Are agricultural technologies pro-poor? The case of improved cassava varieties in sub-Saharan Africa

The paper assesses whether, and if so, to what extent, the adoption of improved cassava varieties are more favourable towards the food insecure (pro-poor) as measured by the share of overall benefits. Data for this study came from a household survey conducted in Tanzania, DR Congo, Sierra Leone and Zambia through multinational-CGIAR support to agricultural research for development of strategic crops project in Africa. Given the observational nature of the data, a parametric approach (endogenous switching and Poisson regression model) was applied, accounting for potential self-selection bias that may arise from unobserved heterogeneities. Results provided consistent findings that adoption of cassava varieties decreased the rate, depth and severity of food insecurity. Decomposition of the overall average gains in calories due to adoption resulted in over four-fifths accruing to food insecure, compared to only one-fifth accruing to the food secure group. This implies that the impacts of cassava varieties are more favourable towards the food insecure than the food secure and thus present important evidence on the effectiveness of the adoption of cassava technology for reducing the rate and depth of food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. Acknowledgement : The authors wish to thank the African Development Bank (AfDB) for supporting the multinational-CGIAR support to agricultural research for development of strategic crops (SARD-SC) in Africa project that made possible the collection of the data used in the study. We are also thankful to the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture for supporting this study.


Issue Date:
2018-07
Publication Type:
Conference Paper/ Presentation
DOI and Other Identifiers:
Record Identifier:
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277196
Language:
English
JEL Codes:
O12; D13




 Record created 2018-10-02, last modified 2020-10-28

Fulltext:
Download fulltext
PDF

Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)