Use of wealth ranking to analyse factors influencing smallholder farmers' market participation in northern Mozambique

Figures & data

Figure 1: Factors affecting farmers' decisions to cultivate cash crops. Source Lukanu et al. (2004).

Table 1: Village leaders' criteria for differentiating household wealth status in southern Niassa

Criterion	Wealthy	Middle class	Poor
Number of labourers	At least two labourers apart from the active household members	At least one labourer apart from the active household members	Labourer to other household farms
Livestock	Enough and diversified livestock	Livestock mostly chickens	A few chickens
Number of agricultural implements	More implements than active household members	Enough implements for the active household members	Shortage of agricultural implements for the active household members
Accumulated	More than one radio	At least one radio	Trying to get one radio
wealth	More than two bicycles	At least one bicycle	Trying to get one bicycle
Crops sold	More than one promoted cash crop (tobacco and/or cotton)	Only one promoted cash crop	No promoted cash crop
	Rarely food crop		Sells part of the food crop under pressing need
Food availability	Enough food crops	Enough food crops	Deficient in food
	Enough food reservef	No food reserve	No food reserve
Size of the field	Larger cultivated area for food and promoted cash crops	Enough cultivated area for food crop and cash crops	Small cultivated area often not enough for food and cash crops
Access to manufactured products	Access to most of the manufactured food products (salt, soap, sugar, oil, etc.)	Access to some of the manufactured food products	Begs from wealthy and middle class to access manufactured food products such as salt
Housing and compound^a	More than one good house (with good ceiling, door and external latrines)	One good house (with good ceiling, door and external latrines)	No proper housing, small, with poor ceiling and no latrine
	Clean compound	Clean compound	Dirty compound
Sleeping conditions	Good sleeping conditions (using bed, mattress and sheets)	Good sleeping conditions (using bed, mattress and sheets)	Poor sleeping conditions, using floor mat
Household clothing	Household members change clothes; wife has jewellery	Household members well-dressed only when going to city or for important events	Poor clothing, sometimes with part of the body uncovered
Children's schooling	Able to put the children in city schools	Children able to study only at the village level	Children rarely at school at all
Access to hospital	Able to pay for the household's health costs	Can pay for the household's health costs	Unable to pay for the household's health costs
^aMain criterion for initial classification as wealthy, middle class and poor households for sampling purposes.

Table 2: The relationship between some wealth-ranking factors and household characteristics, and wealth status

	Mean or proportion				R (Critical R = 0.12)	z-score test or confidence interval at α = 0.05 (critical z = 11.96)
Criterion	Average	Wealthy	Middle class	Poor		Poor vs. wealthy	Middle class vs. wealthy
Food availability:
For household use	0.93	0.83	0.94	0.96	N/A	− 0.25;0.00	− 0.24;0.02
For cash	0.06	0.14	0.06	0.04	N/A	− 0.01;0.22	− 0.04;0.20
Livestock	4.60	12.00	5.00	2.6	0.40	7.10	5.14
Effective labourers	2.30	3.89	2.54	1.77	0.29	4.77	2.93
Number of implements	4.90	7.17	5.09	4.2	0.33	4.35	3.62
Number of bicycles	1.00	1.60	1.10	0.7	0.30	9.97	4.48
Age					0.03
Lsiteracy level					0.07
Gender and marital status					0.23

Table 3: Significance and correlation between wealth status and number of different kinds of cash crops sold

	Wealth status	Number of cash crops sold
Mean	Population (u)	0.75
	Poor	0.56
	Middle class	0.88
	Wealthy	1.11
Standard deviation (σ)		0.76
z-score	Wealthy vs. poor	3.88
	Wealth vs. middle class	1.55
Critical z (α = 0.05)		|1.96|
Conclusion	Wealthy vs. poor	Reject the Ho
	Wealthy vs. middle class	Accept the Ho
Correlation coefficient		0.27
r critical		0.12
Ho, hypothesis.

