IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eptddp/60329.html

Linkages Between Poverty And Land Management In Rural Uganda: Evidence From The Uganda National Household Survey, 1999/00

Author

Listed:
  • Pender, John L.
  • Ssewanyana, Sarah N.
  • Edward, Kato
  • Nkonya, Ephraim M.

Abstract

This study investigates the impacts of rural poverty on farmers' land management decisions, crop production and incomes, based upon analysis of data from the 1999/2000 Uganda National Household Survey. We find that the impacts of rural poverty on land management, crop production and income depend upon the type of poverty (i.e., what asset or access factor is constrained) and the type of land management considered. Ugandan households that are poorer in terms of access to land use labor more intensively and are less likely to use several land management practices and inputs, though among households that do use non-labor inputs, land-poor households use many of these inputs more intensively. As a result, land-poor households obtain higher value of crop production per acre, though they have substantially lower incomes per capita than land rich households. Thus, access to land is a key factor affecting intensity of land management and rural poverty. Households with access to poorer quality land use less labor and most non-labor inputs, and obtain lower crop production and income. To the extent that land quality is declining as a result of soil nutrient depletion and other land degradation problems, these results suggest a downward spiral of land degradation! declining land quality -- lower investment in land management -- further land degradation. Households that are poorer in terms of ownership of physical assets are less apt to adopt most land management practices and non-labor inputs. Households with less livestock obtain lower crop yields, and households with less of other assets obtain lower income. This suggests another negative cycle: low assets -- low investment in land management and low income -- continued land degradation and low assets. Households who are poorer in terms of males' access to education invest less in most inputs and land management technologies, and obtain lower incomes. Households in which females lack education use labor more intensively in agriculture but also obtain lower incomes. These households may be locked into a similar cycle of low education -- low investment in land management and low incomes -- land degradation and continued low assets. Households in communities with lower wage rates use labor more intensively in agriculture, but use several non-labor inputs less intensively, and obtain lower value of crop production and incomes. Thus lack of off-farm opportunities may contribute to keeping poor households in a poverty and land degradation trap. Households without access to extension, market information or credit are less apt to use several modern non-labor inputs, likely resulting in lower crop production. Households with poor access to roads use less organic or inorganic fertilizer, which can contribute to land degradation. Poorer road access is also associated with lower value of crop production per acre in the Eastern and Western regions and lower income in the Central region. Thus lack of access to infrastructure and services also may prevent households from exiting the poverty-land degradation trap, though the impacts may be location specific. Our results suggest that improvement in smallholders' access to land, other assets, education, extension, market information, credit, roads, and off-farm opportunities can help to break the downward cycle of poverty and land degradation, and put farmers on a more sustainable development pathway. Access to land (area and quality), other assets, education and off-farm opportunities appear to be particularly important in addressing poverty directly, while other interventions are likely to have more indirect impacts, as they influence land management, crop choice, and other livelihood decisions. Given the importance of land as the major asset owned by poor rural households in Uganda, investing in land quality maintenance and improvement is a critical need. However, we found low marginal returns to investments in organic or inorganic fertilizer and other land management practices, suggesting that it will be difficult to get farmers to make such investments in the present environment. Improvements in the market environment as well as development of more profitable land management technologies appears essential to address this need.

