Agricultural growth and investment options for poverty reduction in Nigeria
This study uses an economy-wide, dynamic computable general equilibrium (DCGE) model to analyze the ability of growth in various agricultural subsectors to accelerate overall economic growth and reduce poverty in Nigeria over the next years (2009-17). In addition, econometric methods are used to assess growth requirements in agricultural public spending and the relationship between public services and farmers’ use of modern technology. The DCGE model results show that if certain agricultural subsectors can reach the growth targets set by the Nigerian government, the country will see 9.5 percent annual growth in agriculture and 8.0 percent growth of GDP over the next years. The national poverty rate will fall to 30.8 percent by 2017, more than halving the 1996 poverty rate of 65.6 percent and thereby accomplishing the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG1). This report emphasizes that in designing an agricultural strategy and prioritizing growth, it is important to consider the following four factors at the subsectoral level: (i) the size of a given subsector in the economy; (ii) the growth-multiplier effects occurring through linkages of the subsector with the rest of the economy; (iii) the subsector-led poverty reduction-growth elasticity; and (iv) the market opportunities and price effects for individual agricultural products. In analyzing the public investments that would be required to support a 9.5 percent annual growth in agriculture, this study first estimates the growth elasticity of public investments using historical spending and agricultural total factor productivity (TFP) growth data. The results show that a 1 percent increase in agricultural spending is associated with a 0.24 percent annual increase in agricultural TFP. With such low elasticity, agricultural investments must grow at 23.8 percent annually to support a 9.5 percent increase in agriculture. However, if the spending efficiency can be improved by 70 percent, the required agricultural investment growth becomes 13.6 percent per year. The study also finds that investments outside agriculture benefit growth in the agricultural sector. Thus, assessments of required growth in agricultural spending should include the indirect effects of nonagricultural investments and emphasize the importance of improving the efficiency of agricultural investments. To further show that efficiency in agricultural spending is critically important to agricultural growth, this study utilizes household-level data to empirically show that access to agricultural services has a significantly positive effect on the use of modern agricultural inputs.
|Date of creation:||2010|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1201 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-3915|
Web page: http://www.ifpri.org/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Stefan Dercon & Daniel O. Gilligan & John Hoddinott & Tassew Woldehanna, 2009.
"The Impact of Agricultural Extension and Roads on Poverty and Consumption Growth in Fifteen Ethiopian Villages,"
American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1007-1021.
- Dercon, Stefan & Gilligan, Daniel O. & Hoddinott, John & Woldehan, Tassew, 2008. "The impact of agricultural extension and roads on poverty and consumption growth in fifteen Ethiopian villages:," IFPRI discussion papers 840, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- Shenggen Fan & Peter Hazell & Sukhadeo Thorat, 2000. "Government Spending, Growth and Poverty in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 1038-1051.
- Diao, Xinshen & Hazell, Peter & Resnick, Danielle & Thurlow, James, 2006. "The role of agriculture in development: implications for Sub-Saharan Africa," DSGD discussion papers 29, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- Diao, Xinshen & Hazell, P.B.R. & Resnick, Danielle & Thurlow, James, 2007. "The role of agriculture in development: Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa," Research reports 153, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia & Skrondal, Anders & Pickles, Andrew, 2005. "Maximum likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 301-323, October.
- Kelly, Valerie A., 2005. "Farmers' Demand for Fertilizer in Sub-Saharan Africa," Staff Papers 11612, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
- Alex Winter-Nelson & Anna Temu, 2005. "Impacts of prices and transactions costs on input usage in a liberalizing economy: evidence from Tanzanian coffee growers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 243-253, November.
- AGENOR Pierre-Richard & IZQUIERDO Alejandro & FOFACK Hippolyte, "undated". "IMMPA: A Quantitative Macroeconomic Framework for the Analysis of Poverty Reduction Strategies," EcoMod2003 330700003, EcoMod.
- Jayne, T. S. & Govereh, J. & Wanzala, M. & Demeke, M., 2003. "Fertilizer market development: a comparative analysis of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 293-316, August.
- Fan, Shenggen, 2008. "Public expenditures, growth, and poverty in developing countries: Lessons from developing countries," Issue briefs 51, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- Ekpo, Akpan H., 1994. "Fiscal federalism: Nigeria's post-independence experience, 1960-90," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(8), pages 1129-1146, August.
- Michael Johnson & Peter Hazell & Ashok Gulati, 2003. "The Role of Intermediate Factor Markets in Asia's Green Revolution: Lessons for Africa?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1211-1216.
- Zhiying Xu & William J. Burke & Thomas S. Jayne & Jones Govereh, 2009. "Do input subsidy programs "crowd in" or "crowd out" commercial market development? Modeling fertilizer demand in a two-channel marketing system," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(1), pages 79-94, 01. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:954. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.