Decomposing Rural Income into Sectors to Identify Their Likely Contributions to Rural Poverty Reduction in Bangladesh

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 224-246
Author(s):  
Mohammed Helal Uddin ◽  
Nurul Islam
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Rural Households ◽  
Rural Poverty ◽  
Real Income ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Efficiency Enhancement ◽  
Real Wages ◽  
Rural Income ◽  
Different Sources ◽  
Cent Decrease

The article estimates the contribution of total income from each sector to the overall rural income. It tests if the poor, who are concentrated in the lower-income quintiles, gain most from farm or non-farm sources of income growth. Also, within the farm or non-farm income, what are the relative contributions of its different sources. The dominance of agriculture is still there for the lowest quintile of rural households, farming still being the dominant sub-category. Over 1991–2010, a 13 per cent decrease in per capita real income from agricultural wages for all rural households and a 41 per cent decrease in that for Quintile 1 rural households contradict the earlier finding that increases in real wages were one of the main contributors to poverty reduction. Quintile-wise decomposition suggests that a substantial income enhancement was realised at upper quintiles of rural households. It also appears from the quintile-wise decomposition that the efficiency enhancement was realised more at upper quintiles leaving a relatively smaller effect on poverty reduction.

scholarly journals Efficiency of small scale vegetable farms: policy implications for the rural poverty reduction in Nepal

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (No. 4) ◽  
pp. 181-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.B. Shrestha ◽  
W.-Ch. Huang ◽  
S. Gautam ◽  
T.G. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Support Services ◽  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Smallholder Farmers ◽  
Rural Poverty ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Vegetable Production ◽  
Parametric Data

Poverty and hunger reduction are intertwined challenges and enduring issues in the world, particularly in developing countries. Improvement in the efficiency in vegetable farming helps the farmers increase the per capita income, reduce poverty and eventually improve the livelihood of smallholder farmers. This paper evaluates economic efficiency of vegetable farms in Nepal using a non-parametric data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. The results show evidence to suggest that vegetable farms in Nepal have a considerable potential for improving the vegetable production efficiency with a greater access to improved seed, agricultural credit, and training and extension services. Some policies options with regard to the vegetable production technology, and support services for farmers in general and women farmers in particular, are suggested to increase the farm efficiency. While some of these support services are currently available, we suggest that a more focus be given to creating the improved market access, to the women focused extension, and to training packages for the sustainable production. These support services can lead to increases in the farm income and to reduce poverty.

Analysis of income determinants among rural households in Kosovo

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-457
Author(s):  
Prespa Ymeri ◽  
Arben Musliu ◽  
Jehona Shkodra ◽  
Iliriana Miftari ◽  
Csaba Fogarassy
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Alleviation ◽  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Rural Households ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Alternative Employment ◽  
Size Number ◽  
Nonfarm Income ◽  
Nonfarm Employment

AbstractKosovo is one of the poorest countries in Europe, despite the various poverty alleviation programs implemented by the authorities and the international funding community. This study aims to analyze income distribution inequality and factors behind rural households' poverty in Kosovo. Data on farm income, nonfarm income, unearned income, and socio-economic characteristics were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire from 203 randomly selected households in Kosovo. Linear regression, one-way ANOVA, and different versions of poverty indexes were used to examine the data. One-quarter of households' income comes from nonfarm activities. The middle-income households had the highest potential to find alternative employment in the nonfarm sector. Years of education, household size, number of family members above the age of 18, and total income had a positive impact on nonfarm revenues. The poorest rural households had the highest share of income from farm activities (77.52%). Nonfarm revenues have a positive impact on poverty alleviation; thus, the study suggests adopting suitable rural policies to enhance nonfarm employment for vulnerable rural households. The agro-tourism sector and circular economy approaches in agriculture with the focus on renewable energy can be considered as potential sources of nonfarm income, which could lead to sustainable poverty reduction.

Income diversification strategies among rural households in developing countries

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernardin Senadza
Keyword(s):  
Rural Households ◽  
Multinomial Logit ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Income Diversification ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Access To Credit ◽  
Self Employment ◽  
Rural Income ◽  
Diversification Strategies ◽  
On Farm

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the income strategies adopted by rural households in Ghana and analyzes the determinants of households’ choice of income portfolio. Design/methodology/approach – A multinomial logit approach is employed by the paper to investigate the determinants of various income strategies adopted by households in rural Ghana. Findings – Results indicate that household characteristics, location and infrastructure all play a role in explaining the adoption of income strategies other than a purely on-farm strategy by households. Education is a key determinant of income strategies involving non-farm wage employment, while access to credit and electricity play important roles in non-farm self-employment income strategies. Practical implications – The findings of the paper call for a promotion of off-farm income opportunities to complement farm incomes and to enhance access of rural households to these sources of income. Originality/value – The paper models rural household income portfolios into mutually exclusive categories which enables the application of the multinomial logit approach. The paper deviates from mainstream rural income diversification literature that has focussed on assessing the determinants of income shares.

