Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The authors use the unique experimental design of the Food Support Program (Programa Apoyo Alimentario) to analyze in-kind and cash transfers in the poor rural areas of southern states of Mexico. They compare the impacts of monthly in-kind and cash transfers of equivalent value (mean share 11.5 percent of pre-program consumption) on household welfare as measured by food and total consumption, adult labor supply, and poverty. The results show that approximately two years later the transfer has a large and positive impact on total and food consumption. There are no differences in the size of the effect of transfer in cash versus transfers in-kind on consumption. The transfer, irrespective of type, does not affect overall participation in labor market activities but induces beneficiary households to switch their labor allocation from agricultural to nonagricultural activities. The analysis finds that the program leads to a significant reduction in poverty. Overall, the findings suggest that the Food Support Program intervention is able to relax the binding liquidity constraints faced by poor agricultural households, and thus increases both equity and efficiency.

Agricultural activities --- Corn --- Food and Beverage Industry --- Food consumption --- Food stamps --- Food transfers --- Foods --- Fruits --- Industry --- Poverty Lines --- Poverty Reduction --- Rice --- Rural Development --- Rural Poverty Reduction --- Vegetables --- Wheat

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Policies and external shocks affecting agriculture, the main source of income for rural households, can be expected to have a significant impact on poverty. The authors study the case of Uganda. Throughout the 1990s, more than 90 percent of its poor lived in rural areas and, during the same period, large international price fluctuations as well as an extensive domestic deregulation affected the coffee sector, its main source of export revenues. Using data from three household surveys covering the 1990s, the authors confirm a strong correlation between changes in coffee prices (in a liberalized market) and poverty reduction. This is highlighted by comparing the performance of different households grouped according to their dependence on coffee farming. Regression analysis (based on pooled data from the three surveys) of consumption expenditure on coffee-related variables, other controls, and time-fixed effects corroborates that the mentioned correlation is not spurious. The authors also find that while both poor and rich farmers enter the coffee sector, the price boom benefits the poorer households relatively more, whereas the liberalization seems to create more opportunities for richer farmers. Finally, notwithstanding the importance of the coffee price boom, the agricultural policy framework and the thorough structural reforms in which the coffee market liberalization was embedded have certainly played a role in triggering overall agricultural growth. These factors appear to matter especially in the second half of the 1990s when prices went down but poverty reduction continued.

Agricultural Activities --- Agriculture --- Alternative Crops --- Capita Incomes --- Coffee --- Coffee Farmers --- Coffee Market --- Coffee Prices --- Coffee Production --- Coffee Sector --- Commodity --- Cotton --- Cotton Production --- Crop --- Crop Prices --- Crops --- Crops and Crop Management Systems --- Export Crops --- Farm --- Farmers --- Farming --- IFPRI

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Although much has been written about climate change and poverty as distinct and complex problems, the link between them has received little attention. Understanding this link is vital for the formulation of effective policy responses to climate change. This paper focuses on agriculture as a primary means by which the impacts of climate change are transmitted to the poor, and as a sector at the forefront of climate change mitigation efforts in developing countries. In so doing, the paper offers some important insights that may help shape future policies as well as ongoing research in this area.

Agricultural activities --- Agriculture --- Climate Change Economics --- Climate change impacts --- Climate change mitigation --- Climate Change Mitigation and Green House Gases --- Climate Changes --- Economic activity --- Economic analyses --- Economists --- Environment --- Environmental Economics & Policies --- Forest carbon --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Mitigation --- Science and Technology Development --- Science of Climate Change --- Water Resources --- Wetlands

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

August 1995 - By and large, it appears that the goals of agricultural reform are being met in Mexico. But measures such as decoupling income supports and price supports or reorienting research and extension could help farmers who cannot afford access to machinery and purchased inputs and services. Lopez, Nash, and Stanton report the results of a study of Mexican farm households using 1991 survey data and a smaller resurvey of some of the same households in 1993. One study goal was to empirically examine the relationship between assets and the output supply function. Using a production model focusing on capital as a productive input, they found that both the supply level and the responsiveness (elasticities) to changing input and output prices tend to depend on the farmer's net assets and on how productive assets are used. Regression analysis using data from the surveys shows that farmers who use productive assets such as machinery tend to be positively responsive to price changes, while those with no access to such assets are not. Another study goal was to monitor the condition of Mexican farmers in a rapidly changing policy environment. The 1991 survey data suggest that farmers with more limited use of capital inputs (the low-CI group) were more likely to grow principally corn and to grow fewer crops, on average, than the others. They also had more problems getting credit and were less likely to use purchased inputs, such as seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides, or to use a tractor to prepare the soil. They tended to be less well-educated, and their land tended to be of lower quality. Results from the panel data showed conditions generally improving for the average farmer in the sample area between 1991 and 1993, during a period when agricultural reforms were implemented. Cropping patterns were more diversified, the average size of landholdings increased, the average farmer received more credit (in real terms), more farm households earned income from off-farm work, and more farmers used purchased inputs. Asset ownership and educational attainment also improved modestly. The very small low-CI group in this sample fared as well as, or better than, the other groups. True, their level of educational achievement fell, and fewer of them had off-farm income than in 1991. But their use of credit, irrigation, machinery, and purchased inputs increased more than for other groups. The limited data are not proof of a causal link, but the fact that the goals are being met should at least ensure that adverse conditions are not undermining reform. Farmers that lacked access to productive assets did not respond as well to incentives or take advantage of the opportunities presented by reform and may need assistance, particularly to get access to credit markets. There may be a good argument for decoupling income supports from price supports for farmers, since income payments that are independent of the vagaries of production could provide a more stable signal of creditworthiness than price supports do. Possibly reorienting research and extension services more to the needs of low-CI producers could also improve the efficiency with which the sector adjusts to new incentives. Hypotheses and tentative conclusions from this study will be explored further when more data are collected in 1995. This paper - a product of the International Trade Division, International Economics Department---is part of a larger effort in the department to investigate the effects of international trade policy on individual producers. The study was funded by the Bank's Research Support Budget under the research project Rural Poverty and Agriculture in Mexico: An Analysis of Farm Decisions and Supply Responsiveness (RPO 678-23).

