SIERRA LEONE maq 4ª.indd - agrilife - Europa

price, which is higher than the market price, up
to 20-40% higher in some cases (Chibnik 1978).
In the case of Sierra Leone, a 10% difference
was adopted since this is the prevailing price
difference between local and imported rice when
purchased in the rural areas. The assumption
is that by relying on self-production farm
households do not depend on imported rice
to fulfil their needs (See section 3.5.2). In other
words, this 10% adjustment in value comes from
the fact that farm households prefer to secure
their food and avoid risks and uncertainties of
future unpredictable market economy.
In the Neoclassical approach all units of
time, whether in housework, wage work or
leisure, are valued at their opportunity cost in
terms of the market wage (Ellis 1993; Boadway
2006). This means that marginal valuation of
labour is equal to market wage. However this
does not apply for the farmers operating in
areas where labour market is limited/inexistent
(Colman & Young 1989). According to Ellis (1993)
it is more consistent and analytically useful to
consider peasant households in terms of their
only partial integration into the market economy
and the incomplete markets within which they
operate. In other words, following the second
approach there are differences both in terms of
the objectives guiding peasant behaviour and
the impossibility to assume perfect competition
in the labour markets. In fact, there is not only a
practically non-existent or extremely constrained
labour market but a complex institutional setting
in which farm households rely for securing other
forms of intangible goods and services (i.e. tacit
safety nets) in a context of strong social (village)
cohesion.
The highly constrained or non-existent
labour market means that the household
labour cannot be effectively valued at market
opportunity wage, thus, it is assumed to be close
to zero. This follows earlier approaches already
applied for similar cases and circumstances (cf.
Dasgupta, Marglin and Sen (1972) and Little and
Mirrlees (1974)). When there is no labour market,
until the value of output riches the minimum
subsistence level, the marginal valuation of
labour is equal to zero, and leisure cannot be
valued at any price (Coman & Young 1989
p.156 top). On commercial farms (also defined
as entrepreneurial farms, or capitalist farms),
increases in labour input without concomitant
income gains can lead to losses because profit
equals output value minus outlay on materials
minus wages, minus other payments (e.g. debtinterests,
land rent). On family/peasant farms,
however, increases in (family) labour inputs
without corresponding increases in income do
not necessarily lead to monetary losses because
of the absence of wages. Thus, on family/peasant
farms, valuing family labour as equal to the
wages of hired workers is nonsensical (Chayanov
(1920), on Chayanov theory cf. Chibnik (1989)).
As suggested above (and explained in
Section 3), there is an important social aspect
that needs to be taken into account which is that
farm households in Sierra Leone are extremely
integrated at village and chiefdom level. On the
one hand, property rights are not assured (but
rather enforced by the authority of the Paramount
Chief) and the land is frequently rotated due to
the shifting cultivation system in place (thus not
giving them sufficient motivation to put extra
efforts33 nor invest34 in one specific plot). On
the other hand, all assets are perceived to have
a common value and are thus frequently shared
between the villagers beyond the household
33 According to survey evaluations by the Government of
Sierra Leone (2007) “often farmer groups report very large
amounts of labour to complete a given task, especially
when the task was carried out by a gang or collective
group. It may be that in these cases the task in question
was completed in less than a full working day, or it may be
that the pace of work in some groups is relaxed with the
work treated as much as an opportunity to socialize as to
get the job done, or simply that farmers just over-estimate
and over-report the time taken”. In other words, issues of
free riding may also be taking place at the village level.
34 As stated earlier in Section 3, access to credit at the farm
level is infrequent. First because to use land as collateral
the individual would require the written permission of
the extended family (the latter is an infrequent event)
and second, all potential benefits would also have to be
redistributed leaving the individual farmers with reduced
return for its risk taking.
Rural poverty reduction and food security: The case of smallholders in Sierra Leone
81