Country case studies Agricultural commercialization: food consumption effects in Kenya

The commercialization of agriculture is the cornerstone of economic develop- ment in many developing countries. Structural adjustment policies have tended to stress production of cash crops/export crops as part of a package of macroeconomic reforms. There has been some concern that in areas with increasing cash cropping, deterioration of household-level food consumption has occurred. This paper discusses results of research in Kenya which suggest some positive impacts of commercial agriculture on household income and energy consumption.

The comlnerci;llization of ilgriculture

is the cornerstone of economic de-

vclopment in many developing COLIC

tries. Structural :idjustmcnt policies

halve tended to stress production of cash crops/export crops ;I\ part of ;I

pxkage of iii;icroecoiioiiiic reforms. ’ Proponents of str:ite$s :rdvocating ;m

cmph;isis on cash crops see this ;I\ ;I

means of gcncniting :ind saving foreign

exchange. inci-eiising the incomes 01

rural sm:illholders. providing employ- ment for the I:indless and stimulating

prowth linkages with other segments

of the economy.

Critics of iiccelerating the produc-

tion of export crops/c:tsh crops have

qued th:lt not only have the econo-

mic benefits not materi:ilizrd hut. in

some cases, the tr:msition to commer-

ci:ll qriculture h:ls had ;I neg:l.tivc

effect on skipIe food production and

hence nation;il level food av:iilability.

This need not be the case. In an analysis of d;ita from 78 countries. van

Braun ;md Kennedy found th;lt thcrc was ;I positive corrcl:ition between

growth in ;ire;i allocated to c:ish crops

21nd growth in staple food prc>duction.’

C‘ountries th:tt did well in cultivating

cash crops also did well in food crop

production.

Even in instance\ where domestic

production of basic skiplcs decrease\

as a result of ;I movement into non-

food export crop production (eg cof-

fee. tea and cotton), n;ition&level

food availability does not ~rutomatic;rl-

Iy h:~ve to decline. The foreign ex- change gcner;lted from the wle of

export crops could be used to incrcasc

food availability. 1 Iowcver, for most

developing countries. the re:ility is

that foreign exchange is limited. The

potenti;illy p0sifivc effect of rcvcnue Scner;ited from export crops on

national level food availability does

not alw;iys m:itcri~ilize.

Many of the most contentious issues

in the fond crop/cash crop debate have

revolved around the imp;tct of com-

mercial agriculture on sm;ill-f:irm households. St;itistics on nationa-

level food availability are 21 poor yard-

stick with which to judge adequacy of

food consumption at the household

level. Relatively little is known about

the effects th:lt the increased emphasis on the commercialization of :lgricul-

turc has on food consumption at the

household level. There has heen some

concern that in areas with incre:tsed cash cropping. particul;irly non-edible

cash crops, dctcrior:ltion of household

level food security has occurred.’ An

example of this concern is rcflcctcd in

;I lY)8 I Kcny:~n National Food Policy

Riper which indic:Lted that ‘pnrticul;n

Xtcntion bc given to s:ifeguarding the

f:imily diet of sm:ill f:irmers who

switch from food crop to c:tsh crop

production’.’ Delta frc>m Kenya-wide surveys indicilted that increirscd sugar-

c;mc cultivation was :lsscGated with ;I

dctcrioration in nutritional status in one of two ;irc;is.i

In I%+! ;i study w;is undert:iken in

South Nyanzil ~ ;I sugarcane-growing

are:) of Kenya ~ to cx:unine the effects

of shifting from maize to sugar

production.”

Advoc:ltes of commerci~llization of

agriculture have assumed th:tt far-

mers’ incomes would increase as they

switched all or part of their land to

cash crop production. While higher

income is only one of II series of

household objectives. it is cle:lrly :rn

import:int one.

Data in Table I indicate that annual

income/capita is significantly higher

for sugar-producing than non-sugar

producing households. Much of this

diffcrcnce is due to marketed farm

surplus particukirly sugarcane; appro-

ximately 73% of the differential in

commercial agriculture income be-

tw’ccn the tw(> groups is contributed by

sugarcane production.

One of the long-standing criticisms of commercial agriculture has been

that the amount of food available for

home consumption is drastically de-

creased when households become c&i

crop producers. The data in Table I

would suggest this is not true, The

amount of land per ;ldult equivalent

put under food crop production is similar for sugar- and non-sugar-

producing households. In addition,

the income/capita used for own con-

sumption is remarkably similar be-

tween the two types of households.

There are no significant differences in

the mean energy intake per :ldult

equivalent between the two groups of

households.

Table 1. Mean income and energy consumption for sugar and non-sugar farmers.

Agricultural Hectares of Annual production used land in food Household incomes Commercial for own crops/ capita

energy intake agricultural consumption/ adult

Group (kilocalories/

(KSh) income (KSh) capita (KSh) equivalent adult equivalent)

Sugar farmers 2 591b 942b 746 0.27 2 689 Non-sugar farmers 1 924 393 822 0 28 2 669

Source: 1984185 IFPRI study in South Nyanza, Kenya, see text, op ot, Ref 6 Nofes: “Includes non-farm income. marketed farm Income and agricultural productlon used for own consumption Approximately 16 Kenyan Shllllng = US $1; “significant at 0 05 level.

