Constraints to Tanzanian Agricultural Development: Input Use in Households Under Non-Separability

Dickinson, Jeffrey (2020): Constraints to Tanzanian Agricultural Development: Input Use in Households Under Non-Separability.

Abstract

This paper builds on the literature testing for labor market inefficiencies in developing countries. Empirical tests using a panel data survey from Tanzania first reject the homogeneity of family and hired labor, and then reject labor market separation or completeness. Further tests for the efficient allocation of manure among plots reject, revealing that agricultural households face considerable constraints in factor markets. All rejections, except hired harvest labor, are robust to the inclusion of household-specific effects, and control for heterogenous household preferences, and village-specific shocks. I incorporate high-resolution annual population estimates from the LandScan database, which uses satellite imagery to construct population estimates, and find that in areas with higher population density, less family labor is used and more hired labor is used.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: development, labor, agricultural labor, agriculture, Tanzania
• Subjects: J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J1 - Demographic Economics; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J4 - Particular Labor Markets > J43 - Agricultural Labor Markets; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O12 - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q0 - General > Q00 - General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q10 - General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q12 - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q13 - Agricultural Markets and Marketing ; Cooperatives ; Agribusiness; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q16 - R&D ; Agricultural Technology ; Biofuels ; Agricultural Extension Services

References

Bardhan, P. K. (1973). Size, productivity, and returns to scale: An analysis of farm-level data in Indian agriculture. Journal of political Economy, 81(6):1370–1386.

Beegle, K., Carletto, C., Himelein, K., et al. (2012). Reliability of recall in agricultural data. Journal of Development Economics, 98(1):34–41.

Benjamin, D. (1992). Household composition, labor markets, and labor demand: testing for separation in agricultural household models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 287–322.

Card, D. E. et al. (1987). Supply and demand in the labor market. Number 228. Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University.

Chayanov, A. V. (1986). The Theory of Peasant Farm Organization. University of Wisconsin Press.

Deolalikar, A. B., Vijverberg, W. P., et al. (1987). A test of heterogeneity of family and hired labour in Asian agriculture. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 49(3):291–305.

Frisvold, G. B. (1994). Does supervision matter? some hypothesis tests using Indian Farm-level data. Journal of Development Economics, 43(2):217–238.

Gavian, S. and Fafchamps, M. (1996). Land tenure and allocative efficiency in Niger. AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics, 78(2):460–471.

Grimard, F. (2000). Rural labor markets, household composition, and rainfall in Côte d’Ivoire. Review of Development Economics, 4(1):70–86.

LaFave, D. and Thomas, D. (2016). Farms, families, and markets: New evidence on complete-ness of markets in agricultural settings. Econometrica, 84(5):1917–1960