Ghent University, Belgium

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Drivers of commercialisation in agriculture in Vietnam Andy McKay and Chiara Cazzuffi University of Sussex, UK Paper in progress as part of a DANIDA/BSPS.
Advertisements

Consumption Preferences, Risk and Production Choices – the Case of Ethiopian Farm Households Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse.
Poverty and Income Distribution in Ethiopia: By Abebe Shimeles, PhD.
A Comparative Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Tobacco and Maize Farmers in Tabora- Tanzania A.Kidane; A.Hepelwa; E.Ngeh & T. W. Hu This study was supported.
What do we know about gender and agriculture in Africa? Markus Goldstein Michael O’Sullivan The World Bank Cross-Country Workshop for Impact Evaluations.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty Ghana Strategy Support Program Targeting smallholders.
Drivers of Rural Land Rental Markets in sub-Saharan Africa, and their Impact Household Welfare. Evidence from Malawi and Zambia Jordan Chamberlin (Michigan.
Ameet Morjaria NSF-AERC-IGC Workshop Mombasa, 4 th Dec 2010 Comments on: “Adoption and Impact of Conservation Agriculture in Central Ethiopia: Application.
1 The Comparative Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Jasmine Rice Production in Thailand Using Survey and Measurement Data The Comparative Analysis of.
R EVIEW OF THE I NVERSE F ARM S IZE -E FFICIENCY R ELATIONSHIP IN A FRICA : M ETHODOLOGICAL I SSUES AND E MPIRICAL E VIDENCE FROM T HREE A FRICAN C OUNTRIES.
Targeting of Public Spending Menno Pradhan Senior Poverty Economist The World Bank office, Jakarta.
Welcome to Fantasyland: Comparing Approaches to Land Area Measurement in Household Surveys Sydney Gourlay Survey Specialist Living Standards Measurement.
Spillover Effects of Large- Scale Commercial Farms in Ethiopia Daniel Ali, Klaus Deininger and Anthony Harris (World Bank – DECAR)
11 Chapter 5 The Research Process – Hypothesis Development – (Stage 4 in Research Process) © 2009 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Determinants of Changing Behaviors of NERICA Adoption: An Analysis of Panel Data from Uganda Yoko Kijima (University of Tsukuba) Keijiro Otsuka (FASID)
1 CDRI Research Workshop 29 January Related Project  Poverty Dynamic Studies (PDS), funded by the World Bank Objective of the project: Identify.
Determinants of women’s labor force participation and economic empowerment in Albania Juna Miluka University of New York Tirana September, 14, 2015.
Income Convergence in South Africa: Fact or Measurement Error? Tobias Lechtenfeld & Asmus Zoch.
Kolawole Ogundari Dept. of Applied Economics & Statistics, University of Delaware USA Titus Awokuse Dept. of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics Michigan.
I S S MALL S TILL B EAUTIFUL ? T HE F ARM S IZE -P RODUCTIVITY R ELATIONSHIP R EVISITED IN K ENYA Milu Muyanga & T.S. Jayne Agricultural, Food and Resource.
REVISITING THE FARM SIZE PRODUCTIVITY RELATIONSHIP: NEW EVIDENCE FROM SUB-SAHARA AFRICAN COUNTRIES PASQUALE LUCIO SCANDIZZO AND SARA SAVASTANO UNIVERSITY.
The Impact of Health on Human Capital Stocks Fourth World KLEMS Conference May 23, 2016 Lea Samek and Mary O’Mahony.
Modeling Poverty Martin Ravallion Development Research Group, World Bank.
Introduction Poverty is well documented in Mozambique, but few studies have systematically made distinction between chronic and transitory poverty or estimate.
Descriptive Statistics Report Reliability test Validity test & Summated scale Dr. Peerayuth Charoensukmongkol, ICO NIDA Research Methods in Management.
Farm Typologies in Tanzania and Malawi Africa RISING IFPRI) ESA Africa RISING writeshop, Dar es Salaam July 1, 2016.
Methods of Presenting and Interpreting Information Class 9.
Typical farms and hybrid approaches
Impact of agricultural innovation adoption: a meta-analysis
Kotchikpa Gabriel Lawin Lota Dabio Tamini
How do land rental markets affect household income
STAT 312 Chapter 7 - Statistical Intervals Based on a Single Sample
F-tests continued.
Ramakrishna Nallathiga Knowledge Manager Centre for Good Governance
Microfinance and small holder farmers productivity
By Samuel Gebreselassie
Does inclusion of large farms reverse the farm-size productivity relationship? Evidence from Ethiopia Sinafikeh Gemessa, Daniel A. Ali, Klaus Deininger.
The treatment of uncertainty in the results
Demand Estimation and Forecasting
Is Economic Growth In Sub-Saharan Africa Gender Inclusive. Juliet U
Urbanization and Development: Is LAC Different from the Rest of the World? Mark Roberts (GSURR, World Bank), Brian Blankespoor (DEC-RG, World Bank),
Agricultural cost of production statistics: main concepts
Sharmina Ahmed, PhD student
Chow test.
Cost of Production: Uses and Users
Juna Miluka Gero Carletto Benjamin Davis Alberto Zezza
An introduction to Impact Evaluation
Statistical inference: distribution, hypothesis testing
Elementary Statistics
More on Specification and Data Issues
An Investigation into the Impact of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework on Budgetary Outcomes Jim Brumby World Bank.
Sven Blank (University of Tübingen)
Chapter 9 Hypothesis Testing.
Migration and the Labour Market
Our theory states Y=f(X) Regression is used to test theory.
Sampling and Power Slides by Jishnu Das.
Explanation of slide: Logos, to show while the audience arrive.
External Validity.
Seminar in Economics Econ. 470
Statistics II: An Overview of Statistics
The Simple Regression Model
Carrying out an Empirical Project
London Business School and City University, London
The Role of Road Infrastructure in Agricultural Production
5/5/2019 Financial dependence and industry growth in Europe: Better banks and higher productivity Robert Inklaar and Michael Koetter University of Groningen.
Working with the Solow Growth Model
JDS International Seminar 2018
Sample Sizes for IE Power Calculations.
Assessing the inverse farm size-productivity relationship in Malawi
Presentation transcript:

