Rural Income Generation and Diversification - A Case Study ... - Doria

More documents

Recommendations

Info

134 CSO. 1997. Living Conditions Monitoring Survey Report 1996. Central Statistical Office of Zambia. Lusaka. CSO. 1999a. Living Conditions Monitoring Survey Report 1998. Central Statistical Office of Zambia. Lusaka. CSO. 1999b. Agricultural and Pastoral Production. Small and Medium Scale Holdings 1996- 1997. Structural Type and Post-Harvest Data. Central Statistical Office of Zambia, Lusaka. CSO. 2001. Interviewers Instruction Manual for Supplemental Survey to the 1999/2000 Post-Harvest Survey. Central Statistical Office. Lusaka, Zambia. CSO. 2002. Interviewer’s Instruction Manual for Post-Harvest Survey 2001/2002. Central Statistical Office. Lusaka, Zambia. CSO. 2003a. Consumer Price Index, March 2003 release. Central Statistical Office. Lusaka. Zambia. CSO. 2003b. The Monthly. June. Available at: www.zamstats.gov.zm CSO. 2004. Living Conditions Monitoring Survey Report 2002-2003. Central Statistical Office. Lusaka, Zambia. CSO. 2005. Living Conditions Monitoring Survey Report 2004. Central Statistical Office. Lusaka, Zambia. Davies, S. & Hossain, N. 1997. Livelihoods Adaptation, Public Action and Civil Society. A Review of the Literature. IDS Working Paper 57. University of Sussex. Davis, J.R. 2003. The Rural Non-Farm Economy, Livelihoods and Their Diversification: Issues and Options. NRI Report No: 2753. Natural Resources Institute. UK. Davis, B. 2007. Diversification at the Level of the Rural Household. Presentation at the FAO workshop. June 5, 2007. Davis, B., Reardon, T., Stamoulis, K. & Winters, P. (eds.) 2002. Promoting farm/non-farm linkages for rural development. Case Studies from Africa and Latin America. FAO. Rome, Italy. Deaton, A. 1997. The Analysis of Household Surveys: A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy. Baltimore: The World Bank and John Hopkins University Press.
Deaton, A. & Grosh M. 2000. Consumption. In: Grosh, M. and Glewwe, P. (eds.) 2000. Designing Household Survey Questionnaires for Developing Countries. Lessons from 15 years of the Living Standards Measurement Study. Vol. I-III. The World Bank. Washington D.C. Deiniger, K. & Olinto, P. 2000. Why Liberalisation Alone Has Not Improved Agricultural Productivity in Zambia. The Role of Asset Ownership and Working Capital Constraints. 28 p. The World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 2302. Washington D.C. De Janvry, A., Fafchamps, M.& Sadoulet, E. 1991. Peasant household behaviour with missing markets: some paradoxes explained. The Economic Journal 101: 1400-1417. De Janvry, A. & Sadoulet, E. 2005. Progress in the Modeling of Rural Household’s Behaviour under Market Failures. In: De Javnry, A. and Kanbur, R. (eds.). Poverty, Inequality and Development. Essays in Honor of Erik Thorbecke. Kluwer Publishing. Delgado, C.L. 1995. Agricultural Diversification and Export Promotion in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 20(3): 225-243. Delgado, C.L., Hazell, P., Hopkins, J. & Kelly, V. 1994. Promoting Intersectorial Growth Linkages in Rural Africa through Agricultural Technology and Policy Reform. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76: 1166-1171. Delgado, C. & Siamwalla, A. 1997. Rural Economy and Farm Income Diversification in Developing Countries. MSSD Discussion Paper No. 20. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington. Del Ninno, C.& Marini, A. 2005. Household’s Vulnerability to Shocks in Zambia. World Bank SP Discussion Paper no. 0536, Dercon, S. & Khrishnan, P. 1996. Income Portfolios in Rural Ethiopia and Tanzania: Choices and Constraints. The Journal of Development Studies, 32(6): 850-875. Ellis, F. 1988. Peasant Economics. Farm Households and Agrarian Development. Cambridge University Press. Ellis, F. 1998. Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification. The Journal of Development Studies, 35(1): 1-38. Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press. 135
Page 1 and 2:
Kaisa Karttunen Rural Income Genera