Suggested Citation

  • Pender, John L. & Ssewanyana, Sarah N. & 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 60329, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eptddp:60329
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.60329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/60329/files/eptdp122.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.60329?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. Ramón López & Alberto Valdés, 2000. "Fighting Rural Poverty in Latin America: New Evidence of the Effects of Education, Demographics, and Access to Land," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 197-212.
    2. Swinton, Scott M. & Escobar, German & Reardon, Thomas, 2003. "Poverty and Environment in Latin America: Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(11), pages 1865-1872, November.
    3. de Janvry, Alain & Fafchamps, M. & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 1991. "Peasant Household Behavior with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explain," CUDARE Working Papers 198579, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    4. Ramón López & Alberto Valdés, 2000. "Fighting Rural Poverty in Latin America: New Evidence and Policy," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Ramón López & Alberto Valdés (ed.), Rural Poverty in Latin America, chapter 1, pages 1-31, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Lamb, Russell L., 2003. "Inverse productivity: land quality, labor markets, and measurement error," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 71-95, June.
    6. Frank Place & Peter Hazell, 1993. "Productivity Effects of Indigenous Land Tenure Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(1), pages 10-19.
    7. John L. Pender & John M. Kerr, 1998. "Determinants of farmers' indigenous soil and water conservation investments in semi‐arid India," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 19(1-2), pages 113-125, September.
    8. Pender, John L. & Jagger, Pamela & Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Sserunkuuma, Dick, 2001. "Development pathways and land management in Uganda: causes and implications," EPTD discussion papers 85, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. John L. Pender & John M. Kerr, 1999. "The effects of land sales restrictions: evidence from south India," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(3), pages 279-294, December.
    10. 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.
    11. de Janvry, Alain & Fafchamps, Marcel & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 1991. "Peasant Household Behaviour with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explained," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(409), pages 1400-1417, November.
    12. Bhalla, Surjit S., 1988. "Does land quality matter? : Theory and measurement," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 45-62, July.
    13. Dai, Aiguo & Nachtergaele, Freddy & Nielsen, Daniel & Sebastian, Kate & Wood, Stanley, 1999. "Spatial aspects of the design and targeting of agricultural development strategies:," EPTD discussion papers 44, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Reardon, Thomas & Vosti, Stephen A., 1995. "Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries: Asset categories and investment poverty," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 1495-1506, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Pender, John L. & Jagger, Pamela & Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Sserunkuuma, Dick, 2001. "Development Pathways And Land Management In Uganda: Causes And Implications," EPTD Discussion Papers 16124, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Barrett, Christopher B., 1996. "On price risk and the inverse farm size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, December.
    18. Ferreira, Francisco H. G. & Lanjouw, Peter, 2001. "Rural Nonfarm Activities and Poverty in the Brazilian Northeast," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 509-528, March.
    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. Edward, Kato & Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Pender, John & Ssewanyana, Sarah, 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).
    2. Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Pender, John L. & Kaizzi, Crammer & Edward, Kato & Mugarura, Samuel, 2005. "Policy Options for Increasing Crop Productivity and Reducing Soil Nutrient Depletion and Poverty in Uganda," EPTD Discussion Papers 59227, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. C. S. C. Sekhar & Namrata Thapa, 2023. "Rural market imperfections in India: Revisiting old debates with new evidence," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(5), September.
    7. Holden, Stein T. & Ali, Daniel & Deininger, Klaus & Hilhorst, Thea, 2016. "A Land Tenure Module for LSMS," CLTS Working Papers 1/16, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    8. Barrett, Christopher B. & Bellemare, Marc F. & Hou, Janet Y., 2010. "Reconsidering Conventional Explanations of the Inverse Productivity-Size Relationship," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 88-97, January.
    9. Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Pender, John L. & Kato, Edward & Mugarura, Samuel & Muwonge, James, 2005. "Who knows, who cares?: Determinants of enactment, awareness and compliance with community natural resource management," CAPRi working papers 41, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Nkonya, Ephraim & Kaizzi, Crammer & Pender, John, 2005. "Determinants of nutrient balances in a maize farming system in eastern Uganda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 155-182, August.
    11. Pender, John, 2004. "Development pathways for hillsides and highlands: some lessons from Central America and East Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 339-367, August.
    12. Mirzabaev, Alisher & Strokov, Anton & Krasilnikov, Pavel, 2023. "The impact of land degradation on agricultural profits and implications for poverty reduction in Central Asia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    13. Barrett, Christopher B., 1996. "On price risk and the inverse farm size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, December.
    14. Donald F. Larson & Keijiro Otsuka & Tomoya Matsumoto & Talip Kilic, 2014. "Should African rural development strategies depend on smallholder farms? An exploration of the inverse-productivity hypothesis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 355-367, May.
    15. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Holden, Stein & Fisher, Monica, 2013. "Can area measurement error explain the inverse farm size productivity relationship?," CLTS Working Papers 12/13, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 10 Oct 2019.
    18. Jagger, Pamela & Pender, John L., 2003. "Impacts Of Programs And Organization On The Adoption Of Sustainable Land Management Technologies In Uganda," EPTD Discussion Papers 16062, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. C.S.C Sekhar & Namrata Thapa, 2021. "Agricultural Market Imperfections And Farm Profitability In India," IEG Working Papers 440, Institute of Economic Growth.
    20. Bekele Shiferaw & Julius Okello & Ratna Reddy, 2009. "Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 601-619, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:eptddp:60329. 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/ifprius.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.