The effectiveness of contract farming in improving smallholder income and food security in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-method systematic review

Abstract

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, how, why and at what cost. We believe that using better and policy-relevant evidence helps to make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews appraise and synthesise the available high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of social and economic development interventions in low-and middleincome countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peer-reviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous and innovative review methodologies, such as using theory-based approaches suited to inform policy and programming in the dynamic contexts and challenges of low-and middle-income countries. About this reviewThe effectiveness of contract farming in improving smallholder income and food security in low-and middle-income countries: a mixed-method systematic review, was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of grant SR6.1088 awarded under Systematic Review Window 6. This review is available on the 3ie website. 3ie is publishing this technical report as received from the authors; it has been formatted to 3ie style, however the tables and figures have not been reformatted. 3ie will also publish a brief of this review, designed for use by decision makers, which is forthcoming. This review will also be published in the Campbell Collaboration Library and will be available here.All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its board of commissioners. Any errors are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author, Giel Ton, g.ton@ids.ac.uk Funding for this systematic review was provided by 3ie's donors, which include UK aid, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Hewlett Foundation and 16 other 3ie members that provide institutional support. The effectiveness of contract farming in improving smallholder income and food security in low-and middle-income countries: a mixed-method systematic review Plain language summaryContract farming is a sales arrangement between a farmer and a firm, agreed before production begins, which provides the farmer with resources or services. Many governments and donors promote contract farming as part of agricultural development policies. This systematic review analysed the evidence in the literature on income effects for smallholders. The review included all studies with an econometric design to reduce selection bias in effect estimates. The meta-analysis covered 26 empirical instances of contract farming in 13 developing countries. The contracts varied widely, with varying service packages provided by the firm to the farme...

Impact of financial inclusion in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of reviews

“…F I G U R E 1 1 Intervention types across reviews. Note: This figure is based on the following 17 reviews: Blackmore, Lesorogol, & Iannotti, 2018;Blundo Canto et al, 2018;Bowler et al, 2010;Cho & Honorati, 2013 F I G U R E 1 2 Outcome types across reviews.Note: Number and types of outcomes identified across 17 reviews: Blackmore et al, 2018;Blundo Canto et al, 2018;Bowler et al, 2010;Cho &d Honorati, 2013;Devereux et al, 2015;Dickson & Bangpan, 2012;Halder & Mosley, 2004;Hemming et al, 2018;Higgins et al, 2018;Juillard et al, 2016;Liu & Kontoleon 2018;Loevinsohn et al, 2013;Stewart et al, 2015;Ton et al, 2013;Ton et al, 2017. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] to better understand what drives their impacts and how they may be best integrated with, or promoted instead of, financial inclusion interventions, to enhance and harness the limited impacts we observe in financial inclusion. There may also be other alternatives worth investigating, such as social safety net programmes.…”

“…Note: This figure is based on the following 17 reviews:Blackmore, Lesorogol, & Iannotti, 2018;Blundo Canto et al, 2018;Bowler et al, 2010;Cho & Honorati, 2013;Devereux, Roelen, Sabates, Stoelinga, & Dyevre, 2015;Dickson & Bangpan, 2012;Halder & Mosley, 2004;Hemming et al, 2018;Higgins, Balint, Liversage, & Winters, 2018;Juillard, Mohiddin, Péchayre, Smith, & Vince, 2016;Liu & Kontoleon, 2018;Loevinsohn, Sumberg, Diagne, & Whitfield, 2013;Stewart et al, 2015;Ton et al, 2013;Ton, Desiere, Vellema, Weituschat, & D'Haese, 2017. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] Outcome types across reviews.Note: Number and types of outcomes identified across 17 reviews:Blackmore et al, 2018;Blundo Canto et al, 2018;Bowler et al, 2010; Cho &d Honorati, 2013;Devereux et al, 2015;Dickson & Bangpan, 2012;Halder & Mosley, 2004;Hemming et al, 2018;Higgins et al, 2018;Juillard et al, 2016;Liu & Kontoleon 2018;Loevinsohn et al, 2013;Stewart et al, 2015;Ton et al, 2013;Ton et al, 2017. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] It would also be worth exploring the cost effectiveness of financial inclusion interventions vis-à-vis livelihoods and graduation programmes or additional alternatives; but this may open up another "can of worms" altogether, which we cannot engage with here, and would first require similar levels of evidence synthesis between the interventions to have been attained.Going forward, it would be worth trying to grapple with the high levels of heterogeneity within livelihoods and Intervention types across reviews.…”

Impact of financial inclusion in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review of reviews

“…Going forward, it would be worth trying to grapple with the high levels of heterogeneity within livelihoods and graduation programmes F I G U R E 1 1 Intervention types across reviews. Note: This figure is based on the following 17 reviews: Blackmore, Lesorogol, & Iannotti, 2018;Blundo Canto et al, 2018;Bowler et al, 2010;Cho & Honorati, 2013;Devereux, Roelen, Sabates, Stoelinga, & Dyevre, 2015;Dickson & Bangpan, 2012;Halder & Mosley, 2004;Hemming et al, 2018;Higgins, Balint, Liversage, & Winters, 2018;Juillard, Mohiddin, Péchayre, Smith, & Vince, 2016;Liu & Kontoleon, 2018;Loevinsohn, Sumberg, Diagne, & Whitfield, 2013;Stewart et al, 2015;Ton et al, 2013;Ton, Desiere, Vellema, Weituschat, & D'Haese, 2017. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] Blackmore et al, 2018;Blundo Canto et al, 2018;Bowler et al, 2010;Cho &d Honorati, 2013;Devereux et al, 2015;Dickson & Bangpan, 2012;Halder & Mosley, 2004;Hemming et al, 2018;Higgins et al, 2018;Juillard et al, 2016;Liu & Kontoleon 2018;Loevinsohn et al, 2013;Stewart et al, 2015;Ton et al, 2013;Ton et al, 2017. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]…”

IFAD Research Series 38 – Meta-Evidence Review on the Impacts of Investments in Agricultural and Rural Development on Sustainable Development Goals 1 and 2

“…None of the studies include poverty indicators included in this review. Regarding household income, overall the studies lean towards positive effects, yet the studies on contract farming, such as those covered by Otsuka et al (2016) and Ton et al (2017), were more consistently positive than the studies on certification schemes, covered by International Trade Centre (ITC) (2011) and Oya et al (2017). In terms of the effects on agricultural productivity, Arimond et al (2011) and IOB (2011) had just one relevant impact evaluation each with positive results, but ITC (2011) and Oya et al (2017) on certification schemes found that just 5 out of 11 and 1 out of 5 impact evaluations, respectively, identified positive effects on productivity/yields.…”