In-kind transfers of maize, commercialization and household consumption in Kenya

Abstract

This article discusses in-kind food transfers and whether such transfers should be interpreted as a sign of the failure of grain markets to meet the food demands of the poor. The article elucidates on aspects of both consumption and in-kind transfers of maize against a backdrop of poorly functioning markets. It adds to the theoretical understanding of household based linkages and provides a documentation of in-kind commodity flows missing in many discussions of such linkages. The purpose of the article is twofold: first, it sheds light on the phenomenon of in-kind transfers of staple crops in the Kenyan context; secondly, it assesses the wider reciprocal and livelihood implications for the transferring households. The article relies on three sets of data with respect to methodology. It uses quantitative data collected at the household level in 2008, qualitative data collected at the village level in 2002 and 2008, as well as qualitative household level data gathered through in-depth interviews with 30 heads of household and farm managers in Western Kenya in June and July 2006. The survey found that 38% of the households transferred maize to their relatives. The explanations for in-kind transfers are not primarily related to poor price incentives, but the functioning of household support systems across space. In-kind transfers therefore at times drain the food resources of sending households while constituting important sources of food security for receiving households. While the focus in the literature is generally on rural–urban linkages, the direction of maize transfers was primarily rural-to-rural. The article concludes that existence of food transfers underpins the necessity of improving commercial incentives for maize and other foodstuffs and eliminating physical barriers to free movement of foodstuffs across the national space.

Keywords:

• in-kind transfers
• consumption
• agricultural production
• Kenya
• maize
• households
• reciprocity

Acknowledgements

The inputs by research assistants Charles Recha, Jane W. Maina and Wainana Muriuki and the interviewees are gratefully acknowledged. This research has been funded through support from the Swedish Research Council, Sida and Sida's Research Council for Developing Countries. Special thanks are extended to Göran Djurfeldt, Ellen Hillbom, T.S. Jayne and Magnus Jirström whose comments on the text are highly appreciated.

Notes

1. Jayne, Mather, and Mghenyi, “Smallholder Farming”; Poulton, Kydd, and Dorward, “Overcoming Market Constraints”; Kirimi et al., “A Farm Gate-to-Consumer.”

2. See Wood, “Could Africa”; Ellis, “Small Farms, Livelihood Diversification.”

3. United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects.

4. See Haggblade, Hazell, and Reardon, Transforming the Rural Nonfarm Economy; Bryceson, “De-Agrarianisation in Sub-Saharan Africa”; Bryceson, “African Rural Labour”; Bryceson “The Scramble in Africa”; Andersson, The Bright Lights; de Haas, “Migration, Remittances”; Foeken and Uwuour, “Farming as a Livelihood”; Foeken and Uwuour, “Multi-Spatial Livelihoods.”

5. Data has been collected simultaneously in nine African countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia, covering a total of 4000 households.

6. Kirimi et al., “A Farm Gate-to-Consumer”; Dorward et al., “A Policy Agenda”; Fafchamps and Minten “Property Rights.”

7. Ensminger, Making a Market; Ensminger, “Transaction Costs through Time”; North, Institutions, Institutional Change; Coase, “The Nature of the Firm”; Coase, “The Problem of Social Costs”; Acheson “Transaction Cost Economics.”

8. Mauss, The Gift; Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory.

9. Bohannan, Social Anthropology; Polanyi, Trade and Market.

10. Gregory, Gifts and Commodities.

11. Sahlins, “The Sociology of Primitive Exchange”; Sahlins, Stone Age Economics.

12. Guyer, “Household and Community in African Studies.”

13. See Guyer, Marginal Gains.

14. Ledeneva, “Blat and Guanxi: Informal Practices”; Ledeneva, Russia's Economy.

15. Adepoju, Family, Population and Development; Guyer, “Household and Community in African Studies”; Yaro “Is Deagrarianisation Real?”

16. See Andersson, The Bright Lights; de Haas, “Migration, Remittances”; Baker, Rural–Urban Dynamics, Baker, “Survival and Accumulation”; Baker and Pedersen, The Rural–Urban Interface; Foeken and Uwuour, “Farming as a Livelihood”; Foeken and Uwuour, “Multi-Spatial Livelihoods.”

17. Stichter, Migrant Labour in Kenya; Van Onselen, Chibaro; Wolpe, “Capitalism and Cheap Labour”; Bryceson, “A Century of Food”; Guyer, Feeding African Cities.

18. Aryeetey, “Household Asset Choice”; Guyer, Marginal Gains.

19. Karugia, “A Micro Level Analysis.”

20. Djurfeldt, Aryeetey, and Isinika, African Smallholders.

21. Djurfeldt et al., The African Food Crisis.

22. Andersson and Wambugu, “Maize Circulation.”

23. Andersson et al., “A New Era for Sub-Saharan African Agriculture?”

24. Andersson, “Maize Remittances, Smallholder Livelihoods”; Andersson, “Maize Remittances, Market Participation.”

25. Chant, Women-Headed Households; Guyer, “Household and Community”; Udry “Agricultural Production.”

26. Karugia, “A Micro Level Analysis.”

27. Karugia, “A Micro Level Analysis.”; Jaetzold and Schmidt, Farm Mangement Handbook; Kenya, Lugari District Poverty Reduction.

28. Karugia, “A Micro Level Analysis.”

29. Kirimi et al.. “A Farm Gate-to-Consumer.”

30. Curtis, Opportunity and Obligation; Gwako, “Property Rights.”

31. Andersson and Wambugu, “Maize Circulation.”

32. Karugia, “A Micro Level Analysis.”

33. Jayne, Zulu, and Nijhoff, “Stabilizing Food Markets.”

34. Kirimi et al., “A Farm Gate-to-Consumer”, 16–18.

35. Kirimi et al., “A Farm Gate-to-Consumer”, 29.

36. Jayne, Mather, and Mghenyi, “Smallholder Farming.”

37. Alene et al., “Smallholder Market.”

38. Jayne, Zulu, and Nijhoff, “Stabilizing Food Markets.”

39. Jayne, Mather, and Mghenyi, “Smallholder Farming.”

40. See Berry, “Social Institutions.”

41. A consumption unit takes into consideration the age composition of the household. Adult household members (aged 16–60) are given a value of one, whereas children (15 and below) are given a value of 0.50 and older household members (61 and above) are given a value of 0.75, when converting the household into a consumption unit.

42. Stephens and Barrett, “Incomplete Credit”; World Bank, World Development Report.

43. See for example Bah et al., “Changing Rural–Urban Linkages.”

44. World Bank, World Development Report.

45. Foeken and Uwuour, “Farming as a Livelihood”; World Bank, World Development Report.