Navigating the pitfalls of rural poverty alleviation in southern Africa
By Philip Grabowski
P. Grabowski
In July of 2005 I visited an agricultural project in the village of Chia in Mozambique where farmers had reported bumper yields from the small fertilizer loans they had received from a local non-profit that I supported as a consultant. They showed me their overflowing granaries and boasted about how they used to be hungry but now they had plenty. They would even sell enough to buy their own fertilizer the next year.
This was ideal - a once off boost that could help them reach what Jeffrey Sach’s calls “the first rung of the development ladder” after which they could climb for themselves [1]. By linking them with the market farmers would be able to buy inputs like fertilizer and seeds, produce a surplus and sell it, pay for their children to go to school and have plenty of food. All that was needed was a push to provide these farmers with that first bit of fertilizer and then poverty would be history. Unfortunately the solution is not that easy and this was brought clearly to my attention during that same visit to Chia.
Before leaving Chia I also visited the committee established by the local non-profit to care for orphans in the community. Over 15% of the adult population in Mozambique is infected with HIV and their early deaths have resulted in hundreds of thousands of orphans. The committee in Chia brought me to the house of a grandmother caring for an orphaned toddler who was obviously malnourished. His hair looked bleached, his skin was a bit grey and his stomach was protruding. The grandmother had been feeding him only maize porridge and explained that she let him run around naked because he was always having diarrhea. Unsure what to do about this disturbing situation, I left a few dollars with the committee and encouraged them to buy some nutritious food for the boy.
A month later though, I met a man from that village in town and he told me the child had died. Here in the village of abundant harvests a child had died a hunger related death. The force of this irony continues to strike me, especially because I know that if I had done more the child could easily have lived. Rather than let this feeling of guilt defeat me I chose to burn this story into my brain and use it to motivate me to action. I wanted to understand if the increased agricultural production would be likely to make that child’s death less likely in the future or not.
After six years of working in rural development in Malawi and Mozambique I decided to go back to school to learn from others’ experiences wrestling with these issues. This essay aims to connect a variety of theories on poverty alleviation with my experiences interacting with farmers in southern Africa (especially Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique). I start by presenting some observations and recommendations for how market-led rural development efforts can be more effective at alleviating poverty and then I develop the theory behind them.
1. Observation: Increasing agricultural productivity through improved technologies will not necessarily lead to poverty alleviation and may actually make many worse off.
2. Recommendation: Specific attention must be paid to social justice. Agricultural changes must be considered from a gendered perspective and social safety nets for the most vulnerable are needed in order to prevent increasing inequality.
3. Recommendation: Strategic investments in the rural non-farm economy are needed.
4. Recommendation: Participation and democratic processes are essential.
This was ideal - a once off boost that could help them reach what Jeffrey Sach’s calls “the first rung of the development ladder” after which they could climb for themselves [1]. By linking them with the market farmers would be able to buy inputs like fertilizer and seeds, produce a surplus and sell it, pay for their children to go to school and have plenty of food. All that was needed was a push to provide these farmers with that first bit of fertilizer and then poverty would be history. Unfortunately the solution is not that easy and this was brought clearly to my attention during that same visit to Chia.
Before leaving Chia I also visited the committee established by the local non-profit to care for orphans in the community. Over 15% of the adult population in Mozambique is infected with HIV and their early deaths have resulted in hundreds of thousands of orphans. The committee in Chia brought me to the house of a grandmother caring for an orphaned toddler who was obviously malnourished. His hair looked bleached, his skin was a bit grey and his stomach was protruding. The grandmother had been feeding him only maize porridge and explained that she let him run around naked because he was always having diarrhea. Unsure what to do about this disturbing situation, I left a few dollars with the committee and encouraged them to buy some nutritious food for the boy.
A month later though, I met a man from that village in town and he told me the child had died. Here in the village of abundant harvests a child had died a hunger related death. The force of this irony continues to strike me, especially because I know that if I had done more the child could easily have lived. Rather than let this feeling of guilt defeat me I chose to burn this story into my brain and use it to motivate me to action. I wanted to understand if the increased agricultural production would be likely to make that child’s death less likely in the future or not.
After six years of working in rural development in Malawi and Mozambique I decided to go back to school to learn from others’ experiences wrestling with these issues. This essay aims to connect a variety of theories on poverty alleviation with my experiences interacting with farmers in southern Africa (especially Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique). I start by presenting some observations and recommendations for how market-led rural development efforts can be more effective at alleviating poverty and then I develop the theory behind them.
1. Observation: Increasing agricultural productivity through improved technologies will not necessarily lead to poverty alleviation and may actually make many worse off.