Ghent University, Belgium Land productivity and plot size: Is measurement error driving the inverse relationship? Sam Desiere Ghent University, Belgium sam.desiere@ugent.be & Dean Jolliffe World Bank, IZA and NPC Slides prepared for the Land and Poverty Conference 2018: Land Governance in an Interconnected World, Washington, DC: 2018

Outline Background – why this matters Understanding land productivity is central to improving wellbeing of the poor Extensive empirical history on the inverse relationship between productivity & land size (IR) Data and methodology Yield = output / cultivated land size Focus on output measure Compare crop cuts with self reports of crop yields Results Systematic measurement error in self reports => IR Implications 1 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Wellbeing & land productivity 40% of global extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa Ferreira et al (2016) Large majority of these people are engaged in activities linked to farm land Livingston et al (2001) In rest of the world, the vast majority of those living in extreme poor are in rural areas Povcalnet 10% increase in land productivity estimated to reduce poverty by 7% Irz et al (2001), Africa 1 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications

The inverse relationship between yields and land size (IR) Yields are declining in farm size Decades of empirical studies => fragmentation improves productivity => Suggests no tradeoff between equity and efficiency in terms of land redistribution Yields are declining in plot size (within a farm) Accepted as stylized fact in developing countries => Farm household irrationally applying labor and other inputs inefficiently Yields Cultivated land area 2 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

IR, some candidate explanations: Missing markets – land, labor, credit, inputs labor markets (can’t hire in/out) => nonseparable production and consumption decisions, household size determines labor inputs => can explain IR for farm size, but not plot size. Soil quality Barret (2010) evidence against soil quality as explanation, marginally linked to IR Measurement error in land size Carletto et al. provides some evidence supporting this, but also evidence from at least one country contradicting 3 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