scholarly journals COMPOSITION AND DETERMINANTS OF RURAL NON-FARM INCOME DIVERSIFICATION IN NIGERIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluseyi Olutoyin Olugbire ◽  
Oluwatosin Esther Obafunsho ◽  
Titilope Omolara Olarewaju ◽  
Ruth Ibukun Kolade ◽  
Festus Abiodun Odediran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Formal Education ◽  
Rural Households ◽  
Farm Size ◽  
Living Standard ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
National Bureau ◽  
Access To Credit ◽  
Poor Households ◽  
Reduction Strategies

Farming has been considered as main source of income for rural households in Nigeria, despite their involvement in other income generating activities. Focusing on income derivable from farming alone may be partially responsible for the ineffective poverty reduction strategies in Nigeria. Using the National Living Standard Survey data collected by the National Bureau of Statistics, this paper investigated the composition and determinants of non-farm incomes of rural households in Nigeria. The results show that the share of farm, non-farm wage (NFW)- and self-employment (NFS) incomes in total household incomes were 24.3%, 43.0% and 23.7% respectively. Households whose heads are male (0.647), had formal education (0.522), increased the likelihood of households’ participation in NFW activities, while access to credit (-0.307) and having larger farm size (-0.221) decreased it. Access to credit (0.379); community participation (0.103); larger family size (0.193) and possession of capital assets (0.069) increased the likelihood of participation in NFS-employment activities, while having larger farm size (-0.211) decreased it. The study concludes that policy targeting poverty reduction should focus on providing enabling environment for poor households’ access to non-farm activities in the study area.

scholarly journals The Impact of Soil and Water Conservation on Agricultural Economic Growth and Rural Poverty Reduction in China

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 4444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Abdul-Rahim ◽  
Chenglong Sun ◽  
A. Noraida
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Agricultural Economic ◽  
Water Conservation ◽  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Rural Households ◽  
Rural Poverty ◽  
Soil And Water Conservation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Soil And Water ◽  
Agricultural Economies

There is a lack of systematic study on the impact of soil and water conservation on the sustainable development of agricultural economies and rural poverty reduction in China. This study investigates the effects of soil and water conservation on agricultural economic growth. It looks at levels of disposable income in rural households in China and uses the econometric method to examine panel data obtained from 30 provinces between 2003–2012. Agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) is the dependent variable, and soil and water conservation are the independent variables. Farmland area, along with four other variables, is the control variables that are used to establish the Cobb–Douglas production function and provide further data. It was found that soil and water conservation have a significant impact on the per capita income of rural households in China. The findings support that soil and water conservation can contribute to the agricultural economic growth and rural poverty reduction in China. There is evidence that supports the idea that soil quality and capital input are now more important in poverty reduction and economic growth than farmland area and agricultural labour. The government and farmers need to prioritise investment in soil and water conservation in order to promote the development of agricultural economies and reduce rural poverty.

INTENSIFICATION BENEFIT INDEX: HOW MUCH CAN RURAL HOUSEHOLDS BENEFIT FROM AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION?

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. HARRIS
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Rural Households ◽  
Rural Poverty ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Farm Size ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Small Farms ◽  
Actual Performance ◽  
Smallholder Farm

SUMMARYSustainable intensification (SI) of agriculture is the predominant objective for agricultural research and extension worldwide. Researchers and policymakers consider SI to be essential to avoid global hunger, improve human nutrition and reduce rural poverty while avoiding all manner of environmental disasters. To achieve these global public goods requires a large number of rural households – ‘small farmers’ – in less developed countries to improve their agriculture. Household size and farm size from 11,789 households in 15 countries from sub-Saharan Africa were used to calculate an intensification benefit index (IBI) that reflects how much a household will benefit if intensification occurs. IBI is defined as the increase in personal daily income (cents/person/day) as returns to land (dollars/hectare/year) increase. Actual net farm income from 160 rural households in each of three countries was compared with their IBI values to explore the gap between potential intensification and current smallholder farm performance. Fifty percent of all households had IBI values less than 0.075 cents/dollar, 70% less than 0.125 cents/dollar and 90% less than 0.225 cents/dollar. Returns of $1000/ha/year would result in fewer than 15% of households crossing a $2/person/day poverty line; $2500/ha/year would be required to lift 50% of the sample above the line; and even with $4000/ha/year, more than 30% of households would remain below the line. Since mean net returns from three sub-sampled sites were only $78, $83 and $424/ha/year the gap between potential- and actual performance is large but, theoretically, amenable to closure through adoption of improved technologies. However, surveys have shown that the available technologies would struggle to bridge the gap completely for rural households with small farms. For many small farms, the gains from adopting improved technologies are unlikely by themselves to lift them out of poverty and so might not be as attractive as scientists would wish.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document