2. Recommendation: Specific attention must be paid to social justice. Agricultural changes must be considered from a gendered perspective and social safety nets for the most vulnerable are needed in order to prevent increasing inequality.
3. Recommendation: Strategic investments in the rural non-farm economy are needed.
4. Recommendation: Participation and democratic processes are essential.
1. Increased agricultural productivity does not equal poverty alleviation
P. Grabowski
Currently sub-Saharan Africa is home to 76% of the world’s ultra poor who live on less than 50 cents a day [2]. Most of these people live in rural areas and their number increased from 92 million in 1990 to 121 million in 2004. High population density without urbanization has led to smaller farm sizes with less opportunity for natural regeneration of the soil. This has led to soil degradation and further reductions in agricultural productivity. Poor rural farmers in much of Africa now find themselves trapped in a low equilibrium state of low yields, poor soils, low education levels, poor health and few assets other than their own labor.
In theory linking farmers to markets can reduce poverty by increasing their productivity. In many parts of Africa farmers have little access to markets so inputs are unavailable and there is little incentive to produce a surplus. Commercial inputs such as improved seeds and fertilizer have the potential to increase yields so that every hour a farmer spends in the field results in more food production. Because most of the poor in Africa are rural farmers, investing in agricultural productivity has the potential to improve the welfare of millions.
Agricultural improvements can reduce poverty directly through increasing the total food produced in a household as well as providing cash from the sale of the surplus. It can also benefit the rural poor indirectly through decreased food prices (if the supply is significantly increased) and through higher and more reliable wages (if demand for agricultural workers increases).
As agricultural productivity increases, the supply of food is increased, which drives prices down. For this reason most of the profits are captured by those who first adopt the improved practices and experience higher yields before the prices fall. Those who adopt the practices later may actually be no better off. Their yields are up but their profits are down because of the lower prices; they are simply running in place, which is why this is called the technological treadmill.
Those who do not adopt the new practices may actually be worse off with the same low yields but lower prices than before. This last group may fall off the end of the treadmill and be unable to continue farming. Economic theory sees this as a natural and overall beneficial result. Their land can be farmed by those who use more productive technologies thereby increasing the size of the economy. If property rights are sufficiently enforced (which is rarely the case) the land can be rented out thereby providing a steady source of income even to these non-adopting households.
In many situations however traditional land tenure systems do not support long term rental agreements. Those who work the land become the owners. If the poorest farmers continue to work their land, many will farm in a way that leads to permanent land degradation. Instead of improving their soil quality they may need to spend most of their time working for others to get cash for their basic needs. Unless there is an attractive way to make a living other than through farming these individuals or their children will eventually change from farmers to full time agricultural laborers with little opportunity for improving their livelihoods. This risk led me to realize that increasing agricultural productivity may make it more likely for children to die of poor nutrition in villages like Chia. But what are the alternatives?
In theory linking farmers to markets can reduce poverty by increasing their productivity. In many parts of Africa farmers have little access to markets so inputs are unavailable and there is little incentive to produce a surplus. Commercial inputs such as improved seeds and fertilizer have the potential to increase yields so that every hour a farmer spends in the field results in more food production. Because most of the poor in Africa are rural farmers, investing in agricultural productivity has the potential to improve the welfare of millions.
Agricultural improvements can reduce poverty directly through increasing the total food produced in a household as well as providing cash from the sale of the surplus. It can also benefit the rural poor indirectly through decreased food prices (if the supply is significantly increased) and through higher and more reliable wages (if demand for agricultural workers increases).
As agricultural productivity increases, the supply of food is increased, which drives prices down. For this reason most of the profits are captured by those who first adopt the improved practices and experience higher yields before the prices fall. Those who adopt the practices later may actually be no better off. Their yields are up but their profits are down because of the lower prices; they are simply running in place, which is why this is called the technological treadmill.
Those who do not adopt the new practices may actually be worse off with the same low yields but lower prices than before. This last group may fall off the end of the treadmill and be unable to continue farming. Economic theory sees this as a natural and overall beneficial result. Their land can be farmed by those who use more productive technologies thereby increasing the size of the economy. If property rights are sufficiently enforced (which is rarely the case) the land can be rented out thereby providing a steady source of income even to these non-adopting households.
In many situations however traditional land tenure systems do not support long term rental agreements. Those who work the land become the owners. If the poorest farmers continue to work their land, many will farm in a way that leads to permanent land degradation. Instead of improving their soil quality they may need to spend most of their time working for others to get cash for their basic needs. Unless there is an attractive way to make a living other than through farming these individuals or their children will eventually change from farmers to full time agricultural laborers with little opportunity for improving their livelihoods. This risk led me to realize that increasing agricultural productivity may make it more likely for children to die of poor nutrition in villages like Chia. But what are the alternatives?
