- 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: Table 6. Percentages of income from
- 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 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