Content uploaded by Alexandre Bertoncello
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexandre Bertoncello on May 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Poverty reduction in rural areas of low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: Assessing the role of agricultural productivity and socio-economic environment.
Abstract and Figures
Nowadays, agricultural prices are highlighted combined with, as alleged collateral effects, hunger and malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, today, SSA has around 47,5 percent of rural population in extreme poverty and between 1990 and 2005 when the food prices was stable and with low prices, extreme poverty in SSA involved around 64.6 percent. We assumed that the undernourishment or starvation continued in SSA because there the misery persisted. Poverty reduction is the only way to the end the hunger in Africa. Also, for an agricultural country in SSA – without significant mineral resources – the best way to solve the problem of poverty is through agricultural development. Our sample are nine countries in SSA – Burundi, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe – the so called SSA – 9. Thus, we built up a recursive model that answered how the agricultural gears in SSA – 9 were moving between 1990 and 2005, as well as assessed how the agriculture could reduce rural poverty. As a result we saw that the main tools that had a strong relation with poverty reduction in SSA – 9 are some policies implications as; property rights, access to the credit system, human capital and infrastructure.
Figures - uploaded by Alexandre Bertoncello
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Alexandre Bertoncello
Content may be subject to copyright.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
In Rwanda, for many years ago, rights over land for women and female orphans were not recognized. The main causes were the inexistence of efficient land administration systems and the prevalence of traditional system of land tenure which were complex and did not favor women and female descendants. In 2004, the Government of Rwanda had adopted a new land policy which was complemented by the 2005 Organic Land Law and a series of laws and regulations with regard to access to land, land management perspectives, and to the modalities of land rights transfer. The main goal of land policy reform in Rwanda is to protect and to enforce land holders' rights and the provision of land tenure security for all citizens without any discrimination. The study investigates the effects the land policy reform on rights over land for widow and female orphans. Data collected from the field survey in five districts of Rwanda and literature review were analyzed using qualitative and interpretative methods, following the principles of impact/outcome evaluation approach. Findings show that the implementation of a new land policy and associate regulations are having a positive impact in safeguard, protection and enforcement of land rights for widow and female orphans. Widow and female orphans are given back their lands previously grabbed by their relatives. However, there is a need to continuously and widely empower widow and female descendants for defending themselves against practices of land grabbing and/or land deprivation through sensitization and reinforcement of land related laws and regulations in place.
No country has been able to sustain a rapid transition out of poverty without raising productivity in its agricultural sector. Despite this historical role of agriculture in economic development, both the academic and donor communities lost interest in the sector, starting in the mid-1980s. This was mostly because of low prices in world markets for basic agricultural commodities, caused largely by the success of the Green Revolution in Asia. After two decades of neglect, interest in agriculture is returning. This paper explores the reasons why agriculture is back on the policy agenda for donors and poor countries alike. The most important reason is new understanding that economic growth is the main vehicle for reducing poverty and that growth in the agricultural sector plays a major role in that overall growth as well as in connecting the poor to growth. There is a sharp debate, however, between “optimists” and “pessimists” over the potential for small-scale agriculture to continue to play these historic roles. In a world of open trade, ready availability of cheap food in world markets, continued agricultural protection in rich countries, and economies of scale in access to food supply chains that are increasingly dominated by supermarkets and export buyers, large-scale farms with state-of-the-art technology and access to efficient infrastructure can push smallholders out of commercial markets. Consequently, the paper concludes, geographic coverage and operational efficiency of rural infrastructure, coupled to effective investment in modern agricultural research and extension, will determine the future role for agriculture in poverty reduction.
The period from 1960 to 2000 was one of remarkable growth and transformation in the world economy. Why did most of Sub-Saharan Africa fail to develop over this period? Why did a few small African economies succeed spectacularly? The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960-2000 is by far the most ambitious and comprehensive assessment of Africa's post-independence economic performance to date. Volume 1 examines the impact of resource wealth and geographical remoteness on Africa's growth and develops a new dataset of governance regimes covering all of Sub-Saharan Africa. Separate chapters analyze the dominant patterns of governance observed over the period and their impact on growth, the ideological formation of the political elite, the roots of political violence and reform, and the lessons of the 1960-2000 period for contemporary growth strategy.
