SELLING OUR WAY INTO POVERTY: The Commercialisation of Poverty in Malawi

Bokosi, Fanwell Kenala (2008): SELLING OUR WAY INTO POVERTY: The Commercialisation of Poverty in Malawi.

Abstract

The aim of the article is to investigate the impact of commercialisation on household poverty in Malawi using the 1997/98 Integrated Household Survey data. The results indicate that overall those household who were more commercialised were better off than those who did not and thus commercialisation should be encouraged as a means of alleviating poverty. In terms of regional analysis the southern region and the central region results indicate that the more commercialised households were actually worse off. Furthermore, the livelihoods of the most vulnerable households (female headed and poor households) did not benefit from commercialisation. Therefore, in terms of policies, it is important that government should identify groups that are likely losers to commercialisation and hence the need for compensatory or socially protective policy design to socio-economic groups whose incomes have been reduced by commercialisation.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Commercialisation, Poverty, Propensity Score Matching, Household Model, Malawi
• Subjects: I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I31 - General Welfare, Well-Being; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models ; Multiple Variables > C31 - Cross-Sectional Models ; Spatial Models ; Treatment Effect Models ; Quantile Regressions ; Social Interaction Models; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q12 - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets

References

ABADIE, AD, DRUKER, J, HERR, L & IMBENS, GW, 2001. Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effect in Stata. Stata Journal, 11(1): 1–18. ANGRIST, J & KRUEGER, A, 1999. Empirical Strategies in Labour Economics. In Ashenfelter, O & Card, D (Eds), The Handbook of Labour Economics. Vol. III. North Holland: Elsevier. BALAT, JF & PORTO, G, 2005. Globalization and Complementary Policies: Poverty Impacts in Rural Zambia. Working Paper No. 11175, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge: Maryland. BECKER, SO & ICHINO, A, 2002. Estimation of Average Treatment Effect Based on Propensity Scores. Stata Journal, 2(4):358-377. BLUNDELL, R & DIAS, MC, 2002. Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics. Working Paper CWP10/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice: London. BRAUN, JV & KENNEDY, E, 1994. Agricultural commercialization, economic development, and nutrition. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. BRYSON, A, DORSETT, A & PURDON, S, 2002. The Use of Propensity Score Matching in the Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies. Working Paper No.4, Department for Work and Pensions: London. D'AGOSTINO, RB, 1998. Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in the Comparison of a Treatment to a Non-Randomized Control Group Statistics in Medicine, 17(19): 2265-2281. DEATON, A, 1997. The Analysis of Household Survey Micro Econometric Approach to Development Policy. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. DEHEJIA, RH, 2005. Practical Propensity Score Matching: A Reply to Smith and Todd. Journal of Econometrics 125(1-2): 355–364. DEHEJIA, RH &. WAHBA, S, 1999. Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(448): 1053–1062. DEHEJIA, RH & WAHBA, S, 2002. Propensity Score Matching Methods for Non-Experimental Causal Studies. Review of Economics and Statistics 84(1): 151-161. HECKMAN, J, 1979. Sample Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica, 47(1): 153-161. HECKMAN, J, 1997. Instrumental Variables, a Study of Implicit Behavioural Assumptions Used in Making Program Evaluations. Journal of Human Resources 32(3): 441-462. HECKMAN, J, LALONDE, RJ & SMITH, JA 1999. The Economics and Econometrics of Active Labour Market Programs. In Ashenfelter, O. & Card, D (Eds). Handbook of Labor Economics. Vol. 3. New York: Elsevier. Heckman, J. & S. Navarro-Lozano (2003). Using Matching, Instrumental Variables and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models. Bonn. IZA Discussion Paper No. 768. HECKMAN, JJ, ICHIMURA, H, & TODD, PE, 1998. Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator. Review of Economic Studies 65(2): 261-294. HIRSCH, BT & MEHAY, SL, 2002. Evaluating the Labour Market Performance of Veterans Using a Matched Comparison Group Design. Journal of Human Resources, 38(3): 673-700. IMBENS, GW, 2000. The Role of Propensity Score in Estimating Dose-Response Functions. Biometrika, 87(3): 706-710. LECHNER, M, 2002. Some Practical Issues in the Evaluation of Heterogeneous Labour Market Programmes by Matching Methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 165 (1): 59-82. MCKERNAN, SM, 1996. The Impacts of Micro-Credit Programs on Self-Employment Profits: Do Non-Credit Programs Aspects Matter?, Rhode Island: Brown University. MORDUCH, J, 1997. The Microfinance Revolution. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University ROSENBAUM, PR & RUBIN, DB, 1983. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika, 70(1): 41-55. ROY, AD, 1951. Some Thoughts on the Distribution of Income. Oxford Economic Papers 3(2): 135-146. SIANESI, B, 2004. An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1): 133-155. SMITH, JA & TODD, P, 2005. Does Matching Overcome Lalonde’s Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators? Journal of Econometrics 125(1-2): 305-353. VURI, D, 2001. Fertility and Divorce. Working Paper ECO 2001/5, European University Institute: Florence, Italy