Does Non-farm Income Affect Food Security? Evidence from India

Rahman, Andaleeb; Mishra, Sumit

doi:10.1080/00220388.2019.1640871

Cited by 73 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bezu et al (2012); Scharf and Rahut (2014) have also found that non-farm employment increases household expenditure in rural Ethiopia. These results also indirectly support empirical findings on the impact of non-farm employment on food security (Babatunde and Qaim, 2010;Imai et al, 2015;Tsiboe et al, 2016;Dzanku, 2019;Rahman and Mishra, 2020) and vulnerability to food insecurity (Imai et al, 2015;Zereyesus et al, 2017;Bui and Hoang, 2020).…”

Section: Non-farm Participation and Food Expendituressupporting

confidence: 83%

Welfare impacts of non-farm employment in semi-arid areas: evidence from Burkina Faso

Gansonré¹

2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While several studies have linked rural welfare with non-farm employment, the available evidence suggests that whether participation in non-farm employment is welfare improving is intrinsically an empirical question. In addition, the existing literature places emphasis on food and total household expenditure such that there is a dearth of evidence as far as the role of non-food expenditure is concerned. Using household survey data from Burkina Faso, this paper shows that the extent of the impact varies with types of non-farm employment and household expenditure. The results show that participation in wage employment does not affect any type of expenditure. Non-farm self-employment during the dry season increases non-food expenditure but has no significant effect on food expenditure. Non-farm self-employment during both dry and cropping seasons, and total non-farm employment are associated with higher food and non-food expenditures, with higher impact on nonfood expenditure. The general pattern of the results suggests that smallholder farmers tend to classify agriculture as the primary source of food while incomes from non-farm sources are preferably oriented towards non-food consumption. From a policy perspective, this shows that promoting the rural non-farm economy will improve welfare in the semi-arid areas. Potential areas of interventions include (i) implementation of the minimum guarantee wage scheme to improve earnings from wage employment and, (ii) development of a vibrant rural credit scheme to improve access to non-farm self-employment.☆ We thank the handling Editor and anonymous referees for their helpful thoughts, comments, and guidance. We are grateful to Chris Barrett, Kimseyinga Savadogo, Elis e Ou edraogo and Yiribo Bambio for facilitating data access, and Ramatu Al-Hassan for assistance in reading and editing. We are also grateful to Agricultural & Applied Economics seminar participants at the

show abstract

Section: Non-farm Participation and Food Expendituressupporting

confidence: 83%

Welfare impacts of non-farm employment in semi-arid areas: evidence from Burkina Faso

Gansonré¹

2021

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adams (1994) and De Janvry and Sadoulet (2001) argue that participation in off‐farm employment reduces rural poverty by equalising income distribution and reducing household income inequalities in rural communities. This has a positive net effect on food security and nutrition, particularly for households living in areas with low agro‐ecological potential (Rahman & Mishra, 2020; Zereyesus et al, 2017). Households with access to non‐farm income are less prone to the low prevalence of stunting, underweight and wasting among children in areas with high levels of food insecurity (Babatunde & Qaim, 2010).…”

Section: Brief Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐farm employment and poverty reduction in Mauritania

Anwar

Mughal³

2021

J of Intl Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the effect of non‐farm labour participation on poverty reduction in rural Mauritania. Farm households with more land and livestock participate to a greater extent in non‐farm activities compared with households with smaller land or cattle. We study poverty's relationship with non‐farm labour activities in terms of the incidence as well as the intensity and severity of poverty. The study is the first to highlight the contribution of the non‐agricultural sector in the reduction of poverty in the rural areas of Mauritania. We apply probit, propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting techniques to determine the signs and impacts of participation on poverty reduction. The results show that the probability of being poor is 5.9% lower among households that have at least one member participating in non‐farm activities compared with those only associated with the agriculture sector. Participation in non‐farm activities is associated with lower intensity and severity of poverty (3.6% and 1.9%, respectively). We find that surplus labour released by the agriculture sector is absorbed in the non‐farm economy. Income generation through diversification into non‐farm activities therefore seems to be an effective way to reduce poverty in rural areas.

show abstract

“…Association between market access and HHDS for 324 smallholder householdsRahman and Mishra 2020;Sibhatu et al 2015; …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does market access improve dietary diversity and food security? Evidence from Southwestern Ethiopian smallholder coffee producers

Usman

Callo-Concha

2021

Agric Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Market access influences the dietary diversity and food security for smallholder households in many ways. In Ethiopia, most smallholders are subsistence farmers who have poor access to markets. This study used primary data from a household survey to examine the relationship between market access and the dietary diversity and food security for 324 smallholder households in the Yayu area of southwestern Ethiopia in early 2018. Multivariate regression analysis showed that households located far from market centers consumed not only less diverse foods but also spend less on food consumption than households located close to market centers. The correlation between market access and food security measured by Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) did not reach statistical significance, nor did the impact of market access on household consumption and dietary diversity through income. Rather, greater market access appeared to encourage smallholder households to rely on market purchases more than their own production to improve the diversity of household consumption. A direct action to improve the market accessibility would be investments in infrastructure to expand rural road connectivity, which would reduce transaction costs and benefit the welfare of smallholder farmers and communities.

show abstract

Does Non-farm Income Affect Food Security? Evidence from India

Cited by 73 publications

References 53 publications

Welfare impacts of non-farm employment in semi-arid areas: evidence from Burkina Faso

Welfare impacts of non-farm employment in semi-arid areas: evidence from Burkina Faso

Non‐farm employment and poverty reduction in Mauritania

Does market access improve dietary diversity and food security? Evidence from Southwestern Ethiopian smallholder coffee producers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About