Table 4: Different wealth categories cultivating food crops or promoted cash crops

	Proportion for food goal (n = 287)	Proportion for cash goal (n = 287)	Proportion for specific wealth status			z-score or confidence interval^a
Crops			Poor	Middle class	Wealthy	Poor vs. wealthy	Middle class vs. wealthy
Non-promoted food crops	0.99	0.38	0.30	0.45	0.47	− 1.92	− 0.21
Staple food grown	0.99	0.32	0.25	0.41	0.33	− 1.06	0.85
Maize	0.98	0.28	0.21	0.38	0.28	− 0.85	1.05
Sorghum	0.67	0.12	0.06	0.15	0.22	− 2.90	0.94
Rice	0.57	0.13	0.08	0.14	0.25	− 2.75	1.45
Cassava	0.41	0.10	0.06	0.13	0.19	− 2.66	− 1.03
Accompanying food crops	0.74	0.15	0.08	0.22	025	− 2.75	0.36
Boer bean	0.62	0.11	0.08	0.13	0.22	− 2.51	− 1.24
Cowpea	0.47	0.11	0.05	0.19	0.14	− 1.91	0.72
Bambara bean	0.20	0.04	0.01	0.08	0.08	(−.015; 0.17)	(−0.09; 0.11)
Horticultural crops	0.10	0.07	0.08	0.12	0.17	(−0.04; 0.22)	(−0.08; 0.19)
Vegetables	0.07	0.04	0.02	0.06	0.08	(−0.03; 0.16)	(−0.07; 0.13)
Sugar cane	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.06	(−0.06; 0,10)	(−0.07; 0.10)
Promoted cash crops	0.63	0.60	0.46	0.72	0.75	− 3.06	− 0.34
Tobacco	0.40	0.40	0.33	0.46	0.50	− 1.88	− 0.40
Cotton	0.23	0.23	0.14	0.29	0.39	− 3.38	− 1.12
Sesame	0.10	0.07	0.06	0.08	0.08	− 0.60	− 0.12
Sunflower	0.08	0.05	0.02	0.05	0.14	− 3.05	− 1.82
Paprika	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.88	0.59
Overall		0.74	0.64	0.83	0.83	− 2.21	− 0.09
^aValues are considered to be found in the critical region if the confidence interval does not contain zero (0) in its interval. n = 287.

Table 5: Farmers participating in the sale of only promoted or food crops, both promoted and food cash crops, and not participating in the market at all

	Wealth status	Promoted crop only	Food crop only	Promoted and food crop	Nothing
Proportion	Population (p)	0.36	0.13	0.25	0.26
	Poor	0.34	0.17	0.13	0.37
	Middle class	0.38	0.11	0.35	0.17
	Wealthy	0.36	0.08	0.39	0.17
SD (σ)		0.34	0.48	0.43	0.44
z-score	Wealthy vs. poor	− 0.26	1.28	− 3.52	2.28
	Wealthy vs. middle class	0.15	0.39	− 0.46	0.09
Critical z (α = 0.05)		|1.96|	|1.96|	|1.96|	|1.96|
Conclusion	Wealthy vs. poor	Accept the Ho	Accept the Ho	Reject the Ho	Reject the Ho
	Wealthy vs. middle class	Accept the Ho	Accept the Ho	Accept the Ho	Accept the Ho
Ho, hypothesis.

Table 6: The relationship between household characteristics, agricultural factors and literacy levels

Household characteristics	< 4 years of schooling	4–7 years of schooling	> 7 years of schooling
Age (%)
< 20	67	22	11
20–40	72	24	4
40–60	91	8	1
> 60	100	0	0
Wealth, gender and marital status (%)
Poor households	47	55	75
Divorced, single with children, second wife	79	21	0
Single without children	60	20	20
Married	80	18	3
Agricultural factors
Number of livestock	4.9	3.4	2.6
Average promoted number of cash crops	0.8	0.6	0.1
No promoted cash crop sold (%)	36	53	88
Not growing any food crop (%)	0	0	12

Lukanu , G , Green , J M , Worth , S and Greenfield , P . 2004 . Farmers' cash crop cultivation decisions in Southern Niassa Province, Mozambique . Development Southern Africa , 21 ( 3 ) : 531 – 54 .

 Google Scholar