EFFECT OF MICROCREDIT AND GENDER RELATED VARIABLES ON WELFARE OF SMALLHOLDER CASSAVA BASED PRODUCING HOUSEHOLDS IN ABIA STATE, NIGERIA

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00009217

No of Pages: 175

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦10000

  • $

ABSTRACT

This study evaluated the effect of microcredit and gender related variables on welfare of smallholder cassava- based producing households in Abia state, Nigeria. Primary data were collected from smallholder cassava- based producers who were registered with the ADP from 2014 –2019. A multistage sampling technique involving purposive and random sampling technique were used in the selection of 240 respondents comprising of 80 microcredit user households (40 males and 40 females) and 160 microcredit non user households (80 males and 80 females). `Analytical tools used were descriptive statistics, welfare index, Ordinary Least Squares multiple regression analysis, Chow test and paired Z-test. Results on socio economic characteristics showed that the mean age of the producers were 51 and 48 years and (81.67% and 68.33%) were married for the male and female household heads respectively. They had up to 14 years farming experience and about 80 % attended at least primary school for the male and female household heads. Mean household size of 6 persons, mean farm sizes of 2.13 and 1.67 hectares, mean income of ₦365,548 and ₦317,273 were gotten for the male and female headed households respectively. The mean amount of credit received by the male headed household was ₦150,875 and that of the female headed household was ₦115,530. The mean output of the male headed household was 19.42 tonnes/hectare while that of the female headed household was 12.05 tonnes/hectare. The results of the welfare status showed that the male credit users and non-credit user households had more non poor people as compared to the female headed credit user and non-credit user households. The results of Ordinary Least Squares multiple regression analysis model showed that amount of credit received and household size significantly affected welfare at 5 percent while loan duration, interest payment on loan, farm size and income significantly affected the welfare of the male cassava producing households at 1 percent. Also, amount of credit significantly affected welfare at 5 percent while loan duration, interest payment on loan, value of land used as collateral, household size and income were significant factors that affected the welfare of the female cassava producing households at 1 percent. Results on welfare function showed that age, household size, size of land holding, age composition, income and cost of production were the factors that influenced the welfare of the microcredit user households while age, education, size of land holding, composition of members that are working, income and cost of production were the factors that influenced the welfare of the non-microcredit user households. The Chow test showed that the male headed credit user households and the male headed non-credit user households had a higher profitability than the female headed credit user households and the female headed non-credit user households. The Z-test results showed that the male headed cassava producing households had more output, income and profit than the female headed cassava producing households. It was recommended that government incentives in encouraging favourable lending conditions should be encouraged and sustained and policies/programmes that encourage gender equality should be put in place to encourage the entrepreneurs to harness and optimize use of credit borrowed to make more profit and improve their welfare.






TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page                                                                                                                    i

Declaration                                                                                                                 ii

Certification                                                                                                               iii                                                                                                         

Dedication                                                                                                                  iv

Acknowledgements                                                                                                             v                                                                                                       

Table of Contents                                                                                                       vi                                                                                                 

List of Tables                                                                                                              ix                                                                                                    

List of Figures                                                                                                             xi

Abstract                                                                                                                                 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1           Background Information                                                                                1

1.2           Problem Statement                                                                                         8

1.3           Objectives of the Study                                                                                  10

1.4           Hypotheses of the Study                                                                                 11

1.5       Justification of the Study                                                                                11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW  

  2.1     Conceptual Literature                                                                                     13

2.1.1    Concept of microcredit                                                                                   13

2.1.2    Concept of microcredit related variables                                                       14

2.1.3    Sources of credit to agro enterprises                                                              19

2.1.4    Conditions for extending credits to customers                                               20

2.1.5    Concept of gender                                                                                          21

2.1.6    Concept of gender related variables                                                               22

2.1.7    Concept of household welfare                                                                        26

2.1.8    Measurement of household welfare                                                               28

2.1.9    Household characteristics                                                                              30

2.1.10  Smallholder producers                                                                                    32

2.1.11  Concept of profitability                                                                                  33

2.1.12  Cassava production in Nigeria                                                                       34

2.2       Theoretical Literature                                                                                     39

2.2.1    Theories of gender                                                                                          39

2.2.2    Theories microcredit related variables                                                           40

2.2.3    Theories of welfare                                                                                         42

2.3       Empirical Literature                                                                                       44

2.3.1    Empirical review of related studies on gender related variables                  44

2.3.2    Empirical review of related studies on microcredit related

on welfare                                                                                                       47

