The Escape From Persistent Poverty and the Need to Stimulate Agricultural and Rural Transformation...
-
Upload
susanna-copeland -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of The Escape From Persistent Poverty and the Need to Stimulate Agricultural and Rural Transformation...
The Escape From Persistent Poverty and the Need to Stimulate Agricultural and Rural
TransformationChris Barrett
Cornell Adult University guest lectureJuly 21, 2009
Persistent poverty over the past generation:• no fall in poverty rates in OECD countries• number of poor in Latin America has grown• population living <$1/day doubled in Africa …. Increasing belief that there exist “poverty traps”
But also unprecedented upward mobility:• 750 mn fewer East Asians live on <$1/day • sharp fall in poverty rate in South Asia• half the world has become “middle class”, with all regions’ populations in the $2-13/day range growing… Globalization and “great escape” from mass poverty
The conundrum
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
% o
f Pop
ulati
on
East Asia Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia
Bubble sizes reflect number of people living in extreme poverty (2005US$1.25/day-person)
East Asia: 1.1 bn (79%) in 1981, 0.3 bn (18%) in 2005
Worldwide: 1.9 bn (52%) in 1981, down to 1.4 bn (26%) in 2005
SSA: 0.2 bn (51%) in 1981, 0.4 bn (50%) in 2005
South Asia: 0.5 bn (59%) in 1981, 0.6 bn (40%) in 2005
Source: Chen and Ravallion (2008)
Extreme poverty has fallen rapidly in east Asia and worldwide, but only proportional gains in South Asia and none in Sub-Saharan Africa, where >50% still live on less than $1.25/day.
The conundrum
Longitudinal data tell a still-richer story.
- Rates of intergenerational earnings and educational transmission appear to be high and growing throughout the world, elasticities commonly ≈ 0.40-0.70.
- In the US, the median poverty spell length is only 4.5 months. Most US poverty is transitory, related to unemployment spells. But for ~25%, it persists for years. And food insecurity spells appear more persistent.
- We don’t know the median spell length in rural Africa! Most poverty is chronic, with very complex etiology.
Heterogeneous dynamics
The prevalence, depth and persistence of poverty differ radically among groups – defined by geography, race, gender, educational attainment, etc.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pe
rce
nt o
f p
op
ula
tio
n
Continuous years in poverty
Comparative Poverty Dimensions
United States 1993-94 ($15.05)
Poverty line levels are all in inflation-adjusted 2002 US dollars.
Ngambo, Northern Kenya 2000-2 ($0.25)
Fianarantsoa, Southern Madagascar 1997-2002 ($0.25)
Vakinankaratra, Central Madagascar 1997-2002 ($0.25)
Heterogeneous dynamics
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2004
Middle East & North Africa
Europe & Central Asia
Latin America & the Caribbean
East Asia & Pacific
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
48% African in 1990, 75% in 2004
Source: IFPRI (2007)
Ultra-poverty is especially persistent and prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa
Ultra-poor (income per capita< 2005US$0.54/day)
Africa: The challenge
Hunger: The 2nd half of MDG #1
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1000 2000 3000 4000
Pro
tein
/day
(g
ram
s)
Calories/day
Per Capita Nutrient Availability (shaded areas below minima)
10.3%
2.9%16.6%
70.3%
Source: Barrett & Maxwell (2005), data: FAO food balance sheets
The WHO identifies undernutrition as the biggest risk factor for disease and death worldwide … and 30/47 SSA countries have macronutrient availability shortfalls .
Africa: The challenge
Why such persistence?
Two key features of poverty traps:
1)Initial conditions matter- “It takes money to make money” …
investment is the engine of growth and exit from poverty.
- In SSA, ultra-poor are heavily rural and depend on meager (and degrading) natural resource base and have little access to key infrastructure.
2)Risk matters- Direct loss of productive assets to disease,
conflict, climate variability, etc.- Responses: ex post coping (e.g., school
drop-outs, distress asset sale) and ex ante risk management (e.g., low-risk, low-return livelihoods).
Poverty traps
Reinforcing feedback:Low productivity causes poverty.
Poverty causes hunger and natural resource degradation.
But hunger and degraded natural resources also cause poverty and low productivity.
Hence the vicious cycle of poverty traps, hunger and natural resources degradation.
Poverty traps
Source: World Bank (2007)
Persistent poverty and hunger are closely tied to agricultural stagnation
Agriculture: the key driver
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002
Cer
eal y
ield
s (K
g/H
a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pov
erty
inci
denc
e (%
)Poverty (right axis)
Yields (left axis)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002
Cer
eal y
ield
s (K
g/H
a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pov
erty
inci
denc
e (%
)
Poverty (right axis)
Yields (left axis)
Cereal yields and extreme poverty move inversely.
South Asian progress Sub-Saharan African stasis
Agriculture’s demands on renewable resources are huge and growing:
Agriculture: the key driver
-70% of worldwide water use is for irrigation, (82% in LDCs), with 15-35% of withdrawals unsustainable (WBCSD).
- Conversion into cropland is the main cause of deforestation worldwide; fuelwood use is second.
- Soils losses due to erosion and leaching are huge: in Africa alone, ~$4bn/yr in soil nutrient losses!
