Thesis Re-print: Does Selling Fruits or Vegetables - Department of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 1: Introduction Despite decades-long negative or stagnant growth in productivity and GDP levels, a rapid transformation is occurring among African countries since 2000. Among the top ten performing countries in the world in GDP growth during this period, six are in Sub- Saharan Africa (Angola, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Chad, Mozambique and Rwanda, The Economist 2011). Together with some of the highest urban population growth rates in the world, this income growth is driving even more rapid growth in demand for higher quality foods such as fresh produce, meat, and dairy products. With the rate of change these countries are seeing now, some projections have estimated the current levels of market demand for fresh produce alone will quadruple over the next 30 years, with growth estimates ranging up to six times the current market demand for fresh produce just in its raw form (Tschirley et al., forthcoming). In such a rapidly transforming economy, per capita growth in fresh produce production will have to rise very rapidly to keep pace with the rising demand. In Mozambique – the focus of this thesis - domestic production has even more room to grow because so much of the fresh produce supplied to the capital city of Maputo, the primary urban market, originates in South Africa. Based on estimated current import shares and likely growth in demand, more efficient production and marketing by Mozambican farmers that allows for import substitution could support growth rates in excess of 10% per year for 30 years. In East and Southern Africa (ESA), it has been shown that, despite the success of export horticulture in some countries, and the great interest in replicating this in many countries, domestic and regional systems will contribute most to total growth in demand over at least the next 20 years. In addition, though supermarkets will continue to grow on 1
the continent, the broad consensus is now that their take over of market share will be much slower than was anticipated by some, leaving the so-called “traditional” sector as the dominant marketing channel for fresh produce for many years to come (Humphrey 2007, Traill 2006, Minten 2008, Tschirley et al. 2010). There are many possibilities that horticulture commercialization offers to smallholder farmers, however there are also many constraints smaller farmers face in order to take advantage of these opportunities. The value that can be gained from horticultural sales per unit of land is far greater than for widely marketable food crops and even for cash crops such as cotton and tobacco. 1 This very high production value per unit land area makes horticulture particularly attractive for land-constrained farmers -- who are the most likely to be poor. Since women frequently own the smallest plots, the ability to capitalize on horticultural production might also have the benefit of off-setting gender disparities in land access by enabling women to work their way out of poverty through agriculture. The fact that product can be sold from a single horticultural field multiple times over several weeks or months also provides built-in price risk management opportunities that typical staple or cash crops do not offer. However, some of the risks of horticultural marketing include (a) greater risk of losing one’s crop to pest or disease, (b) high cost of inputs (fertilizer and pesticides) for a successful harvest, (c) very high price variability, and (d) higher post-harvest perishability than other crops that are more easily stored or can travel further distances to a market without spoiling. 1 See Appendix A for a comparison of crop value and input costs in Zambia, performed by Chapoto et al. (forthcoming), which clearly illustrates the relative gross margins between maize, cotton and horticultural crops. 2
Page 1 and 2: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Directorate of
Page 5 and 6: (2) In the absence of other insuran
Page 7 and 8: for their ongoing prayers and suppo
Page 9 and 10: 4.4.1 Improved inputs or input pack
Page 11 and 12: LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: POPULATIO
Page 13: APE Average Partial Effect LIST OF
Page 17 and 18: Yet, because female-headed househol
Page 19 and 20: 2005. Because of attrition, 4,104 o
Page 21 and 22: matches where appropriate 3 and 229
Page 23 and 24: combining the elevation, land cover
Page 25 and 26: Figure 2: Urban Share of Population
Page 27 and 28: Figure 4: Income Elasticity of Dema
Page 29 and 30: Despite some government support to
Page 31 and 32: Table 2. Household characteristics
Page 33 and 34: Table 4. Household characteristics
Page 35 and 36: Figure 6: Share of fresh produce sa
Page 37 and 38: FFV sales is less, 22% of total inc
Page 39 and 40: Figure 8: Production Behavior of Fr
Page 41 and 42: Figure 10: Maize, Fruit and Vegetab
Page 43 and 44: suggesting that different factors d
Page 45 and 46: challenges for vegetable sales pose
Page 47 and 48: 2.3.3 Persistence of Successful Fre
Page 49 and 50: Descriptive statistics for a variet
Page 51 and 52: Market Access One of the factors th
Page 53 and 54: Table 8: Comparison of Fresh Produc
Page 55 and 56: also significantly more average roa
Page 57 and 58: sense. Average elevation is higher
Page 59 and 60: Chapter 3: Modeling smallholder fre
Page 61 and 62: crop produced almost exclusively un
Page 63 and 64: Neither market access nor price inf
Page 65 and 66:
Increasing productivity on fresh pr
Page 67 and 68:
Second, population density at the d
Page 69 and 70:
Table 9 (cont’d.) Category Asset
Page 71 and 72:
3.2.2 Strength of Asset Base Factor
Page 73 and 74:
valuation variable, also generated
Page 75 and 76:
hill or mountain and has to rise. O
Page 77 and 78:
to help control for adverse agro-ec
Page 79 and 80:
family with more adult females woul
Page 81 and 82:
decision to sell and the quantity d
Page 83 and 84:
3.4 Estimation Proceedure The Cragg
Page 85 and 86:
E 1 2 vx, x 1 1 xit + it | it i
Page 87 and 88:
mean of each time-varying explanato
Page 89 and 90:
The coefficients on population dens
Page 91 and 92:
Table 11 (cont’d.) Maize Probit M
Page 93 and 94:
Table 12 (cont’d.) Fruit Probit F
Page 95 and 96:
with the typically insignificant ef
Page 97 and 98:
sale outcomes, however. These resul
Page 99 and 100:
was created for the 150-day maize g
Page 101 and 102:
to spend additional money on effort
Page 103 and 104:
Chapter 4. Key Findings Strong grow
Page 105 and 106:
generate marketable surplus differs
Page 107 and 108:
Unlike among maize sellers, the var
Page 109 and 110:
growth in use, the proliferation of
Page 111 and 112:
4.4.3. Fruit and vegetable sellers
Page 113 and 114:
APPENDICES 100
Page 115 and 116:
Appendix B: Cost-Distance Travel Ti
Page 117 and 118:
Map 2: Cost Distance Surface using
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Map 8: Rainfall in Southern Africa
Page 125 and 126:
REFERENCES 112
Page 127 and 128:
Center for International Earth Scie
Page 129 and 130:
Report (Vol. 53E). Maputo, Mozambiq
show all

Thesis Re-print: Does Selling Fruits or Vegetables - Department of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?