During the rest of the year, there are much less employment opportunities for rural than urban households, with the former working about half the time worked by urban households during the low season . Lack of labor smoothing across months can thus be a major cause of income differentials between rural and urban households. Measuring annual labor productivity as median household real consumption per capita, rural households are at 57% of individuals in urban households. When this is measured not per year but per hour worked, rural households are at 81% of individuals in urban households. With high urban unemployment in Malawi limiting the option of reducing rural poverty through permanent or seasonal rural-urban migration, this suggests that a key instrument for rural poverty reduction is to have less idle time for land and labor throughout the monthly calendar. For Bangladesh, Lagakos et al. proposed filling labor calendars for rural households through migration to cities during the lean season. When this option is not available due to high urban unemployment filling and smoothing labor calendars in rural areas becomes a key dimension of poverty reduction. This can involve employment both in agriculture with more diversified farming systems and in the local rural non-farm economy. This is the purpose of the agricultural and rural transformations that are important in redefining how to use agriculture for development.
Based on work done for the IFAD Rural Development Report led by Binswanger, for China by Huang , by BRAC on graduating the ultra-poor out of poverty ,nft hydroponic for the Gates Foundation by Boettiger et al. , and for the ATAI project , a strategy of using agriculture for development would involve the following five steps: Asset building, Green Revolution, Agricultural Transformation, Rural Transformation, and ultimately Structural Transformation as described in Table 1.Minimum asset endowments for SHF under the form of land, capital, health, knowledge and skills, and social capital are needed to initiate production for the market and participation in a value chain. This corresponds to minimum capital endowments to get started in production in farm household models such as Eswaran and Kotwal’s , and to asset thresholds to escape poverty traps in Barrett and Carter . The BRAC graduation model for the rural ultra-poor thus importantly starts with achieving minimum asset thresholds for households to engage in self-employment in agriculture , with rigorous impact evaluations demonstrating success in raising household consumption in five of six case countries. Evaluation with a randomized experiment of a BRAC credit program for landless workers and SHF in Bangladesh shows that loans can be used to achieve minimum asset endowments by renting land and selecting more favorable fixed rent over sharecropping contracts . The Green Revolution, whereby productivity growth is achieved in staple crops through the adoption and diffusion of high yielding variety seeds and fertilizers is the initial step in agricultural modernization. It has been actively pursued to achieve food security and is a learning ground for the subsequent transformations of agriculture and rural areas.
It has been a major success of the Consultative Group in International Agricultural Research and is still an ongoing effort in Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern India. A key objective of the Agricultural Transformation is to fill in rural households’ labor calendars over as much of the year as possible through multiple cropping — which typically requires water control to cultivate land in the dry season–, the development of value chains for new crops, and contracting among agents in these value chains. An example is the introduction of short duration rice varieties in Bangladesh that frees the land for an additional crop, typically high value products such as potatoes and onions, between rainy season and dry season rice crops. This makes an important contribution to filling land and labor calendars and to reducing the length of the hungry season . Because the Agricultural Transformation implies diversification of farming systems, it is a key element of national food security strategies where diverse diets, including perishable goods such as fruits and vegetables, dairy products, and meats that are less traded than staple foods, are an important element of healthy diets . SHFs are engaged in value chains that define the way they relate to markets. Value chains for agricultural products link farmers backward to their input and technology suppliers and forward to intermediaries, processors, and ultimately consumers . Relations within value chains often take the form of contractual arrangements. Induced by income gains for consumers, urbanization, and globalization, there has been in recent years a rapid development of value chains not only for low-value staple food crops, but also for medium value traditional domestic consumption and export crops, and high-value non-traditional export crops. Their structure can take a wide variety of forms in linking SHF to consumers, ranging from traditional spot markets to elaborate contract farming, productive alliances , and out-grower schemes.Contracts can be “resource-providing”, thus contributing to solve market and institutional failures for participating SHFs.
