ABSTRACT
This study on the relative technical change and production efficiency of male and female smallholder arable crop farm households was carried out in Abia State. The socio-economic characteristics of the female and male heads of households were cross-tabulated with access to credit, farm size, labour use and depreciated value of farm tools. The study also estimated and compared the production function, profit function and efficiency measures of the male and female arable crop households. The relative technical change in the output of the household head was also determined. The data were collected through cost route using a structured questionnaire. Eighty households were sampled (40 male and 40 female headed). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, stochastic production frontier functions, z-test, efficiency indices, profit function and chow’s tests. The results showed that the female headed households had less access to credit, land, labour and farm tools than the male headed households. The result also showed that labour and farm size were positively related to the output of the female headed households while farm tools was negatively related to the output of the female headed households. For male headed households, farm tools was negatively related to the output of the male headed households and farm size and planting materials were positively related to output of the male headed households. Also, output (in naira) was higher for male headed households than for female headed households. For female headed households, land was underutilized while labour and farm tools were overutilized. The male headed households underutilized land and planting materials and overutilized farm tools. Both households were inefficient in the use of all resources. The female headed households were technically, economically and allocatively more efficient than the male headed households. Household size, farm tools, farm size and price of labour, positively and significantly influenced profit of female headed households and price of agrochemical, price of fertilizer and price of planting material were significant and negatively influenced the profit of female headed households while household size and farm size were significant and positively influenced the profit of the male headed households. Age, price of fertilizer, price of labour and price of output, negatively and significantly respectively influenced the profit of the male headed households. The profit of the male headed households was higher than the profit of the female headed households. The result also showed that there was a technical difference between the output of the male and female headed households. The difference between the outputs of the household heads was due to the sex of the household head. This study recommend that government should enact polices that provide and expand agricultural credit facilities to ensure that farm households have improved access to credit. This may require a review of the community and rural banking schemes to bring credit facilities to the door steps of farm households in rural areas.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page i
Declaration ii
Certification iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables x
List of Figures xii
Abstract xiii
CHAPTER
1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Information 1
1.2 Problem
Statement 3
1.3 Objectives
of the Study 4
1.4 Hypotheses 5
1.5 Justification
for the Study 5
CHAPTER
2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Conceptual
Literature 8
2.1.1 Household 8
2.1.2 Household
heads 8
2.1.3 Arable
crop farming 10
2.1.4 Small holder
arable crop farm and farm size 11
2.1.5 Scale of production 12
2.1.6 Credit 13
2.1.7
Labour 14
2.1.8
Land 15
2.1.9
Production 18
2.1.10
Concept of efficiency 25
2.1.11 Stochastic frontier approach 26
2.1.12 Technical
change 32
2.1.13
Profit function 32
2.2 Conceptual Framework
37
2.3 Theoretical
Literature 38
2.3.1 Theories
of production 38
2.3.2 Theories of profit 39
2.3.3 Theories of efficiency 41
2.4 Empirical
Literature
42
2.4.1
Socio-economic characteristic and output of farm households 42
2.4.2 Production functions of female and male
headed households
45
2.4.3
Efficiency measures of female and male headed households 46
2.4.4 Profit functions of female and male headed
households
48
2.5
Analytical Tools 49
2.5.1
Mean 49
2.5.2 Frequency
distribution 50
2.5.3
Z- test 50
2.5.4
Regression analysis 51
2.5.5
Chow’s test 52
2.5.6
Resource-Use efficiency index 53
2.5.7
Technical efficiency 54
2.5.8
Profit function 56
CHAPTER
3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study
Area 57
3.2 Sampling
Procedure 59
3.3 Data
Collection 60
3.4 Analytical
Technique 60
3.5
Measurements of Variables 68
CHAPTER