2.3.3    Studies on socioeconomic determinants of household welfare                        51

2.4       Analytical Framework                                                                                    55

2.4.1    Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents                                               55

2.4.2    Estimation of welfare index of smallholder cassava producers                        55

2.4.3    Regression models                                                                                          56

2.4.4    Estimation of welfare function                                                                       57

2.4.5    Estimation of profitability                                                                              57

2.4.6   Z-test model                                                                                                    58

CHAPTER 3:  METHODOLOGY

3.1       Study Area                                                                                                      59

3.2       Sampling Procedure                                                                                       62

3.3       Data Collection                                                                                               64

3.4       Analytical Procedure                                                                                      64

3.4.1    Test for change in welfare                                                                              67

3.4.2    Test for homogeneity of slopes for welfare                                                   68

3.4.3    Test for differences in interest for credit                                                        68

3.4.4    Comparison of profitability of male and female beneficiaries                        69

3.4.5    Test for structural shift in profitability                                                           69

3.4.6    Test for homogeneity  of slopes for profitability                                           70

3.4.7    Test for differences in intercepts for profitability                                          70

3.4.8    Test of hypotheses on gender variables affecting welfare                             70

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1       Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics of the Producers                        72

 

4.2       Effect of Microcredit Related Variables that affect the Welfare of Male                              Credit user Households                                                                                 102

 

4.2.1    Microcredit Related Variables that affect the Welfare of Female                         106

              Credit user Households

                                                           

4.2.2    Welfare of the Microcredit User and Non-User Households                         109

 

4.2.3    Tests for structural shift in welfare function and difference in

welfare                                                                                                                        115

           

4.2.4    Effect of Gender Related Variables Affecting Welfare of Respondents    117

4.3     Comparison of Welfare Status by Gender                                                        124

4.4       Profitability of Microcredit User and Credit Non user Households by

            Gender                                                                                                            127

4.4.1    Profitability of credit user households by gender                                           128

4.4.2    Tests for structural shift in profitability and differences in                           

            profitability of credit user households by gender                                           134

4.5 Factors Affecting the Welfare of Cassava Producing Households by

            Gender                                                                                                            136

4.5.1    Tests for structural shift in welfare function and difference in

             Welfare of microcredit user households                                                        142

 

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS    

5.1       Summary                                                                                                        144

5.2       Conclusion                                                                                                      146

5.3       Recommendations                                                                                          147

References                                                                                                                  150

Appendix                                                                                                                    164

 






LIST OF TABLES

 

3.1       Sample size and sampling frame                                                                    63

4.1       Distribution of the respondents based on age                                                 73

4.2       Distribution of the respondents based on marital status                                 75       

4.3       Distribution of the respondents based on education                                      77

4.4       Distribution of the respondents based on household size                              79

4.5       Distribution of the respondents based on farming experience                        81

4.6       Distribution of the respondents based on farm size                                       83

4.7       Distribution of the respondents based on membership of cooperation     85

4.8       Distribution of the respondents based on other crops planted                        87

4.9       Distribution of the respondents based on sources of farm land                        89

4.10     Distribution of the respondents based on amount of credit received                      91

4.11     Distribution of the respondents based on farm income                                  93

4.12     Distribution of the respondents based on output                                            95

4.13     Distribution of the respondents based on sources of finance                         97

4.14      Distribution of the respondents based on problems encountered in farming       99

4.15     Test for differences in major Socio economic variables of the male   

 and female cassava based producing households                  101

4.16     Effect of microcredit related variables that affect the welfare of the  

             male credit user cassava based producing households          102

4.17     Effect of microcredit related variables that affect the welfare of the

female credit user cassava based producing households         106

4.18     Estimated welfare function of the male credit user and male non-credit user households                               110

