In many developing countries, supermarkets are expanding rapidly. This affects farmers’ marketing options. Previous studies have analyzed welfare effects of smallholder participation in supermarket channels from a static perspective, using cross‐section data. We develop a conceptual framework and use panel data to better understand participation and impact dynamics. The analysis focuses on vegetable producers in Kenya. Participation in supermarket channels is associated with income gains. However, many farmers have dropped out of the supermarket channel due to various constraints. The initial income gains cannot be sustained when returning to the traditional market. Organizational support may be needed to avoid widening income disparities.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract. Many developing countries are experiencing a food system transformation with a rapid growth of supermarkets. Research has shown that smallholder farmers can benefit from supplying supermarkets in terms of higher productivity and income. Here, we analyze impacts on farm household nutrition. Building on data from vegetable farmers in Kenya, we show that participation in supermarket channels has sizeable positive effects: calorie, vitamin A, iron, and zinc consumption are all increased by 15% or more. We also analyze impact pathways, using simultaneous equation models. Supermarket-supplying households have higher incomes, a higher share of land under vegetables, and a higher likelihood of male control of revenues. Furthermore, income and the share of land under vegetables have positive impacts, while male control of revenues has negative impacts on dietary quality. The total nutrition effects of supermarket participation could be even more positive if women were able to keep their control over farm revenues in the process of commercialization. The methods developed and used may also be useful for other impact studies to better understand agriculture-nutrition linkages. Terms of use: Documents in

No abstract

Many developing countries are undergoing a profound transformation of food systems. Especially in larger cities, supermarkets have become increasingly popular, affecting consumers' food choices and diets. Previous research showed that supermarkets can have both positive and negative effects on dietary quality and nutrition. However, which households actually use supermarkets, and to what extent? While supermarket shopping is positively correlated with income, little is known about how important supermarkets are for the diets of the poor, who are of particular interest from a food policy perspective. The poorest of the urban poor often reside in informal settlements, so they are underrepresented in official surveys. We add to the literature by analyzing food consumption data collected from households in the poorest neighborhoods of Nairobi (Kenya) and Kampala (Uganda). We find high levels of nutritional deficiencies. Despite their ubiquitous presence, supermarkets are not yet very important for the diets of the urban poor. Supermarkets only account for 3% and 0.4% of sample households' total food expenditures in Nairobi and Kampala, respectively. Especially unprocessed foods, which make up the largest share of calorie consumption, are primarily purchased in traditional retail outlets. We also show differences by food groups and income strata. Acknowledegment: This research was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The authors thank the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), and the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)-Uganda, for their research cooperation in the project "Making Value Chains Work for Food and Nutrition Security for the Vulnerable Populations in East Africa" (grant number C-030-16), and the great support during the survey.

Biofortification, or breeding food crops for improved nutritional content, is a cost effective way to improve nutritional status. The process can, however, alter the sensory characteristics of the crop, and consumer acceptance is essential for their adoption. The oldest biofortified crop is quality protein maize (QPM), biofortified with essential amino acids, now found in many recently-released varieties in East Africa. To estimate rural consumers' acceptance and willingness to pay (WTP) for QPM in the dispersed population of Northern Tanzania, a novel method, combining a modified home-use test with a Becker-DeGroot-Marschak experiment, was developed. The results showed that rural consumers in Tanzania could distinguish stiff porridge made from QPM and from conventional maize (CM). They generally preferred the former, as expressed by higher scores during affective tests for texture, taste, and overall qualities. Further, rural consumers who were not provided with information about the nutritional benefits of QPM were willing to pay a premium of 16% over CM, and those who were given information, 39%.The scores on the affective test and the information on QPM's nutritional benefits were the main factors determining WTP in the experiment, while no personal characteristics of the participants were found to be significant. We conclude that QPM is, at least, as well accepted as conventional maize, and preferred for its sensory characteristics. Information on nutritional benefits increases rural consumers' willingness to pay for it, so information campaigns may be effective in increasing demand for QPM varieties. However, these varieties need to be competitive for other characteristics that rural households value, in particular, field and storage qualities.JEL classification: O13, D12, I12