4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-economic
Characteristics of Female and Male Heads of
Arable Crop Farm Households 71
4.1.2 Socio-economic
characteristics of female and male heads of arable
crop farm households in relations
to access to credit, farm size, labour and farm tools 73
4.1.2.1 Access to credit 73
4.1.2.2
Access to farm size 75
4.1.2.3
Access to labour use 78
4.1.2.4
Depreciated value of farm tools 82
4.2 Production Function of the Female, Male
and Pooled Headed Households 90
4.2.1 Stochastic production frontier function of
the female, male
and pooled headed households 84
4.2.2 Frequency distribution of respondent
according to technical efficiency indices 90
4.3
Allocative and Economic Efficiency Measures of the Male and Female Headed Households 92
4.3.1 Stochastic cost function of the female, male and pooled headed
households 94
4.3.2 Frequency distribution of respondents according to economic efficiency 96
4.3.3 Allocative efficiency of the male, female headed
Households 98
4.4 Technical Change between the Output of
the Male and Female Headed Households 100
4.4.1 Test for the equality of the
coefficients 100
4.4.2 Test for structural difference in the
coefficients
101
4.4.3 Test for the heterogeneity of the
intercepts 102
4.4.4
Testing for the homogeneity of slope 103
4.5
Assessment of the Relative Resource Use Efficiencies of the Male,
Female and Pooled Farm Households 104
4.6 Net
Farm Income and Profit Functions of the Female and Male
Headed Households 108
4.6.1 Profit functions of the female and male headed
households 110
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
118
5.2 Conclusion 121
5.3 Recommendations 121
5.4 Contribution
to Knowledge 122
References 123
LIST OF TABLES
4.1 Socio-economic
characteristics of respondents 71
4.2 Statistical test of differences between
means of age, education,
farming experience and output of male and female heads of
households 72
4.3 Access to credit in relation to age, level of education, sex
and farming experience 73
4.4 Farm size in relation to age, level of education, sex
and farming experience and test of significance difference 75
4.5 Labour use in relation to age, level of education, sex
and farming experience and test of
significance difference
78
4.6 Age,
level of education, sex and farming experience in relation
to depreciated value of farm tools and test of significance difference 82
4.7
Estimated stochastic production frontier function for the male
and
female headed households and pooled 84
4.8
Frequency distribution of the male and female headed households
and
pooled according to technical efficiency indices 90
4.9 Estimated stochastic cost function for
the male and female headed
households and pooled 94
4.10 Frequency distribution of the male and
female headed households
and pooled according to economic
efficiency indices 96
4.11 Frequency distribution of the male and
female headed households
and pooled according to allocative
efficiency indices 98
4.12 Anova results of the determinants of the
output of the male and
female headed households and pooled 101
4.13
Resource use efficiency for the male and female headed households
and pooled 105
4.14 Net farm income of the male and female
headed households 108
4.15 Comparison
of the profit of the female and male headed households 109
4.16 Estimated profit function for the female
headed households 110
4.17 Estimated profit function for
the male headed households 114
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1
Total production or response curve 20
2.2 Production function curve 21
2.3 Linkage between resources and
output/profit 37
3.1 Map of Abia State showing 17 local
Government
Areas of the State
58
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Agriculture is the application of art and science to
the growing of crops and the raising of animals inorder to produce food for
man, fibre and other inputs for industries for economic growth (Bareja, 2014).
The growing of crops and raising of farm animals and livestock to produce food
for man, fibre and other inputs for industries constitute livelihood
activities. Therefore, agriculture’s role in economic development is critical
with respect to the creation of employment opportunities for most of the people.
Agriculture provides employment for about 30% of the working population in
Nigeria (NBS, 2010). Agriculture also provides food for the people and material
inputs for the manufacturing sector. Its contribution to the generation of
income for individual farmers and for Nigeria is significant. According to FGN (2006),
agriculture has contributed immensely to Nigeria’s economic development through
its contribution to the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Its contribution to the
nation’s Gross Domestic Product is about 40%.