4.19     Tests for differences in welfare for user and credit non user

households                             116

4.20     Paired Z-test to compare the gender related variables outcomes affecting the

welfare of the male and female cassava based producing households      118

4.21      Distribution of cassava producing households according to their welfare Status                                 124

4.22     Profitability and returns on investment of credit user and credit non user households by gender                                  127

4.23      Profitability of credit user households by gender                  129                                                                                                     

4.24     Tests for differences in profitability of microcredit user households by gender                                  134     

4.25     Estimated welfare functions of microcredit user households by

             Gender                                  137                                         

4.26     Tests for differences in welfare of male and female credit user

            Households                                   142

                                                                                                                                                                                               

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Fig 2.1             Estimates of root yield and total output for cassava in Nigeria during 1999 – 2018.                 38

Fig 3.1             Map showing Abia State Local Government Areas and the Selected Communities for the study                  61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1           BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Smallholder producers are vital for Nigeria’s agricultural and rural economy and are drivers of many economies in Africa. Smallholder producers are farmers that own or/and cultivate less than 5 hectares of land on which they grow subsistence crops and rely most exclusively on family labor (Kutya, 2012). They constitute about 78 percent of the Nigerian farmers.

Smallholder cassava producers like other small business sector have been the means through which accelerated economic growth and rapid industrialization can be achieved especially in developing countries (Hocket, 2016). They encourage entrepreneurial activities, introduce innovative technologies, boost productivity and make a major contribution to the well-being of the entrepreneurs and the national economy at large (Fatawu et al., 2014).

These smallholder cassava producers/farmers, who are the respondents of this research, are farmers registered with cooperatives and are associated with the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP). They are being trained by the ADP extension agents on improved techniques of cassava production. The small loan mobilization unit under the Rural Institution Development (RID) in the ADP office, link these smallholder cassava producers to banks to obtain microcredit for their farming operations. They link them up to banks like Bank of Agriculture (BOA), LAPO Microfinance Bank and others. The extension agents also link them up to market where their cassava produce are sold to encourage them stay in business.

The cassava sub-sector is notably significant in the agricultural sector as a result of its contributions and potentials in the economy. Cassava (Manihot esculenta) is a popular perennial crop of the roots and tubers that grow in tropical and subtropical areas of the world. It is regarded as food security and poverty alleviation crop because of its special attributes which include ability to make returns of root yield even in extreme stress conditions and requirement of minimal external inputs all year round (James et al., 2015). It is one of the major crops grown by the smallholder farmers in the eastern part of Nigeria. It is one of the staple foods and cash crops that contribute about 15% of the daily dietary energy intake of most Nigerians and supplies about 70% of the total calories intake in about 60 million people in Nigeria (Ahmadu et al., 2014). As a crop with a variety of uses, it has played and continued to play a central role in Nigeria’s agricultural sector.

The realization of the potentials of cassava for contributing to the attainment of self-sufficiency in food production, informed the decision of the government of Nigeria to initiate a Cassava Transformation Programme. This programme seeks to create a new generation of cassava farmers oriented towards commercial production and processing of cassava. This is with a view to turn cassava sector in Nigeria into a major player in local and international starch, sweeteners, ethanol high quality cassava flour (HQCF), and dried chips industries. A Presidential Initiative on Cassava (PIC) which is called presidential intervention on cassava among other crops was launched in 2003 (Ikuemonisan et al., 2020).  The PIC aims at generating 5 billion Naira annually from the exportation of cassava products (pellet, cassava, starch and chips) and to develop an internal market for cassava producers. The strategy is to develop domestic market and create national policies for cassava development (Food and Agricultural Organisation, STAT, 2012). The government actively pursued policies and programmes that could create demand for cassava products and some of the notable policy intervention and programmes include cassava bread policy. The government mandated the flour milling industries and bakeries to contain 10 percent cassava flour into all bread produced in Nigeria. Implementation of this policy created a demand of 250,000 tonnes of High Quality Cassava Flour (HQCF) which will require about 1 million tonnes of cassava tubers annually (Wossen et al., 2017), They made the Automotive Biofuel Policy 2007 which created demand for cassava. They mandated the Nigerian National Petroleum Cooperation (NNPC) and its subsidiary Acomna the Petroleum Product Marketing Company (PPMC) to distribute gasoline containing 10 percent bioethanol (E10). This policy can create a demand of 1.3 billion litres of fuel grade ethanol annually (Central Bank of Nigeria, 2010). Also, the government of Nigeria planned to replace paraffin with bioethanol as the cooking fuel. This will create a demand of 3.75 billion litres of ethanol which can require nearly 21 million metric tonnes of cassava tuber (Ohiman, 2014). Despite these developments, the output of cassava still falls below total demand as food, for industry and for export (Wossen et al., 2017).

