Smallholder Agricultural Investment and Productivity under Contract Farming and Customary Tenure System: A Malawian Perspective
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Regression Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lowder, S.K.; Skoet, J.; Raney, T. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 2016, 87, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bromley, D.W. Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy; Basil Blackwell Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Arnot, C.D.; Luckert, M.K.; Boxall, P.C. What Is Tenure Security? Conceptual Implications for Empirical Analysis. Land Econ. 2011, 87, 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawry, S.; Samii, C.; Hall, R.; Leopold, A.; Hornby, D.; Mtero, F. The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: A systematic review. J. Dev. Eff. 2016, 9, 61–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Place, F. Land Tenure and Agricultural Productivity in Africa: A Comparative Analysis of the Economics Literature and Recent Policy Strategies and Reforms. World Dev. 2009, 37, 1326–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenske, J. Land tenure and investment incentives: Evidence from West Africa. J. Dev. Econ. 2011, 95, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deininger, K.; Xia, F.; Holden, S. Gendered Incidence and Impacts of Tenure Insecurity on Agricultural Performance in Malawi’s Customary Tenure System. J. Dev. Stud. 2019, 55, 597–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovo, S. Tenure insecurity and investment in soil conservation. Evidence from Malawi. World Dev. 2006, 78, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lunduka, R. Land Rental Markets, Investment and Productivity Under Customary Land Tenure Systems in Malawi; Norwegian University of Life Sciences: As, Norway, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Place, F.; Otsuka, K. Tenure, agricultural investment, and productivity in the customary tenure sector of Malawi. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 2001, 50, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nankumba, J.S.; Kalua, B.; Kishindo, P. Contract Farming and Outgrower Schemes in Malawi: The Case Study of Tea and Sugar Smallholder Authorities: Research Report; Centre for Social Research, University of Malawi: Zomba, Malawi, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Chinigò, D. Rural radicalism and the historical land conflict in the Malawian tea economy. J. S. Afr. Stud. 2016, 42, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Analysis of Price Incentives for Tea in Malawi; Technical notes series; MAFAP; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kishindo, P.; Mvula, P. Malawi’s land problem and potential for rural conflict. J. Contemp. Afr. Stud. 2017, 35, 370–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, S.T.; Otsuka, K. The roles of land tenure reforms and land markets in the context of population growth and land use intensification in Africa. Food Policy 2014, 48, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matlon, P. Indigenous land use systems and investments in soil fertility in Burkina Faso. In Searching for Land Tenure Security in Africa; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; pp. 41–69. [Google Scholar]
- Takane, T. Customary land tenure, inheritance rules, and smallholder farmers in Malawi. J. S. Afr. Stud. 2008, 34, 269–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, O.E.G. Economic analysis, the legal framework and land tenure systems. J. Law Econ. 1972, 15, 259–276. [Google Scholar]
- Feder, G.; Feeny, D. Land tenure and property rights: Theory and implications for development policy. World Bank Econ. Rev. 1991, 5, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noronha, R. A Review of the Literature on Land Tenure Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa; Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Austin, G. Labour, Land, and Capital in Ghana: From Slavery to Free Labour in Asante, 1807–1956; Boydell & Brewer: Suffolk, UK; Woodbridge, UK, 2005; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
- Berry, S.S. Cocoa, Custom, and Socio-Economic Change in Rural Western Nigeria; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Riddell, J.C.; Dickerman, C. Country Profiles of Land Tenure: Africa 1986; Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison: Madison, WI, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Bruce, J.W.; Migot-Adholia, S.E. Searching for Land Tenure Security in Africa; Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company: Dubuque, IA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Deininger, K. Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Alchian, A.A.; Demsetz, H. The property right paradigm. J. Econ. Hist. 1973, 33, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Huberman, M.A.; Huberman, M. Qualitative data analysis. In An Expanded Sourcebook; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Ghebru, H.; Khan, H.; Lambrecht, I. Perceived Land Tenure Security and Rural Transformation: Empirical Evidence from Ghana; IFPRI Discussion Paper 1545; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Feder, G. The implications of land registration and titling in Thailand. In Proceedings of the International Association for Applied Econometrics, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 24–31 August 1988; pp. 771–781. [Google Scholar]
