IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/huaedp/14980.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Plot Size And Maize Productivity In Zambia: The Inverse Relationship Re-Examined

Author

Listed:
  • Kimhi, Ayal

Abstract

Agricultural productivity is known to decline with farm size in many developing countries. This may be a result of market imperfections, such as missing rural labor markets. On the other hand, there may be economies of scale in farming, due, for instance, to the importance of lumpy inputs. Hence, it is not theoretically obvious that the inverse relationship prevails in all situations. Indeed, several studies found non-monotonic relationships between productivity and farm size, with productivity decreasing with size up to a certain size and increasing beyond that point. This paper examines the relationship between Maize productivity and plot size in Zambia. If offers a unique empirical approach. First, it focuses on Maize, which is the major crop on small and medium size farms in Zambia, but also accounts for the endogenous determination of the size of the plot devoted to Maize. Previous studies used total farm size or harvested area. Second, it corrects for selectivity into Maize cultivation. Third, it controls for differences in land quality and weather conditions across districts. Finally, it offers a structural interpretation of the above framework by modeling farm decisions in two recursive stages, where land is first allocated to the different crops based on the information set of the farmers at the time of planting, and the yield is affected by subsequent application of inputs, the quantities of which may depend on additional information that is revealed after planting. We use this recursive structure and the differences in the information sets over time to identify the model. The results show that the endogeneity of plot size is very important in this analysis. When considering plot size as an exogenous explanatory variable, we find a monotonic positive relationship between the yield of Maize and plot size, indicating that economies of scale are dominant throughout the plot size distribution. However, when we correct for the endogeneity of plot size, we find that the inverse relationship dominates the economies of scale in all plots up to 3 hectares, which constitute 86% of our sample. These results suggest that market imperfections should be targeted by any policy aimed at increasing Maize productivity in Zambia.

Suggested Citation

  • Kimhi, Ayal, 2003. "Plot Size And Maize Productivity In Zambia: The Inverse Relationship Re-Examined," Discussion Papers 14980, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:huaedp:14980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/14980
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Dorward, 1999. "Farm size and productivity in Malawian smallholder agriculture," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(5), pages 141-161.
    2. Jacoby, Hanan C, 2000. "Access to Markets and the Benefits of Rural Roads," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(465), pages 713-737, July.
    3. Zulu, Ballard & Nijhoff, Jan J. & Jayne, Thomas S. & Negassa, Asfaw, 2000. "Is the Glass Half-Empty or Half Full? An Analysis of Agricultural Production Trends in Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 54458, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    4. Foster, Kenneth A. & Mwanaumo, Anthony, 1995. "Estimation of dynamic maize supply response in Zambia," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 12(1), April.
    5. Holden, Stein T., 1993. "Peasant household modelling: Farming systems evolution and sustainability in northern Zambia," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 241-267, September.
    6. Amartya K. Sen, 1966. "Peasants and Dualism with or without Surplus Labor," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 425-425.
    7. Byiringiro, Fidele Usabuwera & Reardon, Thomas, 1996. "Farm productivity in Rwanda: effects of farm size, erosion, and soil conservation investments," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(2), November.
    8. Michael Kevane, 1996. "Agrarian Structure and Agricultural Practice: Typology and Application to Western Sudan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 236-245.
    9. Borjas, George J. & Sueyoshi, Glenn T., 1994. "A two-stage estimator for probit models with structural group effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 165-182.
    10. Reardon, Thomas & Kelly, Valerie A. & Crawford, Eric W. & Jayne, Thomas S. & Savadogo, Kimseyinga & Clay, Daniel C., 1996. "Determinants of Farm Productivity in Africa: A Synthesis of Four Case Studies," Food Security International Development Papers 54049, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    11. Wichern, Raier & Hausner, Ulrich & Chiwele, Dennis K., 1999. "Impediments to agricultural growth in Zambia:," TMD discussion papers 47, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. 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.
    13. Alwang, Jeffrey & Siegel, Paul B. & Jorgensen, Steen L., 1996. "Seeking guidelines for poverty reduction in rural Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(11), pages 1711-1723, November.
    14. Binswanger, Hans P. & Deininger, Klaus & Feder, Gershon, 1995. "Power, distortions, revolt and reform in agricultural land relations," Handbook of Development Economics,in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 42, pages 2659-2772 Elsevier.
    15. Smale, Melinda & Bellon, Mauricio R & Aguirre Gomez, Jose Alfonso, 2001. "Maize Diversity, Variety Attributes, and Farmers' Choices in Southeastern Guanajuato, Mexico," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(1), pages 201-225, October.
    16. Barnum, Howard N & Squire, Lyn, 1978. "Technology and Relative Economic Efficiency," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 181-198, July.
    17. Newell, Andrew & Pandya, Kiran & Symons, James, 1997. "Farm Size and the Intensity of Land Use in Gujarat," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 307-315, April.
    18. Bardhan, Pranab K, 1973. "Size, Productivity, and Returns to Scale: An Analysis of Farm-Level Data in Indian Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(6), pages 1370-1386, Nov.-Dec..
    19. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    20. Steven Were Omamo, 1998. "Transport Costs and Smallholder Cropping Choices: An Application to Siaya District, Kenya," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 116-123.
    21. Bhalla, Surjit S & Roy, Prannoy L, 1988. "Mis-specification in Farm Productivity Analysis: The Role of Land Quality," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 55-73, March.
    22. Eswaran, Mukesh & Kotwal, Ashok, 1986. "Access to Capital and Agrarian Production Organisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(382), pages 482-498, June.
    23. Hassan, Rashid M., 1996. "Planting strategies of maize farmers in Kenya: a simultaneous equations analysis in the presence of discrete dependent variables," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 137-149, November.
    24. Benjamin, Dwayne, 1995. "Can unobserved land quality explain the inverse productivity relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 51-84, February.
    25. Feder, Gershon, 1985. "The relation between farm size and farm productivity : The role of family labor, supervision and credit constraints," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2-3), pages 297-313, August.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. Cornia, Giovanni Andrea, 1985. "Farm size, land yields and the agricultural production function: An analysis for fifteen developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 513-534, April.
    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. Kokoye, Sènakpon E. Haroll & Yabi, Jacob A. & Tovignan, Silvère D. & Yegbemey, Rosaine N. & Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2013. "Simultaneous modelling of the determinants of the partial inputs productivity in the municipality of Banikoara, Northern Benin," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 53-59.
    2. Collier, Paul & Dercon, Stefan, 2014. "African Agriculture in 50Years: Smallholders in a Rapidly Changing World?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 92-101.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Maize Yield; Plot Size; Inverse Relationship; Recursive Decisions; Two-stage Estimation; Two-sided Tobit; Selectivity Correction; Crop Production/Industries; O1 (Economic Development); Q1 (Agriculture).;

    JEL classification:

    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture

    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:huaedp:14980. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/agrhuil.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.