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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

82 The seasonality effect was clear: wage employment was most common during the growing season from October to March when agricultural piecework opportunities were available on small farms, while from April to September/October there were fewer such opportunities (Figure 5). 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 5. Wage and piecework activities per month. Source: the researcher’s own dataset 2003. Activities Both pulling and pushing effects work simultaneously during the agricultural season in that piecework is available and is also desperately needed by households running short of food. People were paid for their work either in cash or in kind (e.g., in second-hand clothes, mealie meal, cooking oil, soap or salt). According to the respondents, it was also common to organise work parties at which beer was exchanged for labour input. In approximately half of the cases the household head was in charge of the wage activity, the other half being distributed between the spouse (25%) and other household members. Close to 80 per cent of the households (78) reported primarily using money from wage activities to buy food, and other purposes followed far behind: 39 spent at least part of the money on household items, 31 on health, 24 on clothes, 20 invested money in their business, 13 bought agricultural inputs, and 13 used it for school fees. Wage employment and piecework thus seemed, in most cases, more a means of coping than the deliberate allocation of resources in expectation of better returns. This was also supported by the fact that the proportion of wage income correlated negatively with the total household income.
Transfers The fourth category of non-farm income comprised transfers to the households. The proportions varied only a little, from five per cent in total income in the middle to 6.2 per cent in the low- and high-income categories. All in all, 105 households received transfers either in cash or in kind of which 71 received food aid 38 and 52 transfers from relatives. There were a few of pension payments, dowries, sponsorship, gifts and debt repayment. The proportion of households receiving transfers increased in line with their total income: 46 per cent in the poorest group, 52 per cent in the middle group and 63 per cent in the highincome group. Relatives sent either cash or goods to 52 households and in 37 (71%) of the cases these remittances originated from outside the home district. A total of 71 households received food aid, the number being highest in the high-income category (28). The value of relief food per receiving household was, on average, ZMK 57,846, which was slightly more than the market price of a 25kg bag of maize meal. At the time of the data collection the Chipata district was excluded from the World Food Programme relief-food distribution, although the other three districts were covered. In addition to receiving them, many households also sent transfers to their relatives and other households. Cross-tabulation of the variables – those receiving and those sending transfers revealed that 24 per cent of households both sent and received, 17 per cent did not receive but sent, 29 per cent received but did not send, and 30 per cent neither received nor sent any transfers. The correlations between the total household income and the amount of transfer income sent (0,318**) and received (0,262**) were significantly positive, which could reflect several factors, including the contribution of transfer income to total income, and the fact that the better off households were in a position to send more and were also entitled to receive more through reciprocal arrangements than the poor households. 6.1.5 Interrelationships between income sources Because the use of fertiliser seemed to be an important element in determining the total income of the household, some relationships between fertilisers and income sources were examined. The value of the assets (both livestock and other assets) of the households using fertiliser was significantly higher (at the 0.01 level) than that of those not using it. There was also a significant difference (at the 0.01 level) in livestock income between these two groups in favour of fertiliser users. Income from forest and business activity and piecework did not differ significantly between the fertiliser users and non-users, while in terms of transfer income the difference was significant (at the 0.05 level), the transfer recipients using more. The respondents also confirmed that transfer income enhanced their access to fertilisers. 38 Food aid was included in the calculations because it was assumed to contribute to the total household income. The transfer category was considered appropriate for recording food aid. 83
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 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 134 and 135:
134 CSO. 1997. Living Conditions Mo
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?