Page 3 and 4:
University of Helsinki Department o
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS 1. Introduction ..........
Page 7 and 8:
Table 6. Percentages of income from
Page 9:
WFP World Food Programme WHO World
Page 12 and 13:
12 man 2002). These include income-
Page 14 and 15:
14 The following questions were for
Page 16 and 17:
16 of household comsumption is also
Page 18 and 19:
18 Zambian farmers fall into three
Page 20 and 21:
20 impact on rural poverty. Startin
Page 22 and 23:
22 1992 consumer and transportatio
Page 24 and 25:
24 The Government of Zambia (GRZ) i
Page 26 and 27:
26 inadequate monitoring of the act
Page 28 and 29:
28 Distributor Scheme was fully in
Page 30 and 31:
30 as tobacco and cotton the out-gr
Page 32 and 33:
32 households were directly afflict
Page 34 and 35:
34 If it had no control over the m
Page 36:
36 According to the AHM, a househol
Page 39 and 40:
icultural economy was opened up to
Page 41 and 42:
Similar concerns were shared by Tay
Page 43 and 44:
order to reduce income variablity.
Page 45 and 46:
of infrastructure development, the
Page 47 and 48:
which implies that diversification
Page 49 and 50:
Haggblade et al. (2002) argue that
Page 51 and 52:
In many cases the processing of the
Page 53 and 54:
4.9 Rural income diversification in
Page 55 and 56:
Table 3. Rural income-diversificati
Page 57 and 58:
1990s - made the farmers reluctant
Page 59 and 60:
In addition to asset endowments and
Page 61 and 62:
5.1.2 The 2003 dataset The second s
Page 63 and 64:
clarifying some concepts and assess
Page 65 and 66:
5.2 Methods The theoretical grounds
Page 67 and 68:
able random variables not explicitl
Page 69 and 70:
Incshare 25 or Inclevel 26 = β0 +
Page 71:
5.2.4 Choosing the estimation metho
Page 74 and 75:
74 Both cash and in-kind income wer
Page 76 and 77:
76 Share of income 100 90 80 70 60
Page 78 and 79:
78 The households considered market
Page 80 and 81:
80 The proportion of income generat
Page 82 and 83:
82 The seasonality effect was clear
Page 84 and 85: 84 Since a lack of money was given
Page 86 and 87: 86 % of income 100 90 80 70 60 50 4
Page 88 and 89: 88 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Page 90 and 91: 90 6.1.7 Grouping households accord
Page 92 and 93: 92 number of adult members, was cri
Page 94 and 95: 94 more likely to use fertilisers a
Page 96 and 97: 96 holds. According to the responde
Page 98 and 99: 98 The following process was follow
Page 100 and 101: 100 6.1.9 The results of the econom
Page 102 and 103: 102 The categorisation of household
Page 104 and 105: 104 Table 20. Determinants of the s
Page 106 and 107: 106 In some cases the former househ
Page 108 and 109: 108 indicated thus an opposite tren
Page 110 and 111: 110 The Simpson diversification ind
Page 112 and 113: 112 tares - the difference being st
Page 114 and 115: 114 which brought more purchasing p
Page 116 and 117: 116 diversification index. Block an
Page 118 and 119: 118 evidence that households had no
Page 120 and 121: 120 such as piecework and forest la
Page 122 and 123: 122 7.2 Changes in the households b
Page 124 and 125: 124 lower soil fertility, and the l
Page 126 and 127: 126 8. Conclusions and recommendati
Page 128 and 129: 128 Rural non-farm activities are l
Page 130 and 131: 130 Politiikkamuutosten seurauksena
Page 132 and 133: 132 References Abdulai, A. & CroleR
Page 136 and 137: 136 Ellis, F., Kutengele, M. & Nyas
Page 138 and 139: 138 Heltberg, R. (mimeo) 2001. Comm
Page 140 and 141: 140 Lanjouw, J.O. & Lanjouw, P. 200
Page 142 and 143: 142 Ruotsi, J., Lindberg, O., Seger
Page 144 and 145: 144 Zulu, B., Nijhoff, J.J., Jayne,
Page 146 and 147: 146 Annex 2. The theoretical framew
Page 148 and 149: 148 1,050 millimetres, while in the
Page 150 and 151: 150 Annex 4. Schedule of the field
Page 152 and 153: 152 Annex 5. Three household cases
Page 154 and 155: 154 In the 1970s and 1980s, and eve
show all

Rural Income Generation and Diversification - A Case Study ... - Doria

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?