Governments in the developing world and their developed partners pay considerable attention to the potential of cassava and this brought about a general agreement for a global strategy for cassava development (International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2006) especially through empowerment activities of Women in Agriculture Programme (WIA). Women play a central role in cassava production and contribute about 78 percent of labour with involvement in hoeing, weeding, harvesting, transporting, storing, processing, marketing and men work predominantly on land clearing, ploughing and planting (FAO, 2009, Kehinde et al., 2015). Cassava is often defined as a woman’s crop. Despite the immense contribution of women in agriculture, reports show that women in Nigeria lack access to adequate productive resources due to their socio-economic status (Nwachukwu, 2012). However, inclusive transition strategies are needed to address key constraints women face at disproportional levels than men. Gender is a term often associated with roles and responsibilities of males and females and how this affects society, culture, the economy and politics (Radipere et al., 2014). In all cultures, gender determines power and resources for male and females (Igberi, 2012).  In almost all societies women and men differ in their activities and undertakings regarding access to and control over resources and participating in decision making. As a result of these differences, their views, needs, priorities and constraints to improving their productive potentials differ. These could affect their various outputs even in cassava enterprise development (Ali et al., 2015).

Okali (2011) observed that women have been the core subject of gender and indicated that the term “gender issues” have been widely used to refer to disadvantages faced by women in the field of agriculture despite the theoretical meaning of gender as roles of males and females.

Women face gender specific constraints and are often marginalized in their families and communities suffering from a lack of access to credit, land, education, decision making power and right to work (Ali et al., 2015) These genders related constraints affect the income and profit of women entrepreneurs and thus their welfare (Baht et al., 2017).

According to (Ezeibe et al., 2015), the need to advance gender equality in business is relevant for all economies, regardless of their development levels. There has been a great disparity between males and females even in the size of land holdings as well as their involvement in cassava production (Osuji, 2017).

With respect to access to credit, International Finance Corporation (2014), observed that women entrepreneurs tend to face more problems than men entrepreneurs in meeting the credit needs. Assets to be used as collateral by women makes it difficult for women entrepreneurs to borrow credit to carry a significant weight and this affects their contribution to economic growth.

Credit is an effective means for poor people to increase their economic security, reduce the impact of economic shocks, increase their assets, productivity and income and thus improve their welfare (Madole, 2013). It is an important instrument for improving the welfare of the poor directly through smoothing of consumption in a context where income typically experience large seasonal fluctuations.

Hennessey (2006), affirmed that small loans given to poor borrowers or to small businesses whose financial capital base are not large enough to access larger loans for the acquisition of such small loans would enhance business profitability of such ventures and this is what is called microcredit. Furthermore, Alhassan et al., (2016) observed that easing potential capital constraints through the granting of credit reduces the opportunity costs of capital incentive assets relative to family labour, thus encouraging the adoption of labour saving, higher yielding technologies and therefore increasing productivity and profitability which is the primary goal of all business ventures and a crucial factor in encouraging development. Profitability is the ability of a given investment to earn a return from its use. A business that is highly profitable has the ability to reward its owner with large return on investment. The ultimate goal of a business entity is to earn profit in order to sustain the business in prevailing market condition and an increase in profit will improve the welfare of the entrepreneur.

