livestock sector: evidence from pastoral areas in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 867-888, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Community/Rural/Urban Development; Environmental Economics and Policy;
    All these keywords.

    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:ags:eaa122:99359. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.