IR, a new explanation: systematic error in self-reports of production Most/all studies about the IR estimate yields by dividing self-reported production by plot size Self-reported production is measured with error, and the error can be systematically correlated with plot size If farmers over report production on small plots and under report it on larger plots, the IR is an artifact of the measurement 4 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Alternate measure of yield allows us to test this: crop cuts Crop cuts viewed as a gold standard for measuring yield Crop cut methodology Stages 1 & 2: randomly select EA, randomly select plots Stage 3: randomly select subplot (2m x 2m or 4m x 4m) Subplot is harvested and weighed (both wet and dry) during harvest by a trained enumerator Caveat: Crop cuts also measure yield with error Maximum yield, ignores crop loss Sampling error (random sub plot selected from plot) Instrument precision error Variation in ‘dryness’ BUT we argue there is no reason for the expectation of this error to be correlated with plot size. This is a key assumption. 5 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Data ESS1 and ESS2 are pooled for power This also allows us to check temporal external validity Crop cuts are implemented on a subsample of plots during harvest for 23 crops 2m x 2m subplot in wave 1 4m x 4m subplot in wave 2 Self-reported production reported by plot during third visit (January- March) and plot size measured with GPS Average recall period for self reports is 85 days 5248 plots with both crop cuts and self-reported production 6 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Descriptive statistics: maize yields Median maize yields (kg/ha) by plot size and measurement method (wave 2 only) 1. The IR disappears if yields are based on crop cuts (blue) 2. Yields based on self-reported production (red) are systematically over estimated on small plots Similar finding for different crops, for wave 1, for means. Also similar finding if we control for household characteristics, labor intensity, EA attributes as seen in regression analysis. 7 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Methodology, generalizing the descriptive findings 1. Does the IR disappear if yields are measured with crop cuts? log⁡(𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑗 )=α log 𝐴 𝑖𝑗 +𝛿 𝑋 𝑖𝑗 +𝛽 𝐿 𝑖 +𝑢 𝑟 +𝜀 𝑖𝑗 Estimate separately for yield measures (crop cut & self-reports), compare α where A is plot size; X: plot and household characteristics (controlling for possibly nonrandom allocation of plots); L: labor (controlling for possibly nonrandom effort level by plot size); 𝑢 𝑟 : enumeration area fixed effects (controlling for possibility that EA is correlated with plot size and yield – eg. Soil, hilliness, rainfall) 8 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Self-reported measurement Regression Results The IR is strong if yields are measured with self-reported production, but disappears if yields are measured with crop cuts   Self-reported measurement  Crop cuts (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Log plot size (m²) -0.397*** -0.396*** -0.303*** -0.161*** 0.104*** 0.149*** (-33.26) (-36.11) (-12.65) (-6.22) (8.63) (9.36) Household fixed effects X Enumeration area fixed effects Household characteristics Labor input Observations 25811 25004 5248 5059 R-squared 0.194 0.201 0.110 0.215 0.120 0.140 Notes: ***, **, * denote statistical significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels. T-statistics in parentheses. Errors clustered at the enumeration area. Full results are provided in the appendix. All regressions include a dummy for the wave and plot characteristics.

Self-reported production Regression Results The IR is strong if yields are measured with self-reported production, but disappears if yields are measured with crop cuts Self-reported production Crop cuts Log of plot size -0.303*** -0.161*** 0.104*** 0.149*** Family labor during harvest 0.292*** 0.0591*** Observations 5248 5059 R² 11% 22% 12% 14% Regressions include plot and household characteristics and enumeration area fixed effects. ***,**,* denote statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% 9 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Core set (sensitivity to extreme values) Robustness checks The findings hold in different subsamples Wave 1 Wave 2 Maize Core set (sensitivity to extreme values) Self-reported Crop cuts Self- reported Crop cuts Log of plot size -0.16*** 0.17*** -0.13*** 0.14*** -0.44*** 0.06 -0.10*** 0.11*** Observations 1860 3152 722 4664 4557 R² 20% 10% 25% 36% 18% 17% 13% Regressions include plot and household characteristics, labor, and enumeration area fixed effects. ***,**,* denote statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% The core set discards bottom and top 5% of yields, 10 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Supplemental regression analysis, supporting evidence of correlated reporting error and plot size Are yields based on self-reported production systematically over estimated on small plots relative to crop cuts? log( 𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑓−𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙 𝑑 𝑖 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑝−𝑐𝑢𝑡 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 )=α log 𝐴 𝑖 +𝛿 𝑋 𝑖 +𝛽 𝐿 𝑖 +𝑢 𝑟 +𝜀 𝑖 Estimate separately for yield measures (crop cut & self-reports), compare α where A is plot size; X: plot and household characteristics (controlling for possibly nonrandom allocation of plots); L: labor (controlling for possibly nonrandom effort level by plot size); 𝑢 𝑟 : enumeration area fixed effects (controlling for possibility that EA is correlated with plot size and yield – eg. Soil, hilliness, rainfall) 8 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Results, supplemental evidence on systematic measurement error in self-reported production Assuming self-reports over estimate true production (as suggested by existing empirical literature), a decline in the value of the ratio of yields indicates a decline in the measurement error in self reports. => The regression results provide support to the suggestion that measurement error in self reports is declining in plot size. Estimation of systematic measurement error in self-reported production Dependent variable: Ratio of self-report over crop-cut yields Log of plot size -0.295*** -0.287*** Family labor during harvest 0.226*** Observations 5914 5053 Regressions include plot and household characteristics and enumeration area fixed effects. ***,**,* denote statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% 11 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

