Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:29:58.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Production, income and expenditure patterns of Yoruba smallholders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2011

J. C. Flinn  and
Paul S. Zuckerman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a growing acceptance of the position that low resource farmers act and make decisions in a manner consistent with economic ‘rationality’ (Helleiner, 1975; Schultz, 1964). As a result, agriculturalists are becoming increasingly concerned to design technological innovations which are consistent with the needs and means of low resource farmers (CIMMYT, 1980; Zandstra et at., 1980). In particular, constraints due to the quantity or intensity with which a farmer can cultivate his land (land and labour scarcity), his low asset level and access to credit, other demands of the household on the farm-family resources, and the uncertain environment (both natural and man-made) within which the smallholder operates, all influence his capacity and willingness to adopt what are thought to be ‘improved’ agricultural technologies (Clark and Haswell, 1970; Reynolds, 1975; Wharton, 1968).

Résumé

Production, revenus et dépenses dans les petites exploitations agricoles Yoruba.

Les comparaisons entre exploitations typiques de savane et de zone forestière, dans le sud-ouest du Nigéria, ont révélé que celles-ci étaient semblables tant par l'effectif du groupe familial (six à sept personnes) que par la superficie de l'exploitation (1,6 à 1,7 ha.). La valeur de la production agricole et la concentration de main d'œuvre étaint plus élevées dans les villages forestiers que dans ceux de la savane; 75% de cette main d'oeuvre était constituée par les hommes de la famille. Dans les deux zones étudiées, les sources des revenus indépendantes de l'exploitation agricole, représentaient un apport important de capital.

La consommation alimentaire était nettement liée au revenu: la tendance à la consommation était plus prononcée dans la savane relativement plus pauvre (0,55) qu'en zone forestière (0,31). Avec l'accroissement des revenus il est probable que la tendance à l'investissement s'avère plus faible dans un village de savane que dans un village de foret Étant donné l'état actuel de la technologie agricole, les exploitants préfèrent consacrer leurs investissements à des activités non agricoles.

Type
Household and Production in South-West Nigeria
Information
Africa , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , October 1981 , pp. 825 - 835
Copyright
Copyright © International African Institute 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adegboye, R. O. 1969. ‘Procuring loans by pledging of cocoa trees’. Journal of the Geographical Association of Nigeria, 12: 18–30.Google Scholar
Anthonio, Q. B. O. 1966. ‘Food consumption and income relationships in Nigeria: Engel's curve functions.’ Bulletin of Rural Economics and Sociology, 2: 52–67.Google Scholar
Benito, C. A. 1976. ‘Peasants’ response to modernisation in minifundia economies’. American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, 58: 143–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Cimmyt. 1980. Planning Technologies Appropriate to Farmers: Concepts and Procedures. Mexico City: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.Google Scholar
Clark, C., and Haswell, M.. 1970. The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture. 4th edition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
, F.A.O. 1966. Agricultural Development in Nigeria, 1965-1980. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1957. The Theory of the Consumption Function. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardaker, J. B. 1979. ‘A review of some farm management research methods for small farm development in LDC's.’ Journal of Agricultural Economics, 30: 315–27.Google Scholar
Helleiner, G. K. 1975. ‘Smallholder decision making: tropical African experience’, in Reynolds, L. G. (ed.), Agricultural Development Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Heyer, J. 1972. ‘Peasant farm production under conditions of uncertainty’. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 23: 135–46.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. G. (ed.) 1975. Agricultural Development Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, T. W. 1964. Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Valdez, A., Scobie, G. M. and Dillon, J. L.. 1979. Economics and the Design of Small-farmer Technology. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Vandeputte, J. M., and Baker, C. B. 1970. ‘Specifying the allocation of income among taxes, consumption and savings in linear programming models’. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 52: 521–7.Google Scholar
Wharton, C. R. 1968. Risk, Uncertainty and the Subsistence Farmer: Technical Innovations and Resistance to Change in the Context of Survival. New York: Agricultural Development Council Inc.Google Scholar
Zandstra, H. G., Price, E. C., Litzinger, J. A. and Morris, R. A.. 1980. A Methodology for On-farm Cropping Systems Research. Los Bafios: International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, P. S. 1973. Yoruba Smallholder Farming Systems. A report prepared for the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, Reading: University of Reading.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, P. S. 1979. A Micro-level Farm Management Study in Western Nigeria: some Results and Experiences with Questionnaires. Discussion Paper 8/79, Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.Google Scholar