Baseline Study of Striga Control using IR Maize in Western Kenya

income for their livelihoods. A 10% increase in the share of off-farm income in total incomereduces a household’s probability of being poor by about 34%. This implies that povertyreduction strategies must consider income-earning opportunities for rural households beyondfarming and provide the needed access to capital to enhance rural households’ access to theseopportunities. Diversification of farm income into cash crops production is yet anotheravenue within farming itself that could help reduce rural poverty. The results show that anadditional hectare of land under cash crops reduces a household’s probability of being poorby over 28%.The result relating to the positive relationship between credit and poverty confirms thatcausality runs from poverty to credit. Informal credit was indicated by the sample householdsas one of their coping strategies in times of food shortage and shocks. Informal credit is partof a larger inter-household cash as well as in kind borrowing and transfers that is used by thepoor to maintain their productive capacity (that is human capital). Poverty reductionstrategies should consider strengthening such social and financial capital assets of the poor.Agricultural technologies play a key role in poverty reduction. As expected, adoption ofhybrid maize is significantly and negatively related to the dependent variable, implying thathouseholds adopting hybrid maize are more likely to come out of poverty. The results showthat adopter households of hybrid maize have a 24% lower probability of being poor thannon-adopter households. However, increasing input-output price ratios followingliberalisation have had a negative influence on adoption of improved agriculturaltechnologies. While increased input-output market liberalisation has lowered food prices,input prices have increased due to the marginal effect of increased competition on marketingcosts relative to the effect of exchange rate devaluations and other reforms. The role ofincreased competition through private sector involvement in improving market efficiency andin reducing input prices for producers and output prices for consumers has been underminedby the lack of public infrastructural development and support services such as credit andextension. Strategies have yet to be developed on how to make improved technologies suchas hybrid maize more profitable for farmers to ensure sustainable technology adoption underthe current food price dilemma of what level of food prices would make food more accessibleto the poor without compromising producer incentives and hence food supply.With regard to location effects on poverty, households in all districts except Vihiga districthave lower probability of being poor than those in Bondo, the district of reference in thisanalysis. The econometric results thus lend strong support to the descriptive result showingthat Vihiga (82%) and Bondo (69%) have the highest level of poverty. Poverty analysisshows the proportion or households below the threshold of the two-third of average incomeper capita as a whole. Results for all the districts were computed on that overall average ofincome per capita. The results further show that only households in Bungoma have asignificantly lower probability of poverty compared with those in the reference Bondodistrict. This implies that poverty is less pervasive in Bungoma than in other districts,confirming its greater agricultural production potential.5.4 Household vulnerabilityVulnerability was assessed from two perspectives. The first considered the perception byrespondents of their vulnerability. Two parameters from the qualitative analysis wereconsidered: number of households affected by food shortages and frequency of foodshortages during the year. The second perspective used a neutral assessment of nutritionalpoverty (as opposed to farmer perceptions). Two parameters on vulnerable groups of36