On request of FAO a methodology was developed to assess the state of soil nutrient depletion under agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa for 1983 and the year 2000. The nutrient balance is described with five input and five output factors, which result in a nutrient loss rate. Production figures and data on fertilizer consumption for 1983 and projections for the year 2000 were provided by FAO. Data on nutrient balances as well as additional country information were collected from literature. Nutrient depletion rates for Sub-Saharan Africa are approximately 20 kg N, 10 kg P2O5 and 20 kg K2O per ha on average up to a maximum of 40 kg N, 20 kg P2O5 and 40 kg K2O per ha in East Africa.
The structure, efficiency, and growth of production affect (and are affected by) the distribution of consumption. Poverty analysis has three tasks: (1) to define and describe “poverty,” (2) to understand its causes, and (3) to inform policy. This chapter outlines history of economic thought on poverty since the mercantilists, concentrating on relevance to current economic analysis and policy. It examines how poverty is defined and measured. Evidence from modern household surveys has allowed in the examination of the interactions between demographic, nutritional, and labor-force characteristics of poverty groups. In this process, modern economics is developing some of the central insights of the classical economists, though with measurement and modeling methods not available to them. The chapter discusses the classic development issue of the effect of growth on poverty and inequality, and (the recent classic) macroeconomic adjustment and the poor. It explores several issues that arise in governmental attempts to reduce poverty through direct interventions.
Why have growth and development in poor countries failed to improve the welfare of the poorest people? This question was raised by Michael Lipton in 1977. He then argued that poverty persists mainly because development was designed by and for people in urban areas. Most poor people lived in rural areas, but the towns and cities got a far larger share of national resources. This, he argued, was not only unjust but also inefficient.
In this book, Lipton presents the theory of ‘urban bias’ arguing that the development of urban areas and industrialisation in poor countries has been at the expense of rural areas. During this time usual theory and practice saw development as a process of transformation from the rural and agricultural towards the urban and industrial, through fast and artificially stimulated resource transfers from village to city. Rural areas were not normally seen as a potential source of economic progress.
The book shows that public spending in poor countries has been concentrated on the development of urban areas and on industrial growth. Governments tend to favour allocating resources to towns and cities as opposed to villages. This is mainly because people in urban areas have more political power to convince governments to make taxation and spending choices that favour their interests.
Key findings include:
The 60 to 80 percent of people in poor countries who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods are typically allocated less than 20 percent of development spending.
Urban areas get a disproportionately and inefficiently high share of public spending, particularly in health and education.
Poor people in rural areas are disadvantaged in terms of nutrition, education, health, technology and access to financial services.
Government policies keep goods and services from rural areas (for example, food) under-priced and those from urban areas over-priced.
Urban bias has resulted in a rural skills drain as educated younger workers leave to work in towns and cities.
Urban bias has prevented the formation of valuable rural-urban links.
Lipton argues that comparisons being made with the economic history of the industrialised countries were misleading: the gap between urban and rural wealth and power was much bigger in poor countries than it had been in rich countries during the early stages of their development. Successful pro-poor development would require a much larger share of resources for rural areas and farming.
Key recommendations include:
Development normally requires industrialisation but both are impeded when countries seek to industrialise too early, too quickly or by artificial resource extraction from rural areas.
Resources should be initially directed towards developing the agricultural sector: growing farm productivity has almost invariably been a pre-condition of successful development in other sectors.
Investment in small-scale agriculture would be the best way to raise incomes quickly in poor countries, with high ratios of labour to capital, because it is labour-intensive farming, especially on a small scale, and rural activity in general, uses less capital (directly and for infrastructure) per unit of labour than does urban industry.
Rural and agricultural enterprises need better – but not normally subsidised – access to loans and investment.
Incentives are needed to encourage public sector workers, particularly in education and healthcare, to work in rural areas.
Governments should set and monitor targets for the share of public spending on farming and rural areas.