2. Specific attention needs to be paid to social justice
P. Grabowski
Karl Marx predicted that this increased concentration of wealth among the few based on the hard work of the many would eventually lead to a social revolution where the production system would be transformed into one of common ownership and social equality. In contrast to this utopian dream the experiences with socialism for rural development in Africa have been dismal failures. The evidence from Nyerere’s efforts in Tanzania and the villagization efforts in Mozambique in the early 1980s suggest that government-led attempts to control the rural economy caused more harm than good. The Leftist approach to a centrally planned economy has been shown to be hopelessly naïve but this does not mean that neo-liberal market-driven capitalism is the only alternative.
Market-led economic growth in agriculture is crucial to poverty alleviation in Africa but the Marxist criticism that capitalism increases social inequality needs to be taken seriously so that development efforts are not captured by a few elites. Otherwise agricultural improvements and increased markets will lead to the privilege of a few and the impoverishment of many. In other words the poverty alleviation effort would backfire.
In order to avoid this terrible outcome, careful consideration needs to be made about who will benefit and who will lose. For example, emphasizing agro-ecological alternatives to chemical inputs may reduce the amount of agriculture’s value that becomes captured by input providers. The 2011 Poverty Alleviation Report identified the need for “agricultural intensification that is both market-oriented and sustainable” as a central theme for poverty alleviation efforts [3].
Those who already have productive assets are likely to benefit the most from agricultural improvements. In order to prevent the poorest from getting poorer they may need specific technologies that work only for them or asset transfers that allow them to compete. Distributional analysis is an approach that can be useful for disentangling the economic effects of technological change on various sub-groups of a population in order to mitigate the negative consequences for the poorest. Two crucial aspects of working towards social justice are briefly considered here: a gendered perspective on technology and social safety nets.
In Africa extension efforts typically reach men more than women but significant gains for female farmers have been obtained by having more female extension workers [4]. Men have greater control of land, greater access to credit and higher education levels making them more likely to benefit from improved agricultural technologies. As long as intra-household dynamics are ignored development agencies will not be able to adapt interventions to support those who are most vulnerable [5].
Those who slowly accumulate assets are often knocked back into poverty by a sudden shock such as an expensive illness, a year of bad weather, a corrupt local official or a robbery. Droughts, sickness and thefts can leave hard working farmers in poverty traps. Government, community and family level assistance needs to be encouraged to reduce human suffering and prevent the downward spiral of selling off productive assets.
Market-led economic growth in agriculture is crucial to poverty alleviation in Africa but the Marxist criticism that capitalism increases social inequality needs to be taken seriously so that development efforts are not captured by a few elites. Otherwise agricultural improvements and increased markets will lead to the privilege of a few and the impoverishment of many. In other words the poverty alleviation effort would backfire.
In order to avoid this terrible outcome, careful consideration needs to be made about who will benefit and who will lose. For example, emphasizing agro-ecological alternatives to chemical inputs may reduce the amount of agriculture’s value that becomes captured by input providers. The 2011 Poverty Alleviation Report identified the need for “agricultural intensification that is both market-oriented and sustainable” as a central theme for poverty alleviation efforts [3].
Those who already have productive assets are likely to benefit the most from agricultural improvements. In order to prevent the poorest from getting poorer they may need specific technologies that work only for them or asset transfers that allow them to compete. Distributional analysis is an approach that can be useful for disentangling the economic effects of technological change on various sub-groups of a population in order to mitigate the negative consequences for the poorest. Two crucial aspects of working towards social justice are briefly considered here: a gendered perspective on technology and social safety nets.
In Africa extension efforts typically reach men more than women but significant gains for female farmers have been obtained by having more female extension workers [4]. Men have greater control of land, greater access to credit and higher education levels making them more likely to benefit from improved agricultural technologies. As long as intra-household dynamics are ignored development agencies will not be able to adapt interventions to support those who are most vulnerable [5].
Those who slowly accumulate assets are often knocked back into poverty by a sudden shock such as an expensive illness, a year of bad weather, a corrupt local official or a robbery. Droughts, sickness and thefts can leave hard working farmers in poverty traps. Government, community and family level assistance needs to be encouraged to reduce human suffering and prevent the downward spiral of selling off productive assets.
3. Strategic investments in the rural non-farm economy are needed
P. Grabowski
Despite outsiders’ tendency to see all rural people as farmers, 35-50% of the income of rural households in developing countries comes through non-agricultural activities [6]. Poverty alleviation efforts that make those activities more profitable for the poor can help them invest in agriculture or transition away from agriculture. In order to do this projects need to carefully consider what types of interventions can be cost effective at improving the value of rural products and services [7].
