ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Population Pressure & Farm Size Evolution in Ethiopia: Threads of a Narrative

Derek Headey, IFPRIwith Anna Josephson and Jacob Ricker-Gilbert, Purdue University

Ethiopian Economic Association ConferenceJuly 19-21, 2012, Addis Ababa

1

2

1. Introduction

• Since Malthus (c. 1800), economists have been intensely interested in the relationships between land constraints and human welfare

• On the one hand, population growth amidst fixed land constraints might imply persistence of poverty and vulnerability to drought & famine

• More recent theories emphasize technological intensification (Boserup 1965), human capital accumulation, and agglomeration economies through the growth of cities and rural towns

3

1. Introduction

• So we have a race between two endogenous forces: declining per capita land availability, and increasing technology and non-farm capital.

• This already-complex story is made more complex by government policies and agroecological factors

• Some agroecologies may be better suited to intensification than others

• Governments can obviously facilitate or hinder technological development and accumulation of non-farm capital

4

1. Introduction• The question we ask in this paper is “Which of these

two basic forces is winning the race in Ethiopia?”• Interesting theoretical question, but very practical in

a country with a long history of Malthusian and Boseripian processes.

• Ethiopia also has an unusual mix of small farms and apparent land abundance,

• Also an interesting history of land reform, and other policies to address the small farm problem: ADLI, roads, schools, safety nets, resettlement, family planning, large farms, urban development

5

2. Data & methods• To address this question we use quantitative data

from the ERHS, and qualitative data from focus group questionnaires in 12 ERHS villages

• ERHS is very advantageous because villages were selected by agroecological differences

• QUANT data used to examine relationships between population density and various welfare indicators, mostly with non-parametric methods

• Population density is our focus because we think it is less endogenous than farm size, and because it is a better general equilibrium indicator

6

2. Data & methods• Qualitative data is also very useful in this context

because quantitative data has some omissions:• Institutional history (e.g. past, present and

future of land regulation and reform)• Community characteristics (land availability)• Migration routes and trends• Perceptions/aspirations on issues like education,

family size, general optimism/pessimism• Recent trends (last ERHS round in 2009)

• So FCGs really complement formal ERHS analysis

3. Quantitative results• First, some background on population density &

farm size• Like other African countries, Ethiopia appears to

have low population density (on average), but almost pervasively small farms

Figure 1. “Expected” rural population densities in Africa and Asia, circa 2005, from GIS data

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMPS 2008). “Expected” rural population density is the sum of populations in square kilometer grids in a country, weighted by the population shares of the grids within the total country population. This measure is therefore “population-weighted population density”, and it reflects the population density experienced by an average rural person. *These population densities are calculated for the region as a whole.

Fig. 2: The distribution of rural population density in Ethiopian woredas, 2007 census

01

02

03

04

0P

erc

ent

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Population density (persons per sq. km)

05

10

15

20

25

Pe

rcen

t of z

one

s

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5Crop area per household (hectares)

Fig. 3: The distribution of mean crop area per hectares across 69 zones of Ethiopia, 2011

11

3. Quantitative resultsFinding 1 – Very non-linear relationship between population density and farm size. Largely positive. Controlling for land quality may change this!

12

Quantitative resultsFinding 2-Net farm income per adult equivalent negatively correlated with population density

13

Quantitative resultsFinding 3– Off-farm income has a non-linear relationship with population density, but is very low in any case

14

Quantitative resultsFinding 4– Total income falls after a threshold of just under 500Person/km2. But as we saw in Figure 2, relatively few woredas are above this threshold

15

Qualitative resultsFinding 1-Access to land was regularly cited as one of the most important constraints. Clear links between population density & extent to which farmers emphasized land constraints. In no village did people say there were sizeable amounts of unused cultivable landIn a few villages there appeared to be sizeable numbers of people that were effectively landlessHalf the villages said no link between farm size & wealth because land reforms gave more land to poor*

16

Qualitative resultsFinding 2-Substantial signs of intensification or attempts to intensify, but major bottlenecks.Quality & affordability of inputs a pervasive constraint, particularly high price of fertilizers. Seed quality a very mixed picture across villages. Some reported big yield improvements, others said the varieties were ill-suited, poor quality or late. Quite a number of villages attempted adoption of improved techniques, new varieties or new crops. But in some areas these failed (e.g. Gara Godo)

17

Qualitative resultsFinding 3-Substantial increases in out-migrationWith one exception (Imdebir), almost all villages said out-migration was more common than in the past. Urban migration was sometimes mentioned, but migration to the Gulf was the most frequentSeasonal migration trending up, particularly to large farms in the north. In Gara Godo respondents said every household had at least one seasonal migrant.Mixed perceptions on resettlement policies: “good thing, but there is malaria, lack of infrastructure, etc”

18

Qualitative resultsFinding 4-Education more important in the future, but …Quality was a major concernPrivate schools perceived as better, but few places had access, and few were affordableMany farmers perceived that it was not worth making big investments in kid’s schooling because higher education no longer guaranteed a job.

19

Qualitative resultsFinding 5-Fertility rates are decliningAlmost invariably respondents said this was largely due to family planning interventions.Recent results from the DHS confirm a large decline in rural fertility in recent years (5.5 children to 4.8), which does indeed seem related to family planning interventions.In no village did respondents say that family sizes were directly shrinking because of land constraints (we plan to test this in the future).

20

Qualitative resultsFinding 6-Mixed perceptions about the futureSome optimism about improved farm technologies, pervasive appreciation of improved road infrastructure, some optimism about educationBut there were major concerns about climate change (late rains), soil degradation, rising costs of fertilizer, land constraints.

21

Conclusions• Ongoing work, so conclusions are tentative• Overall, we find very complex results• Farm sizes in Ethiopia are surprisingly small despite

suggestion of abundant land• Land access is subjectively regarded as a major

constraint, although redistribution of land appears to have de-linked farm size and wealth on aggregate

• High pop density is linked to lower income beyond 500 persons/km2. But not many areas above this.

22

Conclusions• In the future we are planning to better control for

agroecological variation• We’re also try to understand some of the possible

benefits of higher population density, like better access to education, health and other services

Finally, we hope to explore some key policy questions?1. Where are small farms a major constraint?2. Should these areas be targeted for special

assistance?3. If so, how? Farm or non-farm investments?

Thank you!