- Habitat destruction due to land conversion and overharvesting in unregulated rural areas are leading causes of biodiversity loss worldwide.
Why such persistence?Strong links between poverty traps and ecosystem collapse, with shared concepts of “tipping points”.
Resources and poverty traps
Example: Soil degradation poverty traps in Kenya Marginal returns to fertilizer application low on degraded soils; and poorest farmers are on the most degraded soils. Soil degradation also feeds a striga weed problem ($7bn/yr in crop losses) and mycotoxin contamination of >25% of food.
Cost of 1kg
nitrogen
Value of maize from 1 kg of
nitrogen
Above red line: fertilizer profitable
Below red line: fertilizer unprofitable
(Source: Marenya and Barrett, American J. Agricultural Economics, 2009).
Kenyan rural poverty line
The result is pockets of productive, seemingly sustainable agro-ecosystems amid broad-scale economic and ecological problems
Need to stimulate agricultural and rural transfor-mation (StART) to break out of the ultra-poverty/
hunger/resource degradation trap:
Reason 1: location, livelihood and asset holdings- Most ultra-poor live in rural areas (the rural-urban poverty
gap increases in poverty depth).
- >75% of ultra-poor work in agriculture.
- Increasing the productivity of the assets controlled by the poor (and the stock of assets they control) is fundamental to any strategy to break out of the poverty/hunger trap. So must increase the productivity of the rural poor’s labor, land, livestock and other assets.
Need to StART
Reason 2: Budget dependence
Food is 65-80% of the ultra-poor’s total expenditures.
Most African farmers are net food buyers, not net sellers.
So the food price effects of agricultural productivity growth reinforce gains to the rural poor by reducing cost of living.
Hence the seriousness of the recent global food price crisis for the poor, including most small farmers!
Need to StART
An example from Madagascar:
A doubling of rice yields:- reduces the share of food insecure households by 38%- shortens the average hungry period by 1.7 months (1/3)- increases real unskilled wages in lean season by 89 % (due to both price and labor demand effects)- All the poor benefit: unskilled workers, consumers, and net seller producers … the poorest gain most.
(Source: Minten and Barrett, World Development, 2008).
Need to StART
Result:
- World Bank estimates that real GDP growth from agriculture is 2.7 times more effective in reducing extreme poverty headcount in poorest countries, vs. non-ag sectors.
- Historically, advances in food system productivity have been the foundation of poverty reduction and modern economic growth throughout history.
- Agricultural growth has strong multiplier effects on the rural non-farm economy … generating both local demand and investible resources, as well as ensuring the food security of those who leave the farm.
Need to StART
No one size fits all approach is viable. Need to contextualize. But there exist several key principles for targeting StART interventions:
Principle 1: Build and protect productive assets.Multiple assets matter: Human capital, land (incl. soil fertility), water, livestock, investible funds (savings, credit)
Interventions include direct provision (e.g., free education) or subsidies for asset accumulation or insurance of existing assets
For privately held assets (land, livestock, equipment, education, businesses, etc.), mainly need to improve investment incentives.
Also need to conserve common pool assets (rangelands, water, forest, etc.) through better governance and incentives.
Key StART principles
Principle 1: Build and protect productive assets.
How to improve incentives?
1)More secure property rights (tenure, police).
2)Resolve financial market failures.
3)“Crowding-in” investment in complementary inputs (e.g., physical and institutional infrastructure).
4)Provision of productive safety nets.
5)Clear conservation rules, authority w/o burdening the poor.
Key StART principles
Principle 2: Improve the productivity of the poor’s current asset holdings.
1)Improved production/processing technologies2)More efficient/remunerative marketing channels
Uptake/participation turns on assets, so don’t forget #1!
Key concern 1: Agricultural research in SSAAvg returns ~35%, but only 4% of public expenditures are on
ag and a small fraction of that goes into research.
Key concern 2: Changing agrifood supply chainsWho is participating, on what terms, w/ what effects?
Key StART principles
Principle 3: Improve risk management options for the ultra-poor.
Regressivity, multidimensionality and context-specificity of uninsured risk exposure make this a serious challenge.
Risk reduction: Improved crops and livestock, betterwater control, diversification, peace,disease control
Risk transfer:Improved markets, index-based risk finance, global humanitarian response
Key StART principles
Global + local (“Glocal”) Solutions
Principle 4: Facilitate favorable transitions out of agriculture.
Must equip the next generationto transition into remunerative non-farm employment.
Keys are (i) supporting physical and institutional infrastructure; (ii) early childhood health, nutrition and education, especiallyfor disadvantaged children. Closely tied to improvements to parents’ productivity, risk management and asset holdings.
Key StART principles
Global + local (“Glocal”) Solutions
Conclusions
There is real reason for hope:- Real agricultural output growth is accelerating in South Asia and SSA at long last … back to positive per capita rates of food output growth.
- Renewed and innovative initiatives and attention (e.g., AGRA, July G8 commitment), and turn-around in both public aid and private investment in low-income countries.
- Exciting new innovations in technologies (e.g., micronutrient-rich staple crops, drought-resistant cultivars), advances in finance (e.g., index insurance), and improvements in policies (e.g., rule of law, tenurial security, global food aid, safety nets and CCTs).
Thank you for your time, interest and comments!
Thank you