Due to the importance of cassava products, the welfare of households depends on it for sustainability. Welfare could be said to represent the people’s standard of living and or the economic well-being of an individual, group or economy. In theory, household consumption expenditure on food and education is used as a proxy for welfare indicator (Quartey, 2006). The effect of microcredit on the welfare of smallholder farmers in a developing economy like ours is very important because accessibility to such credit will promote the agricultural activities of the farmers, increase the employment of resources, raise the income level of these farmers and subsequently improve their welfare (Okurut et al., 2014). The extent to which small enterprises could access fund is the extents to which small firms can save and accumulate own capital for further investment (Babajide, 2012). However, smallholder producers in Nigeria find it difficult to access formal financial institutions such as commercial banks for fund. The inability of the smallholder producers to access financial institutions for loan consideration provides a platform for informal institutions to attempt to fill the gap usually based on informal social networks, and this is what gave birth to micro financing.

In order to enhance the flow of financial services to the smallholder producers, government in Nigeria has, in the past, initiated series of programs and policies targeted at the small enterprises. Notable among such programs were the Small Scale Industries Credit Guarantee Scheme (SSICS) (1971), specialized financial schemes through development financial institutions such as the Nigerian Industrial Development Bank (NIDB) (1964), Nigerian Bank of Commerce and Industry (NBCI) 1973, and National Economic Recovery Fund (NERFUND) (1989). All of these institutions merged to form the Bank of Industry (BOI). In 2000, the government also merged the Nigeria Agricultural Cooperative Bank (NACB), the People’s Bank of Nigeria (PBN) and Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP) to form the Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank Limited (NACRDB). The bank was set up to enhance the provision of finance to the agricultural and rural sector (Adeyemi, 2008).

In 2003, the Small and Medium Enterprise Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN), an umbrella agency to coordinate the development of the small and medium Enterprises (SME) sector was established. In the same year, the National Credit Guarantee Scheme (NCGS) for SMEs to facilitate its access to credit. The scheme aimed, among other things to assist the establishment of new, viable small and medium industries (SMI) projects, thereby stimulating economic growth, and development of local technology promoting indigenous entrepreneurship and generating employment. Despite all these efforts, the contribution of smallholder enterprises to Nigeria Gross Domestic Product (GDP) remains very poor, hence, the need for alternative funding window (CBN, 2005).

In 2005, the Federal Government of Nigeria adopted microfinance as the main financing window for smallholder enterprises in Nigeria. The Microfinance Policy Regulatory and Supervisory Framework (MPRSF) was launched in 2005; the policy among other things, addressed the problem of lack of access to credit by smallholder operators who do not have access to regular bank credits.

According to Fernando (2006), despite the fact that there is a significant relationship between microfinance credit and welfare of the smallholder cassava producers, their impact is limited because of stringent conditions of the financial institutions which are the microcredit related variables which include; small loan size, high interest rate, short repayment period, collateral requirement etcetera. This can increase the burden on the smallholder producers.

Most microcredit programs around the world target women and this is to help them earn income, gain financial independence, strengthen their decision making power within the household and society and improve their welfare (Zhang and Posso, 2017). Earlier studies on welfare have identified microcredit as a factor that explains household’s welfare. There is a relationship between microcredit and welfare of smallholder farmers but its impact is limited because of the microcredit related variables. This research examined the effect of microcredit and gender related variables on welfare of smallholder cassava producers in Abia State, Nigeria.

1.2       PROBLEM STATEMENT

Microcredit enables the small enterprises tap the financial resources and take advantage of the potentially profitable investment opportunities in their immediate environment (Waithanji, 2014). It plays a crucial role in improving the welfare of the entrepreneurs but the stringent conditions associated with it can increase burden on the very poor entrepreneurs as posited by the opponents of microcredit schemes, but questions whether that has always been the case (Bateman and Chang, 2009). These conditions such as high interest rate, small amount of loan given, short period of loan repayment, collateral requirement makes it difficult for the entrepreneurs to enjoy the benefit of microcredit and has to be addressed in this research. Microcredit practitioners and schemes target women to help them earn income, gain financial independence and strengthen their decision making power within the household and society (Zhang and Posso, 2017). In this regard, some studies that aimed to evaluate factors that affect microcredit have used gender differences among their variables but not in the dichotomy of gender of cassava – based agropreneurs and how it affects their welfare.  

In addition, empirical data segregation on factors influencing gender outcomes in business is rather scarce and difficult to obtain. This is because gender differences in factors affecting welfare of smallholder producers remained largely unaddressed by social scientists and developmentalists. The majority of the studies either disregard gender as a variable of interest or excluded female subjects from their design (Lagat et al, 2017). Failure to grant equal property rights may further impede women’s ability to seek funding in the capital markets since they cannot collateralize their assets effectively to obtain credit.

