Skip to content

Category: Development

Do Land Titles Increase Agricultural Productivity?

Not everywhere:

This paper studies the relationship between land rights and agricultural productivity. Whereas previous studies used proxies for soil quality and instrumental variables to control for the endogeneity of land titles, the data used here include precise soil quality measurements, which in principle allow controlling for the unobserved heterogeneity between plots. Empirical results suggest that formal land rights (i.e., land titles) have no impact on productivity, but that informal land rights (i.e., landowners’ subjective perceptions of what they can and cannot do with their plots) have heterogeneous impacts on productivity.

That’s the abstract of my paper titled “The Productivity Impacts of Formal and Informal Land Rights: Evidence from Madagascar,” which has just been accepted for publication in Land Economics.

The paper is notable for a few things. First, it shows that land titles have no impact on agricultural productivity in Madagascar, a country where the US government had planned on spending $110 million dollars on various initiatives aimed at “assisting the rural population to transition from subsistence agriculture to a market economy,” including via land titling.

All Politics Might Be Local, but the Returns to Local Politics Are Frugal

Or at least, the returns from involvement in local politics in China are. From a new working paper by Jian Zhang, John Giles, and Scott Rozelle:

Recruiting and retaining leaders and public servants at the grass-roots level in developing countries creates a potential tension between providing sufficient returns to attract talent and limiting the scope for excessive rent-seeking behavior. In China, researchers have frequently argued that village cadres, who are the lowest level of administrators in rural areas, exploit personal political status for economic gain. Much existing research, however, compares the earnings of cadre and non-cadre households in rural China without controlling for unobserved dimensions of ability that are also correlated with success as entrepreneurs or in non-agricultural activities. The findings of this paper suggest a measurable return to cadre status, but the magnitudes are not large and provide only a modest incentive to participate in village-level government. The paper does not find evidence that households of village cadres earn significant rents from having a family member who is a cadre. Given the increasing returns to non-agricultural employment since China’s economic reforms began, it is not surprising that the returns to working as a village cadre have also increased over time. Returns to cadre-status are derived both from direct compensation and subsidies for cadres and indirectly through returns earned in off-farm employment from businesses and economic activities managed by villages.

For more about local politics in the context of developing countries, I would start with Michael Bratton’s 1980 book The Local Politics of Rural Development and his 1989 article in World Politics, Christian Lund’s 2006 article in Development and Change and his 2010 Local Politics and the Dynamics of Property in Africa.

Nicholas Kristof: If You’re Watching, It’s For You (Updated)

 

 

The development blogosphere is all abuzz.

Once again, Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times columnist, has written about Africa.

While the usual ballyhoo about Kristof among the development twitterati is that he almost exclusively paints a bleak portrait of Africa-the-Dark-Continent whenever he writes about Africa, this time the development blogosphere is seemingly atwitter because Kristof wrote a column that can be summarized as follows: “Africa is rising.”

Although there was some discussion of Kristof’s column in the social media since Saturday when it was posted, the current brouhaha seems to have started when someone tweeted the following yesterday:

“In which @NickKristof wakes to the idea that Africa is Rising. Hey Nick, I’ve been writing that line for 5 years now.”

But don’t take my word for it. Go read the excellent summary of the hubbub written by Tom Murphy.

Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game

I don’t really have a dog in Development Blogosphere v. Nicholas D. Kristof, except to say that I just want reporting from Africa to be accurate.

There’s civil conflict somewhere? Report it accurately.

Thousands of people have escaped poverty? Report it accurately.

A dictator is living like Caligula while hundreds of thousands of his people cannot eat three meals a day? Report it accurately.

Life expectancy has unexpectedly and inexplicably improved? Report it accurately.

I am not a Kristof fanboi. In fact, I thought Kristof’s live-tweeting of a police raid on a Cambodian brothel he had been invited to join in on was in poor taste, and I find the “White Savior” persona — in Kristof or anyone else — off-putting. (UPDATE: I also thought his criticizing a poor Malawian for smoking, drinking, and visiting prostitutes in this column to be beyond patronizing.)

But I also think the Kristof bashing is unjustified. Instead of criticizing Kristof for his writing, criticize those who enable it.

The New York Times is in the business of selling newspapers. Space in the New York Times‘ editorial pages comes at a premium. Don’t think for a second that the New York Times would publish Kristof’s columns in its editorial pages if they didn’t correspond exactly to what the New York Times‘ readership wants from a foreign correspondent.

These controversies surrounding Nick Kristof remind me of when my folks rant about oil companies raising gas prices before the start of a long weekend. I never fail to remind them that if they’re seeing such high prices, it’s because other consumers are willing to pay such high prices.

If the New York Times has someone like Kristof writing in its editorial pages, it’s because there is a demand for it among the wealthy, educated, liberal readership of the New York Times. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Or, to channel my inner Last Psychiatrist: “If you’re watching, it’s for you.

Let’s stop treating the symptom and start treating the disease, and let’s focus on educating the readers of the New York Times — by blogging, writing op-eds, teaching students etc. in ways that paint an accurate portrait of Africa — rather than on relatively less productive Kristof bashing.