Furthermore, facilitating a transition away from agriculture is an important component of any poverty alleviation strategy because of the technological treadmill described above. If agriculture is booming there may be more opportunities for making a living in the rural areas in non-agricultural activities in everything from bicycle repair to carpentry, from food processing to tailoring. In order for these activities to actually result in poverty alleviation however, there must be opportunities for high productivity rural employment with market niches that can provide increased incomes for the rural poor [6].
Furthermore, facilitating a transition away from agriculture is an important component of any poverty alleviation strategy because of the technological treadmill described above. If agriculture is booming there may be more opportunities for making a living in the rural areas in non-agricultural activities in everything from bicycle repair to carpentry, from food processing to tailoring. In order for these activities to actually result in poverty alleviation however, there must be opportunities for high productivity rural employment with market niches that can provide increased incomes for the rural poor [6].
4. Participation and democratic processes are essential
Government policies that aim to modernize agriculture by forcing smallholders out of farming will increase poverty levels even if they do lead to agricultural growth. These oppressive interventions disempower rural communities and deprive them of their productive capacities. Even the best intentioned and researched top-down strategies for rural development are bound to be problematic due to the diversity of bio-physical and socio-economic conditions across many rural landscapes. Participatory development and action research approaches can fully utilize the local knowledge of participants and enable them to solve future problems instead of waiting for outside solutions. In so doing, poverty alleviations can help farmers decide how best to improve their production and give them the opportunity to choose non-agricultural livelihoods. The changes from economic development in the rural areas are more likely to reflect the values of those living there if democratic processes and participatory methods are used for designing and evaluating development initiatives.
Conclusion
Market-led poverty alleviation efforts hold tremendous promise for rural development in southern Africa. However, in our race to alleviate human suffering we must take careful and cautious steps in order to mitigate the inequality induced by capitalism that Marx warned about. Blind approbation of capitalist ideology will likely result in worsening the conditions of the most vulnerable. Instead developing the rural economy must be fostered by searching for opportunities for all to succeed with special attention on the poorest. Helping others to help themselves requires a democratic process of community driven development. Full participation in the process will allow farmers to balance the tradeoffs between the benefits and the risks of market involvement.
References
1. Sachs, J. 2005. The End of Poverty - Economic Possibilities for Our Time. Penguin Books, New York.
2. Barrett, C. 2010. Food Systems and the Escape from Poverty and Ill-health Traps in Sub-Saharan Africa. in Pinstrup-Anderson, P. (ed.) The African Food System and its Interactions with Human Health and Nutrition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
3. Quoted in Van der ploeg, J., 2012. Poverty Alleviation and Smallholder Agriculture: The Rural Poverty Report 2011. Development and Change, 43(1) 439-448.
4. Doss, C. 2001. Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience. World Development, Vol. 29, No. 12, pp. 2075-2092.
5. Cramer, L. and Wandira, S. 2010. Strengthening the Role of Women in the Food Systems of Sub-Saharan Africa to Achieve Nutrition and Health Goals. in Pinstrup-Anderson, P. (ed.) The African Food System and its Interactions with Human Health and Nutrition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
6. Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Reardon, T. 2010. The Rural Non-farm Economy: Prospects for Growth and Poverty Reduction. World Development, Vol. 38. Iss. 10, pp. 1429-1441.
7. Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Reardon, T. 2002. Strategies for Stimulating Poverty-Alleviating Growth in the Rural Nonfarm Economy in Developing Countries. Environment and Production Technology Division Discussion Paper 92. IFPRI and World Bank, Washington D.C.
2. Barrett, C. 2010. Food Systems and the Escape from Poverty and Ill-health Traps in Sub-Saharan Africa. in Pinstrup-Anderson, P. (ed.) The African Food System and its Interactions with Human Health and Nutrition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
3. Quoted in Van der ploeg, J., 2012. Poverty Alleviation and Smallholder Agriculture: The Rural Poverty Report 2011. Development and Change, 43(1) 439-448.
4. Doss, C. 2001. Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience. World Development, Vol. 29, No. 12, pp. 2075-2092.
5. Cramer, L. and Wandira, S. 2010. Strengthening the Role of Women in the Food Systems of Sub-Saharan Africa to Achieve Nutrition and Health Goals. in Pinstrup-Anderson, P. (ed.) The African Food System and its Interactions with Human Health and Nutrition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
6. Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Reardon, T. 2010. The Rural Non-farm Economy: Prospects for Growth and Poverty Reduction. World Development, Vol. 38. Iss. 10, pp. 1429-1441.
7. Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Reardon, T. 2002. Strategies for Stimulating Poverty-Alleviating Growth in the Rural Nonfarm Economy in Developing Countries. Environment and Production Technology Division Discussion Paper 92. IFPRI and World Bank, Washington D.C.