There are several different strands of literature relevant to the thesis of how gender affects participation in entrepreneurship activities and economic development. The argument which emerges in the literature is that women have been marginalized in society. This marginalization has been in form of unequal opportunities in economic activities and inequalities in access to the productive resources (Ogunlela et al, 2009). Women’s entrepreneurship is important since it gives them the option to pursue better economic opportunities working in their own businesses. The need to advance gender equality is relevant for all economies regardless of their development levels. In the case of developing economies like Nigeria using Abia state as a case study, the untapped potentials of advancing women owned enterprise means that more businesses and employment could flourish if women entrepreneurs are given the same opportunity as their male counterparts.

Despite the fact that there is a significant relationship between microcredit and welfare of smallholder producers, their impact is limited because of microfinance stringent conditions such as short loan repayment duration which does not make it possible for microcredit to be able to generate future income, high interest rate which discourage smallholder producers from borrowing and investing into potentially profitable investment opportunities, small amount of loan received, which discouraged smallholder producers from expanding their businesses and investing in business opportunities which does not come often. All this microcredit related variables made microcredit unable to generate future income, thus preventing savings, consumption and welfare.     

Based on the problems highlighted above, some questions have become pertinent to provide answers to. These include;

i)               What are the socio-economic characteristics of smallholder cassava based producers by gender?

ii)             What effect does microcredit and gender related variables have on the welfare of smallholder cassava based producers in the study area?

iii)           What are the welfare indices of smallholder cassava producers who are beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of microcredit?

iv)            Is there any significant difference between profitability of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of microcredit?

v)             What factors influence the welfare of smallholder cassava producers in the study area?

1.3       OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of this study is to analyse the effect of microcredit and gender related variables on welfare of smallholder cassava based producers in Abia State, Nigeria. The specific objectives are to;

i.                 describe the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the smallholder cassava based producers by gender,

ii.              analyze the effects of microcredit and gender related variables on welfare of smallholder cassava based producers.

iii.              Compute and compare the welfare status of smallholder cassava based producers by gender for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of microcredit,

iv.              compare the profitability of male and female beneficiaries of microcredit.

v.                estimate the factors influencing the welfare of the smallholder cassava based producers (household heads) across gender for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of microcredit in the study area.

1.4       HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

In line with the objectives the following hypotheses were tested:

H01:  Microcredit related variables (Interest rate, amount of loan received by the producers, loan repayment period, loan duration and collateral requirement) do not have a significant effect on the welfare of smallholder cassava producers.

H02:   There is no significant difference between the output, income, and welfare of the male and female cassava producing households.

H03: There is no significant difference between profitability of the male credit user households and female credit user households and also the male non-credit user households and female non-credit user households

1.5       JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY

Cassava has been proven to be economically viable with countless raw materials that when explored to the fullest, has the potential to inject over ₦20 trillion into the nation’s economy. Most industries in Nigeria use large quantity of cassava as their raw material but sadly this raw material from cassava is imported by these industries because the local processors do not meet up with the supply. Nearly every person in Africa eats around 80kg of cassava per year. It is estimated that 37% of dietary energy comes from cassava. This could encourage smallholder cassava producers to increase production which would lead to an increase in income and thus enhance the welfare of the producers (Nwaobiala, 2018).

Results of this study will be beneficial to Bank of Agriculture (BOA) as the play a role in agricultural and economic development, bring about increase in employment, generate income and reduce poverty. It will also enable the BOA to adopt workable strategies to improve financial performance and profitability.

This research will guide lending institutions towards better lending design, enhance efficacy of institutional framework and be a handy guide in credit delivery decisions.

The study will provide information about the effect of gender and microcredit related variables on welfare of smallholder cassava producers. The result of this research is useful in terms of providing valuable information for policy formulation and implementation. Beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of microcredit, Researchers and students will also benefit from the study as this research work will add to available literature on microcredit and gender issues as well as provide a stepping stone for further research. 


Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.

Review


To Comment