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
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.14980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/14980/files/dp030010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.14980?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. Kumar, Shubh K., 1994. "Adoption of hybrid maize in Zambia: effects on gender roles, food consumption, and nutrition," Research reports 100, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Michael R. Carter & Keith D. Wiebe, 1990. "Access to Capital and Its Impact on Agrarian Structure and Productivity in Kenya," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1146-1150.
    5. Amartya K. Sen, 1966. "Peasants and Dualism with or without Surplus Labor," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(5), pages 425-425.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Foster, Kenneth A. & Mwanaumo, Anthony, 1995. "Estimation of dynamic maize supply response in Zambia," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 99-107, April.
    9. Kumbhakar, Subal C & Bhattacharyya, Arunava, 1992. "Price Distortions and Resource-Use Efficiency in Indian Agriculture: A Restricted Profit Function Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(2), pages 231-239, May.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Anil B. Deolalikar, 1981. "The Inverse Relationship between Productivity and Farm Size: A Test Using Regional Data from India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(2), pages 275-279.
    13. Zaibet, Lokman T & Dunn, Elizabeth G, 1998. "Land Tenure, Farm Size, and Rural Market Participation in Developing Countries: The Case of the Tunisian Olive Sector," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(4), pages 831-848, July.
    14. 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..
    15. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Eswaran, Mukesh & Kotwal, Ashok, 1986. "Access to Capital and Agrarian Production Organisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(382), pages 482-498, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Benjamin, Dwayne, 1995. "Can unobserved land quality explain the inverse productivity relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 51-84, February.
    21. Andrew Dorward, 1999. "Farm size and productivity in Malawian smallholder agriculture," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(5), pages 141-161.
    22. Yotopoulos, Pan A & Lau, Lawrence J, 1973. "A Test for Relative Economic Efficiency: Some Further Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(1), pages 214-223, March.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Marcel Fafchamps, 1992. "Cash Crop Production, Food Price Volatility, and Rural Market Integration in the Third World," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(1), pages 90-99.
    26. Rashid M. Hassan, 1996. "Planting strategies of maize farmers in Kenya: a simultaneous equations analysis in the presence of discrete dependent variables," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(2), pages 137-149, November.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. Wichern, Raier & Hausner, Ulrich & Chiwele, Dennis K., 1999. "Impediments to agricultural growth in Zambia:," TMD discussion papers 47, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    33. van Zyl, Johan & Binswanger, Hans & Thirtle, Colin, 1995. "The relationship between farm size and efficiency in South African agriculture," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1548, The World Bank.
    34. Barnum, Howard N & Squire, Lyn, 1978. "Technology and Relative Economic Efficiency," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 181-198, July.
    35. 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.
    36. 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.
    37. 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.
    38. 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. Hamdiyah Alhassan & Benjamin Musah Abu & Paul Kwame Nkegbe, 2020. "Access to Credit, Farm Productivity and Market Participation in Ghana: A Conditional Mixed Process Approach," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 14(2), pages 226-246, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Willy, Daniel Kyalo & Muyanga, Milu & Jayne, T.S., 2015. "Adaptation to Rising Population Density: Voices from Rural Kenya," Working Papers 208250, Egerton University, Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development.
    4. Collier, Paul & Dercon, Stefan, 2014. "African Agriculture in 50Years: Smallholders in a Rapidly Changing World?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 92-101.
    5. Julius Krebs & Sonja Bach, 2018. "Permaculture—Scientific Evidence of Principles for the Agroecological Design of Farming Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-24, September.
    6. Juliano Junqueira Assunção & Luiz Henrique Braido, 2005. "Testing competing explanations for the inverse productivity puzzle," Textos para discussão 500, Department of Economics PUC-Rio (Brazil).

    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. 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.
    2. Omotilewa, Oluwatoba J. & Jayne, T.S. & Muyanga, Milu & Aromolaran, Adebayo B. & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Awokuse, Titus, 2021. "A revisit of farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from a wide range of farm sizes in Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara & Zezza, Alberto, 2013. "Fact or artifact: The impact of measurement errors on the farm size–productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 254-261.
    8. Matchaya, Greenwell C., 2007. "Does size of operated area matter? Evidence from Malawi's agricultural production," MPRA Paper 11948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. Steven Helfand & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "The Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: Refocusing the Debate," Working Papers 201811, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    12. 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.
    13. Taylor, Matthew P.H. & Helfand, Steven M., 2021. "The Farm Size – Productivity Relationship in the Wake of Market Reform: An Analysis of Mexican Family Farms," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315138, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    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. 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.
    16. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    17. Deininger, Klaus & Nizalov, Denys & Singh, Sudhir K, 2013. "Are mega-farms the future of global agriculture ? exploring the farm size-productivity relationship," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6544, The World Bank.
    18. Klasen, Stephan & Reimers, Malte, 2017. "Looking at Pro-Poor Growth from an Agricultural Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-168.
    19. 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.
    20. Mensah, Edouard R. & Kostandini, Genti, 2020. "The inverse farm size-productivity relationship under land size mis-measurement and in the presence of weather and price risks: Panel data evidence from Uganda," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304477, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    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.

    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/agrhuil.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.