Subsistence rural farmers are the major players in
agricultural production as they account for about 90% of food production in
Nigeria and other developing countries (Adams and Vogel, 1990; CBN, 2004). Subsistence
farming is characterized by numerous farmers cultivating several small, scattered
and fragmented plots of land using simple hand tools and implements such as
hoes and machetes based on traditional practices such as bush burning and land
rotation. In subsistence agriculture, the household is the unit of decision making
and the head of the household is the decision taker, the entrepreneur and the
manager of the economic activities of the household. The household head also
contributes to the labour force on the farm.
Most rural households are subsistence farm households,
headed by either men or women. Female headed households are probably vulnerable
naturally and may face a lot of challenges due to customary practices
especially in patrilineal societies as in the study area. In patrilineal
societies, the researcher observed that female headed households are probably more
constrained than male headed households in terms of access to agricultural
inputs and technologies. In the study area, women may have limited access to
land due to lack of inheritance rights. As a result, female headed households may
have limited access to credit since land is the most sought after collateral
for credit. Limited access to credit, limit access to other farm inputs which
probably adversely affects resource use efficiency and consequently the output
and profit functions of female headed households in such societies, with the
attendant low incomes, low savings and low investments. Consequently, most
rural female headed households remain entrapped in the vicious cycle of poverty.
The output and profit of farm households is a function
of their resource use efficiency –allocative, technical and economic. Resource
use efficiency implies optimal use of resources in production at the least cost
in order to maximize profit (Wilcox et al.,
2016). Resource use efficiency is premised on allocative or allocational
efficiency. Allocative efficiency itself is premised on efficient markets. In
an efficient market, all goods and services are optimally allocated among
users. Allocative efficiency occurs at the equilibrium price and quantity.
Efficient markets are characterized by informational efficiency (information is
available to every participant in the market) and operational efficiency (all
transaction costs are reasonable and fair to all participants). Ettah and Angba
(2016) posited that allocative efficiency is the ability of a firm to produce a
given level of output using cost-minimizing input ratios. There are indications
that efficient farms make better use of existing resources and produce their
output at the lowest cost (Effiong et al.,
2017). Most smallholder farmers in Nigeria are resource poor (FAO, 1990; Njoku
and Olomola, 2011) and as a result, land, labour, capital and managerial
resources are inefficiently allocated leading to a decrease in their
productivity and output (Okuneye, 2007). Efficient allocation of resources is a
fundamental challenge in small holder agriculture in Nigeria (Maurice, et al., 2015).
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
In Nigeria, men constitute about 50.7% while women
constitute about 49.3% of the estimated population of about 206 million (Nigeria
Demographic (ND), 2020), yielding an estimated female population of about 101
million. It is estimated that about 54 million of Nigeria’s female population
live in the rural areas where they account for 60-70% of the labour force (Sanusi,
2012). Most of these women are small holder farmers and food processors.
Field observations and discussions with some key
informants indicated that women dominate in agricultural production in the
study area but that the land tenure and inheritance practices in the area limit
women’s access to agricultural inputs relative to men. The land tenure and
inheritance practices in the study area primarily limit women’s access to land
and consequently credit, since land is the main collateral requirement for
access to credit. The challenge is that women often have to contend with
greater difficulties in an attempt to access credit with which to acquire other
production inputs. According to Adedayo and Tunde, (2013), lack of credit leads
farmers to cultivating small plots of land because they are unable to purchase
larger plots of land and other farm inputs with which to increase output and
earn higher incomes. In the light of these limitations, are male headed rural
farm households allocatively, technically and economically more efficient than female headed rural farm
households. In essence, how does the output and profit of female headed
rural farm households compare with that of male headed rural farm households?
To address these questions, an analysis of relative technical change and production efficiency of female and male headed
rural food crop
households becomes an important research endeavour. This is with a view to identifying
significant drivers of the output
and profit of female and male
headed rural farm households and to making recommendations that will provide
the basis for the formulation of policies that will lead to an improvement in
the efficiency of resource use and in the output and profit
of female and male headed rural farm households and stimulate an increase in
food output.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The broad objective of this study was to analyse relative
technical change and production efficiency of male and female headed smallholder
arable crop farm households in Abia State.