- Wooldridge, J.M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach; Nelson Education: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Grosh, B. Contract farming in Africa: An application of the new institutional economics. J. Afr. Econ. 1994, 3, 231–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruce, J.W. Simple solutions to complex problems: Land formalization as a ‘silver bullet’. In Fair Land Governance: How to Legalise Land Rights for Rural Development; Leiden University Press: Leiden, Holland, 2012; pp. 31–55. [Google Scholar]
- Baumann, P. Equity and Efficiency in Contract Farming Schemes: The Experience of Agricultural Tree Crops; Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 2000; Volume 111. [Google Scholar]
- Eaton, C.; Shepherd, A. Contract Farming: Partnerships for Growth; Food & Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Key, N.; Runsten, D. Contract farming, smallholders, and rural development in Latin America: The organization of agroprocessing firms and the scale of outgrower production. World Dev. 1999, 27, 381–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kishindo, P. Customary land tenure and the new land policy in Malawi. J. Contemp. Afr. Stud. 2004, 22, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. The World Bank in Malawi. 2020. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/malawi/overview (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Peters, P.E.; Kambewa, D. Whose security? Deepening social conflict over ‘customary’land in the shadow of land tenure reform in Malawi. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 2007, 45, 447–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Population Density (People per sq. km of Land Area). 2007. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- UNDP. Human Development Index and its Components. 2020. Available online: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Eggen, Ø. Chiefs and everyday governance: Parallel state organisations in Malawi. J. S. Afr. Stud. 2011, 37, 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chirwa, E.; Kydd, J. Study on Farmer Organisations in Smallholder Tea in Malawi. 2005. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=GB2012102311 (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Peters, P.E. “Our daughters inherit our land, but our sons use their wives’ fields”: Matrilineal-matrilocal land tenure and the New Land Policy in Malawi. J. East. Afr. Stud. 2010, 4, 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D. Matriliny and social change; how are women of rural Malawi managing. In Proceedings of the CASID, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2 June 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Kishindo, P. Emerging Reality in Customary Land Tenure: The Case of Kachenga Village in Balaka District, Southern Malawi. Afr. Sociol. Rev. Rev. Afr. De Sociol. 2010, 14, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, M.K.V. Advances in Tea Agronomy; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Matchaya, G. Land ownership security in Malawi. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Gibson, M.A.; Gurmu, E. Land inheritance establishes sibling competition for marriage and reproduction in rural Ethiopia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 2200–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meijer, S.S.; Sileshi, G.W.; Kundhlande, G.; Catacutan, D.; Nieuwenhuis, M. The role of gender and kinship structure in household decision-making for agriculture and tree planting in Malawi. J. Gend. Agric. Food Secur. (Agri-Gender) 2015, 1, 54–76. [Google Scholar]
- Chirwa, E.W. Adoption of fertilizer and hybrid seeds by smallholder maize farmers in Southern Malawi. Dev. S. Afr. 2005, 22, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pound, B. Branching Out: Fairtrade in Malawi: Monitoring the Impact of Fairtrade on Five Certified Organizations; Fairtrade Africa and the Fairtrade Foundation: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Deininger, K.; Jin, S. ‘The impact of property rights on households’ investment, risk coping, and policy preferences: Evidence from China’. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 2003, 53, 551–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chirwa, E. Land tenure, farm investments and food production in Malawi. In Institutions and Pro-Poor Growth (IPPG) Research Programme; Discussion Paper; University of Manchester: Manchester, UK, 2008; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