104 FOOD POLICY February 1988

Commercialization of Subsistence Agricul- ture: income and Nutritional Effects in Developing Countries, Working Paper on Commercialization of Agriculture and Nutrition No 1, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 19)R6

The descriptive analyses on house- hold calorific consumption presented in Table 1 were supplemented by multivariate analyses presented

elsewhere.’ which showed a positive, significant association between house- hold energy intake and income.

However, the income/household calorie effect, though significant, was weak. The lack of a more robust effect of income on household calorific con- sumption relates, in part, to who controls different types of income. Men and women not only have diffe- rent sources of income but also diffe- rent expenditure responsibilities. In the South Nyanza study, 70% of re- spondents indicated that men control the income from sugarcane produc- tion. In addition, 76.3% of respon- dents said that women are responsible for food expenditures.

Sugar farmers

For sugar farmers, incremental in- come received from sugar production is most likely to be spent on non-food items - in particular, housing and school fees.” While these expenditure patterns may produce benefits in the longer term, they may not necessarily produce food consumption benefits, particularly in the shorter term.

The government of Kenya is in- terested in the appropriate balance between cash crops and food crop production for domestic consumption. There has been some concern that in areas with increased cash cropping, particularly increased sugarcane pro- duction, deterioration of household- level food consumption has occurred. The results discussed in this paper suggest some positive impacts of com- mercial agriculture on household in- come and energy consumption.

However, the Kenya research is just one of a series of cash cropping case studies being carried out by the Inter- national Food Policy Research Insti- tute (IFPRI) in collaboration with institutions and researchers in de- veloping countries.” The positive effects of sugarcane production on income, consumption and food secur- ity in Kenya may not necessarily be replicated in each of the other country-specific studies. The extent to

FOOD POLICY February 1988

which this happens depends on factors such as effects of cash cropping on real income. sources and control of in- come, agricultural production strategies. government pricing policy. expenditure patterns, household decision-making, demand for land and labour, and allocation of food and other resources within the family. The importance of each of these factors may vary by so&cultural cnviron- ment. The conventional ‘wisdom’ that an increased emphasis on commercial agricultural production necessarily re- sults in a deterioration of household food consumption is not supported by the data presented.

Eileen Kennedy International Food Policy Research

Institute Washington, DC, USA

‘The terms ‘export crops’ and ‘cash crops’ are often used interchangeably in the literature, and this creates some confu- sion. Export crops are those that are exported from the country; they can be food or non-food crops. Cash crops are commodities that are sold, which can also be either food or non-food crops. ‘Joachim von Sraun and Eileen Kennedy,

.--_. 3P. Fleuret and A. Fleuret, ‘Nutrition, con- sumption, and agricultural change’, Hu- man Organization, Vol 39, 1980, p 250. “Republic of Kenya, National food Policy Paper, Sessional Paper 4, Government Printer, Nairobi, 1981. 5J. A. Hitchings, ‘Agricultural determinants of nutritional status among Kenyan chil- dren with models of anthropometric growth indicators’, PhD dissertation, Food Re- search Institute, Stanford, CA, USA, 1982. ‘The South Nyanza study was conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in conjunction with the Government of Kenya. The sample was a representative sample of agricultural and non-agricultural households in the com- munity served by the South Nyanza Sugar Company. For a detailed description of the sample selection procedures, see Eileen Kennedy and Bruce Cogill, income and Nutritional Effects of the Commefcializa- tion of Agriculture in South-Western Kenya, Research Report No 63, Interna- tional Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 1987. 7Kennedy and Cogill, /bid. ‘/bid. ‘Other studies are being conducted in Gambia, Guatemala, India, the Philippines and Rwanda.

The need for and possible food aid in the Philippines

uses of

In pursuing its own objectives of growth and redistribution for the agricultural sector, the Aquino administration faces the seemingly insurmountable con- straints of an unexpandable land base in the context of high rates of farm tenancy and population growth, a foreign debt whose interest alone consumes nearly 40% of foreign exchange earnings, a fragile political and legal system, and a widely dispersed rural insurgency. This article outlines some possible uses for food aid to alleviate these constraints to some small degree.

The economic crisis in the Philippines, Discussion of agricultural policies precipitated in October of 1983 by the during the last years of the Marcos era government’s inability to meet its and through the first year of the foreign debt obligations, has resulted Aquino administration centered on in a renewed focus on agriculture as ridding the agricultural sector of the key sector in economic recovery. monopolistic control by close associ- This is a widely shared sentiment, ates of Marcos, and on adjusting espoused by government now and macroeconomic trade and fiscal poli- even before the events of February cies so as not to be biased against 1986, by the private business sector, agriculture. These issues address the and by the international financial com- problems of agriculture in a general munity. way. focusing attention on some very

105