Gender and agriculture in sub‐Saharan Africa: introduction to the special issue

This special issue contributes to the literature on gender differences in sub‐Saharan African agriculture primarily by using new and innovative micro‐data. The first six articles have a strong focus on understanding the extent and drivers of gender differences in land productivity and use data from nationally representative household surveys that are implemented under the Living Standards Measurement Study‐Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS‐ISA) initiative. The LSMS‐ISA data are multi‐topic, with geo‐referenced household and plot locations, and information on production and identity of managers and owners at the plot level. The last two articles in the volume rely on in‐depth quantitative and qualitative case study data, which, in combination with the nationally representative data, allow for greater insights into the extent and correlates of gender differences in sub‐Saharan African agriculture. While there does seem to be persistent evidence of gender gaps, the studies find the sources of these gaps to vary within and across countries. This makes designing policies to address gender gaps more challenging, yet of crucial importance. What is clear is that the failure to directly and explicitly address the underlying causes of the disparities is likely to end up exacerbating the observed gender gaps.     

Comparing supply‐side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system

This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scope—partial versus economy‐wide—and in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are “deep” structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) “shallow” structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) “deep” structural models that provide a detailed activity‐analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specification—comparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models.     

External and Internal R&D,Capital Investment and Business Performance in the Spanish Agri‐Food Industry

We examine the effects of external and internal expenditure on research and development on the business performance of industrial agri‐food enterprises. For this purpose, a data sample from the Encuesta de Estrategias Empresariales en España (Survey of Business Strategies in Spain) was used, which includes information on more than 400 businesses over the period 2000–2008. The econometric analysis uses quantile regressions to address the vast asymmetry of the variables and to identify non‐linear relationships. The results reveal interesting new findings on the impacts of R&D on the agri‐food industry. The most evident, although not the most immediately apparent, relationship concerns the positive effects of external R&D on business performance. Internal R&D was also revealed to be an important way of enhancing the productivity of SMEs. In addition, the modernisation of the production process through investment in capital goods continues to be the main path to improve competitiveness. However, support was found neither for the inverse relationship, that is the most profitable firms are those that spend the most on R&D, nor for complementarity between external and internal R&D. The latter would imply that the bulk of Spanish agri‐food firms have at most the capacity for only one type of R&D.     

Trade and the Political Economy of Food Standards

This article presents a political economy model of public standards in an open economy. We use the model to derive the political optimum and to analyse different factors that have an influence on this political equilibrium. We analyse the relationship between trade and the political equilibria and compare the political outcome with the social optimum to identify under which cases political considerations lead to standards being set ‘too low’ or ‘too high’, and which standards could be labelled as protectionist measures.     

Economics and politics of food standards,trade, and development#

Standards have played an important role in food trade for a very long time. Their rapid growth in recent years has triggered vigorous debates on their impacts on international trade and development, with many arguing that standards are “non‐tariff barriers” to trade and that standards are marginalizing the poor. I present conceptual frameworks and review empirical evidence on the equity and efficiency effects and the political economy of standards. Models which incorporate essential aspects of standards yield complex theoretical results and nuanced conclusions. Careful empirical analyses support such nuanced arguments and find complex effects. For trade, standards can create welfare gains but also involve rent redistribution which induces lobbying by interest groups to set the standards at their preferred level. This makes it difficult to distinguish socially desirable standards from those resulting from political rent‐seeking. For development, it is crucial to explicitly account for (a) the endogeneity of the institutional organization of value chains and (b) both smallholder contracting and employment creation on large scale farms when considering the impact of standards on development and poverty.