- Chirwa, E.W.; Kydd, J. Farm-Level Productivity in Smallholder tea Farming in Malawi: Do Contractual Arrangements Matter? Working Paper; University of Malawi, Chancellor College, Department of Economics: Zomba, Malawi, 2006; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
- Benjamin, E.O.; Blum, M.; Punt, M. The impact of extension and ecosystem services on smallholder’s credit constraint. J. Dev. Areas 2016, 50, 333–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benjamin, E.O.; Sauer, J. The cost effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services—Smallholders and agroforestry in Africa. Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]



| Inheritance-Residence | Description | Tenure Security |
|---|---|---|
| Matrilineal-matrilocal | A husband moves to the wife’s village; the land belongs to the family of the wife. | Low |
| Matrilineal-patrilocal | A wife moves to a husband’s village; the land belongs to the family of the wife | |
| Matrilineal-neolocal | Wife and husband move to a village, not of their origin; the land belongs to the community of that village. | |
| Patrilineal-matrilocal | A husband moves to a wife’s village; the land belongs to the family of the husband | |
| Patrilineal-patrilocal | A wife moves to a husband’s village; the land belongs to the family of the husband | High |
| Name | Descriptions | Scale | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variables | |||
| (investment in tea or trees) | 1 or 0; invested in tree and/or tea in 2017 | Discrete | - |
| (yield per hectare) | Yield per hectare of farmer i on farm i | Continuous | Kg |
| Independent Variables | |||
| Tenure security indicator (X1) | |||
| Residence | Residence of farmer | Categorical | - |
| Marital status | Single, married, or widowed | Categorical | - |
| Land tenure (X2) | |||
| Land tenure form | Customary or leasehold | Discrete | - |
| Land acquisition | How farm was acquired (e.g., inheritance) | Categorical | - |
| Land acquisition time | Years of land acquisition | Continuous | - |
| Land dispute | Is there dispute about farm | Discrete | - |
| Household characteristics (X3) | |||
| Household size | Number of adults in household | Continuous | - |
| Asset | Ownership of items (e.g., radio) | Categorical | - |
| Housing structure | Type of housing structure | Discrete | - |
| Transport | Ownership of transport vehicle | Categorical | - |
| Livestock | Ownership of livestock | Categorical | - |
| Other income source | Income source other than tea | Categorical | - |
| Access to finance | Access to loan in the past years | Discrete | - |
| Number of farms | Number of plots owned | Continuous | - |
| Demographics (X4) | |||
| Gender | Gender of respondent | Discrete | - |
| Age | Age of respondent | Continuous | - |
| Education | Education level of respondent | Categorical | - |
| Literacy | Literacy of respondent | Discrete | - |
| Farm Characteristics (X5) | |||
| Farm size | Measured using geoinformation system | Continuous | ha |
| Land per capita | Farm size per capita of household | Continuous | - |
| Topography | Topography of the farm | Categorical | - |
| Land Use (X6) | |||
| Revenue | Revenue from tea last year | Continuous | USD |
| Expenditure (input) | Expenditure on tea last year | Continuous | USD |
| Age of tea bushes | Year tea bushes was planted | Continuous | Years |
| Tress planted | Number of trees planted | Continuous | - |
| Farmer block (X7) | |||
| Farmer block | Membership of each farmer | Categorical | - |
| Variable | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variables | ||||
| Investment in tea or trees, | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 |
| (Log) Yield per hectare, | 9.62 | 0.89 | 7.49 | 12.4 |
| Independent Variables | ||||
| Residence | ||||
| Patrilocal | 0.26 | 0.44 | 0 | 1 |
| Matrilocal | 0.30 | 0.46 | 0 | 1 |
| Neolocal | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0 | 1 |
| Married purchase | 0.08 | 0.26 | 0 | 1 |
| Status | ||||
| Married | 0.63 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 |
| Single | 0.07 | 0.25 | 0 | 1 |
| Separated | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0 | 1 |
| Widowed | 0.22 | 0.41 | 0 | 1 |
| Land tenure | ||||
| Land tenure form | 0.96 | 0.18 | 0 | 1 |
| Land acquisition | 0 | 1 | ||
| Gift | 0.19 | 0.4 | 0 | 1 |
| Inheritance | 0.64 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 |
| Chief | 0.03 | 0.20 | 0 | 1 |
| Purchase | 0.08 | 0.29 | 0 | 1 |
