Technical and Allocative Efficiency of Small Holder Maize Farmers in Zambia .

Susan Chiona; Gelson Tembo; Thomson Kalinda; Chewe Nkonde

doi:10.53974/unza.jabs.1.2.1548

Susan Chiona Department Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Zambia, Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia
Gelson Tembo Department Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Zambia, Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia
Thomson Kalinda Department Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Zambia, Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia
Chewe Nkonde Department Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Zambia, Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53974/unza.jabs.1.2.1548

Keywords: Data Envelopment Analysis, Technical, Allocative, Efficiency and Maize

Abstract

This paper studies 18s the economic efficiency of small holder maize farmers in Zambia. It uses a two stage analysis approach. In the first stage, efficiency indices are generated using a non parametric technique, the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). In the second stage the indices generated are regressed onto farm and farmer characteristics to identify factors affecting small holder technical and allocative efficiency in maize production. The DEA results indicate very low levels of technical and allocative efficiency among smallholder maize farmers. On average, farmers are 30 percent technically and 12 percent allocatively efficient. Regression results have shown that use of certified hybrid seed, livestock ownership, and education attainment of household head can improve both technical and allocative efficiency. Other factors that could enhance technical efficiency include involvement in community agricultural activities and the use of mechanized tillage methods and organic fertilizer. These low efficiency levels signaled by the results confirm the long-held view that most Zambian maize farmers operate far below the potential of existing maize production technologies. The results also suggest that productivity (and efficiency) is as much a public issue as it is private. Human and physical capital attributes of the farm household, for example, are hugely significant. This suggests the need for more attention to broad based, productivity- and output market-enhancing investments.

References

1. Government of the Republic of Zambia. 2006. Fifth National Development Plan, Lusaka Zambia, Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Lusaka.
2. JAICAF.2008. The Maize in Zambia and Malawi. Japan Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry, Tokyo, Japan.
3. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Central Statistics Office, Food Security Project. 2008. Patterns of Maize Farming Behaviour and Performance among Small and Medium Scale Smallholder in Zambia. MACO/ SO/FSP, Lusaka.
4. Agriculture Consultative Forum. 2009. Report on the Proposed Reforms for the Zambia Fertilizer Support Program. Lusaka, Zambia.
5. Shafiq, M. and T. Rehman, 2000. The Extent of Resource Use Inefficiencies in Cotton Production in Pakistan's Punjab: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis. Agricultural Economics. Vol 22, pp 321-330.
6. Rios, A.R. and G.E.Shively, 2005. Farm size and Non Parametric Efficiency Measurements for Coffee Farms in Vietnam. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
7. Squires D,S.1991. Technical Efficiency and Future Production gains in Indonesian Agriculture. Developing Economies. 1991;
8. Kibaara B. 2005. Technical Efficiency in Kenyan's Maize Production: An Application of the Stochastic Frontier Approach. Thesis, Colorado State University.
9. Chirwa E. W. 2007. Sources of Technical Efficiency among Small holder Maize Farmers in Southern Malawi, AERC Research Paper 172, African Economic Research Consortium, Nairobi November 2007.
10. Koopmans, T. C. 1951. An Analysis of Production as an Efficient Combination of Activities, In T. C. Koopmans, ed., Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. Cowles Commission for Research in Economics Monograph No. 13. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
11. Papadas C T and Dahl DC. Technical Efficiency and Farm Size: A Non-Parametric Frontier Analysis. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota. 1991 StaffpaperP91-53
12. Ajibefun, I.A. 2008. An Evaluation of Parametric and Non Parametric Methods of Technical Efficiency Measurement: Application to Smallholder Crop Production in Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social Sciences. 4:95-100.
13. Farrell M. J .1957. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General),
14. Charnes A, Cooper W.W, and E.Rhodes. 1978.' Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units.' European .Journal Operational resourc,es. 2:429-444.
15. Banker, R.D., CharnesA. and W.W Cooper., 1984. Models forthe Estimation of Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science. 30:1078-1092.
16. Banker, R.D., R. Natarajan. 2008. Evaluating Contextual Variables affecting Productivity Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Operations Research 56:48-58.
17. Fletschner, D. K. and L. Zepeda, 2002. Efficiency of Small Landholders in Eastern Paraguay. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics — 572.
18. Hussain S. S. 1989. Analysis-of Economic Efficiency in Northern Pakistan: Estimation, Causes and Policy Implications. Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois.
19. Womiak G. 1987. "Human Capital, Information, and the Early Adoption of New Technology". Journal of Human Resources 22 101-12.
20. Bravo-Ureta E.Band E.A Pinheiro (1997). Technical, Economic, and Allocative Efficiency in Peasant Fanning: Evidence from the Dominican Republic. The Developing Economies. 34:48-6
21. Dolisca Frito and Curtis M. Jolly (2008). Technical Efficiency of Traditional and Non-Traditional Crop Production: A Case Study from Haiti. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4(4): 416-426
22. Helfand S. M and S.E Levine .2000. Farm Size The Determinants of Productive Efficiency in the Brazilian Centre- West. Agricultural. Economics 3 1 (2000)242