Download Free Farm Size Performance Relationship Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Farm Size Performance Relationship and write the review.

The report assesses the relationship between land size and performance in the developing world. Farm and plot performance data were gathered through an exhaustive review of mostly peer-reviewed publications over the last 22 years (1997-2018) in English, French and Spanish. Following the screening of the material, a selection of 472 papers was reviewed, creating a pool of over 1100 individual observations or cases. Both specific and general agricultural economics studies using land area as explaining variable in their performance estimates were explored. Three groups of indicators (i.e. gross output, net value and efficiency) were analysed according to area size in an effort to capture global indicators of performance, beyond the too often used partial indicators (e.g. yield or gross value per area). Analyses based on farm data show that there has been a revival of interest on the question particularly on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) agriculture, given the increased rate of specific literature publications. The review looked for evidence documenting the various possible relationships that could relate the size of an agricultural holding to its performance (i.e. direct, inverse and non-monotonic). The main explanations shaping the size-performance relationship were explored, namely: the contextual rural input market (i.e. labour, land, input, etc.) imperfections but also methodological shortcomings of the existing literature. On the one hand, inverse relationship (IR) is clearly the dominant type of interaction between cropped land area and agricultural performance using the most common performance indicator group used (gross output mainly populated by studies using yield or total value). However, the economic literature has clearly demonstrated that the use of this type of indicator of performance is generally ill-advised in assessing the farm size performance relationship. On the other hand, the less frequent but more global productivity indicator group of "efficiency" and "net values" do not report such a clear-cut relationship. As a matter of fact, cases using "efficiency" performance indicators are more likely to record a direct relationship than IR. Moreover, the emergence of non-monotonic relationships needs to be highlighted showing that the relationship may not be constant. Tests conducted on the existing material clearly associate a number of rural factor market imperfections with the prevalence of the IR. Hence, IR is more likely to be a symptom of imperfections and lack of opportunities for rural labour than an advantage of a given type of farms. In turn, methodological reasons explored also indicate that narrower ranges of farm size in a given study increase the reporting of IR, particularly in SSA and when analysing partial performance indicators. From being an established stylised "fact" in development economics, IR may not be taken for granted because of empirical complexities in accurately assessing it but also because there is evidence that such a relationship depends on the performance indicator analysed. Hence, IR may not necessarily be considered systematic, continuous, stable through time, irreversible or universal. From a broader development intervention perspective, and based on the review results, the recommended performance indicators (i.e. net value and efficiency) show that larger farms tend to be more performant than the smaller farms. However, this does not suggest the abandonment of smallholders by policy as there are both critical economic and social justifications for the direct improvement of the living conditions of a large share of the population in most of the developing world. It rather advocates a revisited and expanded development role for medium sized ones.
Looks At The Productive Role Of Farm Women In Agriculture And Related Enterprises. Examins Their Performance In Terms Of Their Role, Role Perception, Decision Making, Crop Yield Index, Milk Yield Index And Related Matters.
When one has worked on a series of projects as long as I have on those that make up this book, one incurs a tremendous debt that can never be appropriately acknowledged. Nevertheless, I would be remiss if I did not make note of at least the largest and most obvious of contributions made by others. The oldest part of the work is the Yugoslav case study, which began as my doctoral dissertation. I received funding from the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), which allowed me to spend an all-too-brief but productive five months in z&greb in 1982. During this time, I was greatly aided by the advice and criticism of Professor Vladimir Stipetic of the University of Zagreb. As I worked on the dissertation, John Pencavel and Evsey Domar taught me much about critical thinking and clear writing, as well as economics. To them I owe a special debt of gratitude for the often difficult task they undertook of simply keeping track of my whereabouts. In addition, the Yugoslav study benefited from the critical contributions of Paul David and members of the development and history seminars at Stanford and the comments of Tim Bates and two anonymous referees and the editor at the Review of Economics and Statistics, where the core material was first published as •The Performance of Private and Cooperative Socialist Organimtion: Postwar Yugoslav Agriculture; 69, 2 (May 1987): 205-214, copyright 1987 by Elsevier Science Publishers. I would like to thank Elsevier Science Publishers for kind permission to reprint portions of this article in chapter 3.
To understand whether and how inverse relationship between farm size and productivity changes when labor market performance improves, we use large national farm panel from India covering a quarter-century (1982, 1999, 2008) to show that the inverserelationship weakened significantly over time, despite an increase in the dispersion of farm sizes. A key reason was the substitution of capital for labor in response to nonagricultural labor demand. In addition, family labor wasmore efficient than hired labor in the 1982–1999 period, but not during the 1999–2008period.In line with labor market imperfections as a key factor, separability of labor supply and demand decisions cannot be rejected in the second period,except in villages with very low nonagricultural labor demand.
A series of coordinated case studies compares the structure, size, and performance of local food supply chains with those of mainstream supply chains. Interviews and site visits with farms and businesses, supplemented with secondary data, describe how food moves from farms to consumers in 15 food supply chains. Key comparisons between supply chains include the degree of product differentiation, diversification of marketing outlets, and information conveyed to consumers about product origin. The cases highlight differences in prices and the distribution of revenues among supply chain participants, local retention of wages and proprietor income, transportation fuel use, and social capital creation. Charts and tables.