| Settlement | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0 | 1 |
| Share-cropping | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0 | 1 |
| Land acquisition time | 28 | 18 | 0 | 105 |
| Land dispute | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0 | 1 |
| Household characteristics | ||||
| Household size | 5 | 2 | 1 | 12 |
| Adults | 2 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| Asset | ||||
| Phone | 0.19 | 0.39 | 0 | 1 |
| Phone and radio | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
| TV | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0 | 1 |
| Fridge | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0 | 1 |
| Housing structure | 0.54 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
| Transport | ||||
| None | 0.22 | 0.41 | 0 | 1 |
| Bicycle | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 |
| Motorcycle | 0.17 | 0.38 | 0 | 1 |
| Car | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0 | 1 |
| Livestock | ||||
| None | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 |
| Chicken | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
| Pigs | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0 | 1 |
| Others | 0.14 | 0.35 | 0 | 1 |
| Other income source | ||||
| None | 0.25 | 0.44 | 0 | 1 |
| Farming | 0.32 | 0.47 | 0 | 1 |
| Labor | 0.29 | 0.46 | 0 | 1 |
| Employed | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0 | 1 |
| Access to finance | 0.15 | 0.36 | 0 | 1 |
| Numbers of farm | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Demographics | ||||
| Gender | 0.60 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 |
| Age | 53 | 16 | 22 | 103 |
| Education | ||||
| None | 0.29 | 0.45 | 0 | 1 |
| Primary | 0.54 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
| Secondary | 0.15 | 0.36 | 0 | 1 |
| Tertiary | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0 | 1 |
| Literacy | 0.30 | 0.46 | ||
| Farm characteristics | ||||
| Farm size | 0.20 | 015 | 0 | 1 |
| Topography | ||||
| Flat | 0.22 | 0.42 | 0 | 1 |
| Light slope | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 |
| Steep slope | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 |
| Land use | ||||
| Revenue | 700 | 1343 | 85 | 12,366 |
| Tea expenditure (input) | 92 | 89 | 0 | 651 |
| Age of tea bushes | 28 | 12 | 0 | 67 |
| Tress planted | 12 | 20 | 1 | 121 |
| Farmer block | ||||
| A | 0.23 | 0.42 | 0 | 1 |
| B | 0.25 | 0.44 | 0 | 1 |
| C | 0.27 | 0.44 | 0 | 1 |
| D | 0.26 | 0.44 | 0 | 1 |
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matrilocal | 0.18 * | 0.20 * | 0.22 ** |
| (1.66) | (1.86) | (2.10) | |
| Widowed | −0.23 ** | −0.21 * | −0.18 * |
| (−2.03) | (−1.89) | (−1.63) | |
| Inheritance | −0.18 * | −0.16 * | −0.16 * |
| (−1.89) | (−1.77) | (−1.83) | |
| Gender | −0.23 *** | −0.20 *** | −0.21 *** |
| (−2.75) | (−2.45) | (−2.45) | |
| Number of farms | 0.11 *** | 0.07 * | |
| (3.16) | (1.75) | ||
| Education (primary) | −0.15 * | ||
| (−1.69) | |||
| Tea labor expenditure | 0.001 * | ||
| (1.88) | |||
| Observations | 135 | 135 | 135 |
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Log Tea Expenditure (Inputs) | 0.150 ** | 0.157 ** | −0.0302 |
| (0.0725) | (0.0789) | (0.0675) | |
| Inheritance | −0.451 *** | −0.419 ** | −0.222 |
| (0.167) | (0.167) | (0.148) | |
| Matrilocal | 0.125 | 0.209 | |
| (0.164) | (0.142) | ||
| Neolocal | −0.717 | −1.301 ** | |
| (0.514) | 0.209 | ||
| Household Size | 0.0721 ** | 0.0661 ** | |
| (0.0341) | (0.0317) | ||
| Adult | −0.165 *** | −0.171 *** | |
| (0.0531) | (0.0505) | ||
| Farms Size | −3.27 *** | ||
| (0.32) | |||
| Number of trees | −0.01 ** | ||
| (0.004) | |||
| Farmer Block B | 1.083 *** | ||
| (0.180) | |||
| Farmer Block D | 0.392 *** | ||
| (0.139) | |||
| Constant | 8.366 *** | 8.171 *** | 9.647 *** |
| (0.776) | (0.806) | (0.677) | |
| Observations | 224 | 224 | 224 |
| R-squared | 0.071 | 0.124 | 0.365 |
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Benjamin, E.O. Smallholder Agricultural Investment and Productivity under Contract Farming and Customary Tenure System: A Malawian Perspective. Land 2020, 9, 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080277
Benjamin EO. Smallholder Agricultural Investment and Productivity under Contract Farming and Customary Tenure System: A Malawian Perspective. Land. 2020; 9(8):277. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080277
Chicago/Turabian StyleBenjamin, Emmanuel Olatunbosun. 2020. "Smallholder Agricultural Investment and Productivity under Contract Farming and Customary Tenure System: A Malawian Perspective" Land 9, no. 8: 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080277
APA StyleBenjamin, E. O. (2020). Smallholder Agricultural Investment and Productivity under Contract Farming and Customary Tenure System: A Malawian Perspective. Land, 9(8), 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080277