Research on Crops
  • Year: 2018
  • Volume: 19
  • Issue: 4

Tenacity of small farms and poverty levels: Evidence of relationship among farming households in Nigeria

  • Author:
  • T. G. Apata1,, Y. G. N'Guessan2, K. Ayantoye3, A. Badmus4, O. Adewoyin4, S. Anugwo1, A. Borokini5, T. Sani1, O. Aladejebi1, S. Ojedokun1, A. Ajakpovi1, F. Nwaogu1
  • Total Page Count: 12
  • Page Number: 775 to 786

1Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Federal University, Oye, Ekiti State, Nigeria

2Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Jean Lorougnon Guede University, BP 150 Daloa, Cote d'Ivoire

3Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Kwara State University, Malete, Kwara State, Nigeria

4Department of Crop Science and Horticulture, Federal University, Oye, Ekiti State, Nigeria

5Department of Agricultural Extension and Management, Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, Owo, Nigeria

*e-mail: dayo.apata@fuoye.edu.ng

Online published on 28 January, 2019.

Abstract

Small farmers are one of the more disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in Nigeria. Studies have shown that majority of people living in absolute poverty can be found on small farms. Research question this study pose was: are these small farms going to be a declining farms or vice-versa? Hence, the study looks into heterogeneity in circumstances and diversity in rural livelihoods. Data come from Nigerian living Standard Survey (NLSS) collected in two periods (2004 and 2014) and analyzed with a probability sample of 9550 respondents’ from six zones in Nigeria and 8264 sample size that were useful for subsequent analysis. The study kept track of the same sampled households. Findings revealed that the index of heterogeneity to be at differentials of 29.1 which indicated growth of small farms in the two periods under consideration. Poverty decomposition analysis revealed that about 42% (3448) of the respondents were categorized as very poor, 21% (1768) as poor and only 37% (3048) were categorized as non-poor with about 17.25%, 14.71% and 12.19% variations respectively in the two periods. The poverty differential analysis in the two surveys revealed that those farming households who operated small farms experienced higher poverty levels by 14.72%. This thus implies that the tenacity of small farms was correlated to poverty increase.

Keywords

Heterogeneity index, institutional development, poverty differential, structural constraints