The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

5.3. Social capital, resource use, and agricultural productivity linkages
Table 5.5 presents seemingly unrelated results showing the relationship between social
capital, resource use, and agricultural productivity. The resources here are identified as labor
and manure. Fertilizer is not taken into account because the amounts used in both Machakos
and Taita-Taveta are generally very low. The study results show that none of the farmers in
Taita-Taveta use fertilizer, while 33.1 percent of the farmers in Machakos apply fertilizer. We
find that membership density does not influence resource use nor agricultural productivity.
With membership diversity, the effect is negative and significant, but only when associated
with labor use in Taita-Taveta. Internal strife is more likely among diverse groups.
Participation in decisionmaking is positive and significant but only with labor use in Taita-
Taveta. It is the other element of social capital—cognitive social capital, which is based on
solidarity, trust and cooperation—that has predominant effects on resource use and
agricultural productivity. Generally, cognitive social capital has positive and significant
effects on manure and labor use in both Machakos and Taita-Taveta. The same applies to the
combined data set. The only exception, however, is manure use in Taita-Taveta, which is
negative but not significant. This could be a statistical anomaly or simply the fact that manure
use in Taita-Taveta is extremely low. The study also shows that only 28 percent of the
farmers use manure in Taita-Taveta, compared with 76 percent in Machakos. The results are
mixed on the influence of cognitive social capital on agricultural productivity. In Machakos,
it is negative and significant, whereas in Taita-Taveta, it is positive and significant. With the
combined data set, the variable is negative and significant.