Skip to content

Category: Development

Does Participation in Agricultural Value Chains Make Smallholders Better Off?

Yes, it does.

At least, that is my answer to the question in a new article of mine titled “As You Sow, So Shall You Reap: The Welfare Impacts of Contract Farming,” which is forthcoming in World Development.

More specifically, I try to estimate the causal impacts of participation in contract farming — the economic institution in which a processing firm contracts its production of agricultural commodities out to grower households, or the first link in an agricultural value chain — on the welfare of the smallholders.

The major difficulty with studying such problems is that households are not randomly assigned to the treatment (i.e., participants in contract farming) and control (i.e., nonparticipants in contract farming) groups.

The smallholders who choose to participate in agricultural value chains do so following systematic patterns. The problem is that the researcher has no idea what those patterns are, as they often involve variables that are unobserved.

For example, it could be that more entrepreneurial smallholders are less likely to participate in agricultural value chains because they have better options. Or it could be that smallholders who are risk-averse are more likely to participate in agricultural value chains because contract farming partially insures them against income risk. But if it is difficult to measure risk aversion, it is even more difficult to measure entrepreneurial ability.

Microfinance and Social Networks

From a recent NBER working paper by Banerjee et al.:

We examine how participation in a microfinance program diffuses through social networks. We collected detailed demographic and social network data in 43 villages in South India before microfinance was introduced in those villages and then tracked eventual participation. We exploit exogenous variation in the importance (in a network sense) of the people who were first informed about the program, “the injection points”. Microfinance participation is higher when the injection points have higher eigenvector centrality. We estimate structural models of diffusion that allow us to (i) determine the relative roles of basic information transmission versus other forms of peer influence, and (ii) distinguish information passing by participants and non-participants. We find that participants are significantly more likely to pass information on to friends and acquaintances than informed non-participants, but that information passing by non-participants is still substantial and significant, accounting for roughly a third of informedness and participation. We also find that, conditioned on being informed, an individual’s decision is not significantly affected by the participation of her acquaintances.

The emphasis is mine, for those of you who want the news they can use.

I have not yet had a chance to read this paper, but I believe it is part of a trend away from pure impact evaluation and toward the investigation of causal mechanisms — the key words in the abstract being “structural models of diffusion.”

Aid Bloggers’ Best Awards

Tom Murphy, who runs A View from the Cave and is one of the partners running the Development and Aid Workers News Service (DAWNS) Digest — which delivers daily news relevant to development straight your inbox every morning for a very small fee — has opened up nominations for the 2011 Aid Bloggers’ Best Awards (ABBAs).

You can vote here. In case you would like to nominate one of my posts for best post of 2011, my top posts since I started the blog in 2011 (which makes this blog eligible for best new blog) were:

  1. Methodological Convergence in the Social Sciences, in which I discussed the increasingly porous boundaries between disciplines in the social sciences.
  2. Seven Billion People on Earth: Enough with the Fear Mongering, in which I expressed a great deal of skepticism at neo-Malthusian ideas, and which was linked to by Andrew Sullivan.