ME in self report explains IR in ET, Is the finding valid for other countries? 1. Findings hold across crops and waves 2. ESS data is representative of the rural population in Ethiopia Our analysis is based on a random subsample of the ESS – A household is in our sample if one of their plots was randomly selected for crop cuts Subsample with crop cuts looks similar to rest of population (except for landholdings, which is to be expected since household with more plots more likely to be in sample)   No crop cuts Crop cuts difference (t-value) Landholdings (ha) 1.18 1.34 3.07 *** Applied chemical fertilizer (%) 47 50 1.29 Asset index 0.16 0.17 2.00 ** Household size 5.75 5.90 1.62 Age household head 46.47 45.67 1.42 Household head can read & write (%) 38 39 0.73 Female headed household (%) 20 17 1.50 N (min/max) 2954/3018 878/890 Notes: Number of observations differs by variable due to missing variables. T-values estimated by clustering the standard errors at the enumeration area. ***, **, * denote statistical significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels.

Implications for the IR Rejection of a negative correlation between plot size and land productivity implies that: Rejecting plot-level IR aligns with conventional wisdom that fragmentation increases (not reduces) inefficiencies. Also refutes inference that farmers behave irrationally in allocation of inputs across plots With no IR at plot level, missing markets may explain the inverse productivity farm-size relationship Any regression with farm output as a regressor, needs to be attentive to bias induced by the correlated measurement error (output and anything related to plot size). 12 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Systematic measurement error and dynamics, one example Systematic measurement error can invalidate time trends Example: strong population growth -> smaller plots per capita -> production is over reported on smaller plots -> yields increase Statistician concludes: population growth -> increases yields (i.e Boserup is right, Malthus is wrong) But this conclusion is false here 14 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Conclusion Measurement error in self-reported production is the primary causal source of the inverse-relationship between productivity and plot size. Our estimates suggest that production is over-stated by 40% to 100% for plots of 100m², and under-stated by 10% to 35% on plots of 3000m² in the case of rural Ethiopian households Rejecting IR at plot level resurrects missing-market explanations for IR and farm-size level. Of course, more research is needed to establish whether this is the explanation for plot-level IR is unique to Ethiopia (or countries ‘like’ Ethiopia, in some relevant dimension). 15 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Acknowledgments & Data Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS) data was collected in collaboration with Ethiopia’s Central Statistical Agency This research was generously funded by UK’s Department for International Development – Ethiopia Office ESS publicly available: go.wordlbank.org/ZK2ZDZYDD0 ESS3 (third wave) coming soon

Implications beyond the IR A. Random error reduces the precision B. Systematic error implies a bias between the ‘true’ value and the outcome of the measurement Bias is constant Bias correlates with observable and unobservable characteristics Systematic error correlated with important (household) characteristics is the nightmare of every statistician 13 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

(Disturbing) implications of the IR Land redistribution improves equality and efficiency Policymakers should focus on small-scale farmers (rather than large-scale agriculture) to improve ag productivity Land consolidation will not increase total agricultural production Farmers behave irrationally since they do not allocate labor and inputs efficiently across plots Because of the important policy implications, an extensive theoretical and empirical literature about the IR has emerged 3 Introduction Data & methods Results Implications Conclusion

Analysis based on ESS, publicly available at: Desiere, S., Jolliffe, D., 2018. “Land productivity and plot size: Is measurement error driving the inverse relationship?” Journal of Development Economics 130, 84–98. doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2017.10.002 Analysis based on ESS, publicly available at: http://go.worldbank.org/HWKE6FXHJ0