The specific objectives were to:
i. examine
the socio-economic characteristics of female and male heads of arable crop farm
households in relation to access to credit, farm size, labour and depreciated
value of farm tools used.
ii. estimate
the production functions for the female and male headed arable crop farm households
and for both households.
iii. estimate
and compare the technical, allocative and economic efficiencies and their
determinants, of female and male headed arable crop farm households and for
both households.
iv. establish
whether there are technological differencies between female and male headed
arable crop farm households.
v. assess
the relative resource use efficiencies of the female and male headed arable
crop farm households.
vi. estimate
and compare the profit functions of female and male headed arable crop farm households.
1.4 HYPOTHESES
The following hypotheses were tested.
1.
The outputs of the female
and male headed arable crop farm households are positively related to farm size
and labour
and negatively related to
cost of fertilizer, cost of agrochemical, cost of planting materials
and depreciated
value of farm tools.
2.
The male headed arable
crop farm households are more allocatively, technically and economically
efficient than the female headed arable crop farm households.
3.
The profits of the male
and female headed arable crop farm households are positively influenced by farm size and negatively
influenced by price of labour, depreciated
value of farm tools, prices of planting materials, fertilizer and agrochemicals.
4.
There is no significant
difference in the profit of the male and female headed arable crop farm households.
5.
There is no technological
difference between the male and female headed arable crop farm households.
1.5 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY
Agriculture
is the primary economic activity in Nigeria and although men are more likely
than women to participate in agriculture, the difference is minimal (Gbemisola,
et al., 2013). There are indications
that 60% of male headed households are involved in agriculture compared to 48%
of female headed households. The number of households participating in
agriculture is higher in rural areas (78%) and lower in urban areas (22%)
(Gbemisola, et al., 2013). According to Saito (1994), it is less common
to find certain crops produced exclusively by men or women. Approximately 90%
of male and female headed households produce staple (food) crops. Both men and
women contribute significantly to agricultural production yet their access to
agricultural resources differ (Deere and Doss, 2006; FAO 2010).
Since
there are also indications that women are highly involved in agriculture like
men, (“Nigerian women contribute about 70 percent of the agricultural workforce”)
(Ousmane, 2015), it is important to determine if the women are earning higher
incomes, are more productive in
agriculture and use resources more efficiently than the men or vice versa.
Gbemisola et al., (2013) reported
that male farmers earn more from agricultural activities than female farmers
from both staple (food) and cash crops.
Against the background that women probably have
limited access to agricultural production inputs due to constraints inherent in
the land tenure and inheritance practices in the study area, there is a paucity
of empirical evidence to show how resource use, output and profit of
female headed arable crop households are affected by these constraints that
women face as a result of land tenure and inheritance practices in the study
area. It is therefore important to estimate the resource use efficiency, the
output and profit
of arable crop households (male and female headed); the factors that influence
the output and profit of
the arable crop households (male and female headed) and to determine if there
are significant differences in resource use efficiency and the output and profit of male and female
headed arable crop farm households and if any technical difference in output is
due to the sex of the head of the household.
The results of this study will provide the basis for
recommendations
that will lead to
the formulation of policies that will engender an improvement in the
income of female and male headed farm households. The results will
1) provide
empirical evidence of the factors that drive the efficiency and profit of male and
female headed arable crop households and also evidence of any differences in
efficiency and profit between
female and male headed arable crop farm households.
2) provide
empirical evidence of any differences in technology and in resource use efficiency
of male and female headed arable crop farm households.
3) show
the impact of the gender of the head of the households on output of the household.
These
outcomes will;
1) provide policy makers with empirical
information needed for policy formulation with a view to improving the output, profit
and resource use efficiency of
arable crop farm households.
2) contribute to the literature on the significant
drivers of the output, profit
and resource use efficiency of arable crop farm households.
3) identify knowledge gaps in relation to the output, profit and resource use
efficiency of
female and male headed arable crop farm households that will provide the basis
for future research endeavours by researchers.
4) provide information to farmers on ways of
increasing their output and profit and improving their allocative, economic and
technical efficiencies.
Login To Comment