Access To Irrigation --- Agricultural Activities --- Agriculture --- Agriculture and Farming Systems --- Commercial Bank --- Credit Markets --- Crops and Crop Management Systems --- Economic Theory and Research --- Farm Decisions --- Farm Households --- Farm Income --- Farm Work --- Farmer --- Farmers --- Finance and Financial Sector Development --- Financial Literacy --- Investment and Investment Climate --- Irrigation --- Landholdings --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Markets and Market Access --- Natural Disaster --- Poor Farmer --- Poor Farmers --- Poverty --- Poverty Reduction --- Rural Development --- Rural Development Knowledge and Information Systems --- Rural Financial Markets --- Rural Poverty --- Rural Poverty Reduction --- Rural Sector --- Small Farms

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The longstanding "cash versus food" debate has received renewed attention in both research and practice. This paper reviews key issues shaping the debate and presents new evidence from randomized and quasi-experimental evaluations that deliberately compare cash and in-kind food transfers in ten developing counties. Findings show that relative effectiveness cannot be generalized: although some differences emerge in terms of food consumption and dietary diversity, average impacts tend to depend on context, specific objectives, and their measurement. Costs for cash transfers and vouchers tend to be significantly lower relative to in-kind food. Yet the consistency and robustness of methods for efficiency analyses varies greatly.

Administrative Costs. --- Agricultural Activities. --- Agricultural Economics. --- Agriculture. --- Assistance Programs. --- Bars. --- Beneficiary. --- Bread. --- Cash Assistance. --- Cash Interventions. --- Cash Payments. --- Cash Transfer Programs. --- Cash Transfer. --- Cassava. --- Cereals. --- Child Growth. --- Child Health. --- Child Nutrition. --- Chocolate. --- Conditional Cash. --- Conditional Transfer. --- Corn. --- Dairy. --- Distribution Program. --- Distribution System. --- Dried Fish. --- Drought. --- Economic Growth. --- Education Programs. --- Eggs. --- Emergency Food. --- Famine. --- Feeding Programs. --- Flour. --- Food Aid. --- Food and Beverage Industry. --- Food Assistance Programs. --- Food Assistance. --- Food Availability. --- Food Commodities. --- Food Consumption. --- Food Distribution. --- Food Expenditures. --- Food Fortification. --- Food Insecurity. --- Food Policy. --- Food Prices. --- Food Producers. --- Food Production. --- Food Programmes. --- Food Programs. --- Food Provision. --- Food Ration. --- Food Rations. --- Food Relief. --- Food Security. --- Food Shortage. --- Food Stamp. --- Food Supply. --- Food Transfer. --- Food Vouchers. --- Food. --- Foods. --- Fruit. --- Global Food Production. --- Grains. --- Health Centers. --- Health Program. --- Health, Nutrition and Population. --- Home Ration. --- Household Consumption. --- Household Food Security. --- Household Income. --- Household Level. --- Household Size. --- Household Surveys. --- Household Welfare. --- Human Resources. --- Humanitarian Response. --- Income Transfer. --- Income. --- Industry. --- International Social Security. --- Labeling. --- Labor Supply. --- Lean Season. --- Legumes. --- Logistics. --- Maintenance Program. --- Maize. --- Malnutrition. --- Market Prices. --- Maternal-Child Health. --- Meal. --- Measures. --- Meat. --- Milk Powder. --- Natural Disasters. --- Nutrition Assistance. --- Nutrition Programs. --- Nutrition Training. --- Nutrition. --- Nutritional Benefits. --- Palm Oil. --- Pasta. --- Peanuts. --- Pensions. --- Political Economy. --- Poor. --- Potatoes. --- Poverty Line. --- Poverty Reduction. --- Poverty. --- Protection Systems. --- Provision of Goods. --- Public Action. --- Public Distribution System. --- Public Works. --- Pulses. --- Purchasing Power. --- Rations. --- Red Beans. --- Refugee Camps. --- Resource Allocation. --- Rice. --- Risk Management. --- Risks. --- Rural Poverty Reduction. --- Safety Net Programs. --- Safety Net Transfers. --- Safety Net. --- Safety Nets and Transfers. --- Savings. --- School Feeding Programs. --- School Feeding. --- School Fees. --- School Meals. --- Share of Transfers. --- Social Contract. --- Social Pensions. --- Social Protection. --- Social Protections and Labor. --- Social Safety Nets. --- Social Security. --- Social Spending. --- Social Transfer. --- Social Transfers. --- Staple Foods. --- Starch. --- Subsidies. --- Sugar. --- Supermarket. --- Targeting. --- Temporary Employment. --- Transaction Costs. --- Transfer Amount. --- Transfer Program. --- Transfers in Cash. --- Transfers. --- Tubers. --- Ultra Poor. --- Vegetables. --- Vouchers. --- Vulnerable Group. --- Welfare. --- Wheat Flour. --- Wheat. --- Works Program. --- World Food Programme.