Search for a command to run...
Smallholder agriculture plays an important role in rural livelihoods throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but its economic contribution to household welfare has not been explored extensively. In this study, the economic benefit of crop production among 100 smallholder farm households in the Mwekera Farming Block in Zambia was estimated with an emphasis on household investment, consumption, and job effects. A mixed-methods approach was employed that combined structured surveys with cross-tabulations, Fisher's Exact Test, and ANOVA analysis. Implications are that soybean (48%) and maize (32%) are the predominant crops, with all soybeans and most maize farmers yielding more than 5 tons. There were more variable yields for groundnuts (16%) and sunflowers (4%), such that crop-specific productivity differences were indicated (Fisher's Exact Test, p = 0.000). Every household re-invested part of their farm income: 82% expanded areas cultivated, 18% spent on seeds and small inputs, and 91% diversified into non-farm activities such as trade, animals, and education. Seasonal employment was dominant, with 86% of the labor supply, where soybeans and maize generated the highest number of employment opportunities. Statistical analysis showed that crop type influenced the character of employment generated significantly (Fisher's Exact Test, p = 0.011), while overall output did not affect total employment generation (ANOVA F = 0.39, p = 0.6805). The results highlight the fact that farm production is central to household financial planning, supporting agricultural and non-agricultural investments as well as creating significant seasonal employment, especially for young people and women. The study also emphasizes the importance of policy interventions that will enable mechanization, adoption of improved technologies, access to finance, and value chain linkage, which can improve productivity, enhance household income diversification, and enhance rural socio-economic resilience.
Published in: Journal of economics, business and commerce.
Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 116-126