A key objective of the Rural Transformation is to give access to smallholder households to sources of income beyond agriculture. In Ghana, income derived from the rural non-farm economy for rural households is about 40% of total income, a share that increases as land endowments fall . It is indeed the case that, with land limitations, smallholder households rarely exit poverty with agriculture alone. A rural transformation requires the development of land markets and of labor markets . This process will typically happen first in the more favorable areas where a rural non-farm economy linked to agriculture can develop through forward, backward, and final demand linkages. It corresponds to the Agriculture Demand-Led Industrialization strategy advocated by Adelman and Mellor that is actively pursued in countries such as Ethiopia and Rwanda, and through CAADP in much of Sub-Saharan Africa. There are basically two contrasted approaches to potentially overcoming the problems that obstruct an Agriculture for Development sequence. The first consists in focusing on particular groups of farmers and addressing each of the problems in their own shapes and forms that affect them in modernizing. We can label this a “supply-side” approach to modernization and transformations. It consists in securing the existence and profitability of innovations, ensuring their local availability, and then overcoming each of the four major constraints to demand and adoption through either better technology or through institutional innovations . The agents for this approach are principally public and social such as governments, development agencies, NGOs, and donors. The second consists in creating incentives for SHF to modernize by building value chains for the particular product, and managing vertical and horizontal coordination within the value chains to overcome the profitability-availability-constraints obstacles as they apply to inclusion and competitiveness of SHF in the value chain. This is a “demand-side” approach to modernization and transformations. It consists in creating the demand for innovations in order to establish SHF competitiveness within a value chain, and then securing the existence, availability, and conditions for adoption of innovations. The approach thus requires both value chain development and value chain inclusion of SHFs. In this case, the agents are principally private such as enterprises and producer organizations for contracting, and lead firms, multi-stakeholder platforms, and benevolent agents for coordination. Public-private partnerships can be found among both supply- and demand-side initiatives.Technological innovation are first analyzed in experimental plots, usually for yield and resilience to specific shocks. But this does not tell us whether the innovation is likely to be adopted by SHF. Analysis of the adoption problem should start with verification that the innovation is indeed profitable for the intended SHF under their own circumstances, objectives, and capacities. Measuring profitability in farmers’ plots is however very difficult . There are data problems in observing family labor time and definitional problems in establishing the opportunity cost for family labor and self-provided inputs. Conditions also vary year-to-year due to weather conditions, with only short time series to observe how climate affects outcomes, made even more difficult to interpret with climate change. And there are many unobservable conditions and complementary factors that affect profitability and compromise the external validity of any measurement made at a particular time and place. An alternative approach is to verify profitability without measuring it. Some among the best endowed and best located farmers have to be able to make sustained use of the innovation for the innovation to have adoption potential by others under current market, policy, nft system and complementary input conditions. This can be established by observation, experimentation, or simulation.
Once the innovation is proven profitable and is locally available, its adoption may still be hampered by constraints facing SHF in accessing liquidity, risk-reducing instruments, information, and markets. These four categories of constraints have been extensively analyzed using in particular randomized control trials to identify their causal relations to adoption . These studies typically seek to identify ways of overcoming these constraints that could be implemented by governments, international organizations, NGOs, and benevolent agents such as philanthropic foundations and corporate social responsibility initiatives. Due to seasonality, especially under rainfed farming conditions which is where most of the lag in modernization currently prevails , there is a lack of correspondence between the timing of agricultural incomes and that of expenditures. As a consequence, the inter-temporal displacement of liquidity through credit and savings appears to be important for farmers to invest in new technologies, purchase inputs, optimize the timing of sales, buy consumption goods, and cover timely expenditures such as school fees. Financial services for SHFs appear to frequently be ill-designed for their purpose, expensive, excessively risky, and not easily available. Even when they have formal land titles, SHF are typically unwilling to put their land at risk as collateral with a commercial bank, thus acting as “risk constrained” . Microfinance products that effectively circumvent the collateral problem by relying on group lending and joint liability tend to be too expensive for the long agricultural cycles and have repayment conditions that are typically ill adapted to the timing of farmers’ capacity to pay . Availability of credit from formal sources, both commercial and non-profit, is consequently limited, and SHFs must either self-finance or rely on informal lenders with prohibitive interest rates. Hence, there would appear to exist a largely unresolved liquidity constraint on adoption originating on the supply side of the financial market. Yet, this is often not the main reason for low adoption which may be on the demand side. Recent field experiments are providing evaluations of interventions aiming at relaxing the liquidity constraint on SHFs, with fertilizer the most commonly used indicator of technology adoption because of its ubiquitous recognition and yet massive under use. While contexts and interventions vary for these experiments, they surprisingly tend to show that a liquidity constraint is not the reason why a majority of SHFs are under-investing in fertilizers. The main constraint may be instead lack of profitability in adopting fertilizers.A first category of experiments consists in providing unrestricted access to credit to a defined eligible population, as was done in Morocco , Mali , and Ethiopia . While interest rates in these studies were variously subsidized , uptake remained low: only 17% of eligible farmers took a loan in Morocco, 21% in Mali, and 36% in Ethiopia. Furthermore, farmers that did take a loan only used a small fraction of the liquidity to increase their expenditures on fertilizer or other agricultural inputs . Other experiments offered restricted credit that can only be used to purchase agricultural inputs. Such credit displaces the equilibrium allocation of liquidity in favor of the targeted inputs, similarly to what a price discount would do. And yet, uptake remained low. In Malawi input credit for high-yielding maize and groundnuts was taken by 33% of the farmers . This low demand for credit thus seems to be reflective of a low demand for the inputs themselves. Low demand for fertilizer is exemplified in two rather extreme experiments. In Mali, Beaman et al. provided to another group of farmers a pure cash grant, rather than the credit described above. This only increased expenditures on fertilizer by 15%, in comparison with 11% with a credit that had to be paid for, showing that credit is not the major constraint to adoption.