Skip to content

Category: Policy

New Working Paper: Explaining the Persistence of Female Genital Cutting in The Gambia

Why does female genital cutting (FGC) persist in certain places while has declined elsewhere? Using survey data from the Gambia, we study an important aspect of the persistence of FGC, namely the relationship between (i) whether a woman has undergone FGC and (ii) her support for the practice. Our data exhibit sufficient intrahousehold variation in both FGC status and in support for the practice to allow controlling for unobserved heterogeneity between households. First, our results suggest that a woman who has undergone FGC 40 percentage points more likely to be in favor of the practice, from a baseline likelihood of 40%. Second, our findings indicate that 85% of the relationship between whether a woman has undergone FGC and her support for the practice can be attributed to individual- or household-level factors, but that only 15% of that relationship can be explained by factors at the village level or beyond. This suggests that village-wide pledges against FGC, though they have worked well in neighboring Senegal, are unlikely to be effective in the Gambia. Rather, policies aimed at eliminating FGC in this context should instead target individuals and households if they are to be effective.

That’s the abstract of my most recent working paper (see here for the RepEc version, and here for the SSRN version), “All in the Family: Explaining the Persistence of Female Genital Cutting in The Gambia,” which my former Masters student Tara Steinmetz (who was a Peace Corps volunteer in The Gambia) and I have been working on for quite some time. A previous version had been circulated for the Midwest International Economic Development Conference, but this one is considerably improved. As with any working paper, the caveat that these results have not yet been through the peer-review process applies.

The Renaissance of Agricultural Economics

[T]he events of recent years have brought into stark relief the great challenges that society faces and the role for agricultural economists in helping to meet them. The agricultural productivity growth that enabled food supply to grow faster than demand—and on a shrinking land base—has slowed, contributing to the recent rises in commodity prices. Changes in climate will present further challenges to sustaining productivity growth, but public R&D investments are languishing in many places. World population may increase by one-third by 2050, and rapid economic growth in China and India, home to more than one-third of the world’s population, has caused dramatic changes in diets and food demands in those countries. Along with changes in food demand, new demands for biofuels are now competing for grain. In short, agriculture is challenged to meet rapidly growing demands for food, feed, and fuel, and to do so with ever-smaller environmental impact.

Food demands are not only growing, they are changing in ways most of us would not have imagined. The attributes that define food products and production practices have expanded rapidly. In addition to traditional product attributes such as taste, appearance, convenience, brand appeal, and nutrition, consumers increasingly care also about aspects of the production process (e.g., use of chemicals, farm location and size, and treatment of animals), marketing arrangements (in particular, their “fairness”), and implications of food production and consumption for the environment.

Indeed, within this macro environment confronting agriculture lie countless puzzles, contradictions, and fascinating and important research questions that demand answers only we can provide.

Wise words from Rich Sexton, president of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA), in his column for The Exchange, the AAEA’s newsletter.

The Developmental Paradox

I have been working on a paper on the political economy of agricultural protection in the United States with my colleague Nick Carnes. For his dissertation (and forthcoming book White-Collar Government, which you should go pre-order now if you haven’t already done so), Nick has assembled a nice data set on the legislators of the 106th to the 110th US Congresses (i.e., for the period 1999 to 2009) which, with a little bit of research assistance, allows us to look at the roll-call votes of US legislators on the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, among other outcomes.

I will dedicate a post to that paper when we have a manuscript that is presentable, but I wanted to talk about the “developmental paradox,” since this is something that has been coming up frequently in my research and teaching, and because most readers of this blog are probably unaware of the paradox.