Non-farm Activities and Poverty among Rural Farm Households in Yewa Division of Ogun State

Idowu, A. O.; Banwo, Adesimi; Akerele, E. O.

doi:10.1080/09718923.2011.11892899

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other things being held the same, the odds ratio of 2.018 for the number of oxen owned indicates that, the odds ratio in favor of participating in income diversification decreases by a factor of 2.018 as the number of oxen increases by one unit. Similar result was found by Kaija Darlison [46] and Idowu et al [47] Market distance (DISTNCE): Market distance to input and output center negatively and significantly associated with the probability of household's participation in income diversification activities at less than 5% significance level. The negative association suggests that the likelihood of participating in diversified income activities declines as the distance from market center increases.…”

Section: Binary Logit Model Resultssupporting

confidence: 76%

Rural Farm Households’ Income Diversification: The Case of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Gecho¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Despite the economic dominance of agriculture in the study area, farm households widely practice diverse income generating activities as livelihood strategies to overcome diverse challenges and risks. The existing capacity of agriculture to attain food and livelihood security is tremendously declining from time to time. The main aim of this study was to identify the determinants of farmers' participation in income diversification in the study area. The study involved primary data which were collected from randomly selected 300 households in four districts of the zone. For selection of study units probability proportional to the size was applied and respondents were selected through systematic sampling technique. In addition, key informant interview and focus group discussion were used to supplement the survey with qualitative information. Secondary data were also collected from various relevant sources. Descriptive statistics were applied to characterize the sample households' social, economic, demographic and institutional factors. The findings of the study indicates that rural households in the study area practice diversified income sources, in that about 57.7% of the households combine agriculture with other activities (non/off-farm). Some farmers were pursuing non-farm and off-farm activities as the primary income sources rather than agriculture. Considering the wealth status, the poor households derive almost half (50%) of their income from nonagricultural activities whereas the latter accounts for only 6.4% of the income of the better-off households'. Binary logit model was applied to investigate factors influencing the households' participation in income diversification. In this regard, out of total explanatory variables included in the model, 8 were significant. The results confirm that factors such as sex, farm size, livestock ownership, oxen ownership, education, leadership, annual cash income and market distance were key determinants of farmers' participation in income diversification. Further, the study identifies income diversification as a cumulative effects of several factors, and therefore urges policy makers to give due attention to them with a view to overcoming the challenging bottlenecks.

show abstract

Section: Binary Logit Model Resultssupporting

confidence: 76%

Rural Farm Households’ Income Diversification: The Case of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Gecho¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The role of non-farm income on income inequality is reported by many researchers (De Janvry et al, 2005;Elbers & Lanjouw, 2001). Idowu et al (2011); Buchenrieder (2003); Knerr and Winnicki (2003) reported that non-farm rural employment can reduce poverty by generating alternative income sources and it can stimulate agricultural growth and mitigate rural to urban migration and the findings of De Janvry et al 2005; Zvyagintsev et al (2008) too supported this outcome. The Gini decomposition analysis allows the estimation of bootstrapped standard errors and confidence intervals.…”

Section: Effects Of Livelihood Activities On Income Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of Rural Livelihood Activities on Income Inequality and Poverty Reduction in the Guinean Coastal Area

Balde¹,

Kobayashi²,

Ishida³

et al. 2014

JAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigated the influence of portfolio of livelihood activities on income inequality and poverty reduction in the Guinean coastal area. The study used primary data collected through a survey of salt producers, mangrove rice farmers and wood loggers along the Guinean coast in Koba. The survey used a questionnaire to collect data on peasants' characteristics and their income sources. To examine the effects of livelihood activities on income inequality and poverty reduction, Gini decomposition analysis and poverty decomposition techniques such as Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) index were used. The results revealed that salt production and vegetable production give rise to income inequality. Therefore, by enhancing the share of income from mangrove rice production, wood extraction, non-farm income, livestock, seasonal crop production, lowland rice production, remittance and perennial crop production has the potentials to reduce income disparity among the peasants. Poverty measures also revealed that the degree of poverty reduction largely depends on the extent to which livelihood activities of the peasants can be diversified. The government could remedy the income inequality arising from salt production and reduce poverty by providing machineries and tools to poorer farmers to ensure their participation in salt production. Further, this research also highlights the need to put more emphasis on mangrove rice production due to its high potential to reduce income inequality in the region.

show abstract

“…Programs intended to ensure food selfsufficiency and provide necessary infrastructure to stimulate economic growth, enhance incomes and improve the welfare of the poor. Also, tremendous efforts were made to improve agricultural production and living standards through public credit institutions like Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) transformed to Agricultural Bank of Nigeria (NAB)and more recent programs like National Fadama Development project (NFDP), Community based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP), Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project and Community and Social Development Project (CSDP which upshot from LEEMP and CPRP) (Idowu et al, 2011a). Furthermore, in an attempt to provide formal insurance cover for the financial risk associated with agricultural enterprises, the Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Company (NAIC) was established in 1989 (Adekunle et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants and effect of livelihood diversification among small-scale poultry farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria

Babatunde¹,

Ayinde²,

Oladipo³

et al. 2015

Ethiop. J. Env Stud & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Promotion of rural income diversification continues to gain widespread support in poverty reduction strategy discourse in the developing countries. This study examined diversification of rural livelihood among small-scale poultry farmers in Oyo state, Nigeria. The study utilized data from a sampled survey of 104 small-scale poultry farming households to establish the effect of diversification of livelihood on poultry production and factors determining diversification of income among the poultry farmers in the study area. Results showed that majority of the farmers are male, married, and young with mean age of 44.35 years. The average year of schooling of the farmers was 10.3 years and mean farming experience is 7.52 years. Approximately 46% of the farmers have access to credit and 44.2% are member of cooperative society. The results showed that, at the 1% level, there is significant difference between farm size of farmers with other sources of income and the farmers without any other source of income. Farm size is significantly and positively related to non-poultry income, education and farming experience among the smallholder poultry farmers at 10% level of significance. The major determinant of livelihood diversification includes education level of households head, household size, access to credit and cooperative society membership.

show abstract

Non-farm Activities and Poverty among Rural Farm Households in Yewa Division of Ogun State

Cited by 12 publications

References 12 publications

Rural Farm Households’ Income Diversification: The Case of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Rural Farm Households’ Income Diversification: The Case of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Effects of Rural Livelihood Activities on Income Inequality and Poverty Reduction in the Guinean Coastal Area

Determinants and effect of livelihood diversification among small-scale poultry farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About