The off-farm income and organic food expenditure nexus: Empirical evidence from rural Ghana

Figures & data

Table 1. Variable definitions and data description

Variables	Definition	Mean	SD.
Dependent variables
Organic food expenditure	Organic food expenditure in 2019 (GH¢ 1,000/capita) ^a	0.31	1.39
Off-farm income	Off-farm income in 2019 (GH¢ 1,000/capita)	2.97	1.17
Independent variables
Gender	Respondent is a male (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.69	0.46
Age	Age of respondent (Years)	41.72	12.20
Education	Respondent has high school or higher education (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.27	0.49
Marital status	Respondent is married (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.71	0.51
Member in an urban area	Respondent has a member residing in an urban area (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.56	0.49
Children	Number of children in a household	5.13	1.73
Access to NFA	Respondent has access to non-fixed assets (NFA) such as jewelry and old machine (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.41	0.50
Access to credit	Respondent has access to credit (formal or informal source) (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.55	0.49
Price perception	Respondent perceives that, organic foods are expensive (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.33	0.47
Farm size	Total farm size owned by the respondent (Acres)	4.34	1.87
Eastern	Respondent is located in the Eastern region (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.27	0.44
Central	Respondent is located in the Central region (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.29	0.45
Bono East	Respondent is located in the Bono East region (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.26	0.43
Savannah	Respondent is located in the Savannah region (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.18	0.37
Social network	Respondent has a link with a relative who can help find an off-farm job (1=Yes, 0=No)	0.41	0.48
Observations		572

Notes: a 1 USD = 5.5 Ghana cedis (GH¢) in 2020; SD refers to the standard deviation.

Figure 1. Average off-farm income by gender in the four regions.

Figure 2. Average organic food expenditure by gender in the four regions.

Table 2. Off-farm income and organic food expenditure nexus estimation: IV-Tobit and Tobit model estimates

	First-stage of IV-Tobit model		Second-stage of IV-Tobit model		Tobit model
Variables	Off-farm income (Coefficients)	Off-farm income (Marginal effects)	Organic food expenditure (Coefficients)	Organic food expenditure (Marginal effects)	Organic food expenditure (Coefficients)
Off-farm income			0.023 (0.005)***	0.019 (0.006)***	0.032 (0.012)**
Gender	0.093 (0.036)**	0.081 (0.032)**	−0.021 (0.016)	−0.013 (0.029)	−0.041 (0.018)*
Age	1.049 (1.241)	0.903 (0.863)	0.003 (0.001)***	0.003 (0.001)***	0.012 (0.035)
Age^2	−0.072 (0.127)	−0.053 (0.076)	−0.028 (0.062)	−0.017 (0.042)	−0.051 (0.093)
Education	0.056 (0.009)***	0.050 (0.011)***	0.021 (0.009)*	0.014 (0.006)*	0.039 (0.017)*
Marital status	0.017 (0.008)*	0.013 (0.006)*	−0.023 (0.055)	−0.021 (0.035)	−0.051 (0.024)*
Member in an urban area	0.023 (0.010)*	0.011 (0.005)*	0.006 (0.032)	0.006 (0.030)	0.019 (0.026)
Children	0.033 (0.043)	0.027 (0.035)	−0.018 (0.008)*	−0.009 (0.004)*	−0.031 (0.061)
Access to NFA	0.002 (0.009)	0.002 (0.008)	0.004 (0.001)***	0.003 (0.001)***	0.018 (0.029)
Access to credit	0.055 (0.005)***	0.045 (0.009)***	0.028 (0.013)*	0.021 (0.009)*	0.012 (0.003)*
Price perception	−0.090 (0.056)	−0.088 (0.512)	−0.014 (0.006)*	−0.011 (0.005)*	−0.027 (0.073)
Farm size	−0.023 (0.042)	−0.017 (0.024)	0.005 (0.002)	0.002 (0.002)	0.008 (0.003)*
Eastern	0.192 (0.087)**	0.127 (0.055)**	0.013 (0.005)**	0.007 (0.003)**	0.045 (0.021)**
Central	0.118 (0.053)*	0.115 (0.048)*	0.003 (0.001)*	0.003 (0.000)*	0.012 (0.003)*
Bono East	−0.044 (0.183)	−0.033 (0.068)	0.017 (0.007)*	0.011 (0.004)*	0.037 (0.017)**
Social network	0.054 (0.022)**	0.052 (0.020)**
Constant	1.149 (0.116)***		0.405 (0.121)***		0.183 (0.090)*
Wald ${\chi }^2$	74.160***
Observations	572	572	572	572	572

Notes: *, ** and *** respectively indicate that its statistically significant level is 10%, 5% and 1%; Robust standard errors are presented in parentheses; The reference region is Savannah.

Table 3. Disaggregated analysis by gender: IV-Tobit model estimates

	Sample size	Organic food expenditure (Coefficients)
Male-earned off-farm income	395	.009 (.002)***
Female-earned off-farm income	177	.013 (.004)***

Notes: *, and ** respectively indicate that its statistically significant level is 10% and 5%; Robust standard errors are presented in parentheses; The reference region is Savannah.

Table 4. Off-farm income and organic food consumption status and intensity nexus estimation

	Second-stage of IV-Probit	Second-stage of IV-Poisson
Variables	Organic food consumption status (Coefficients)	Organic food consumption intensity (Coefficients)
Off-farm income	.041 (.009)***	.053 (.013)***
Age	.049 (.022)*	.032 (.024)
Age^2	−.011 (.003)***	−.044 (.031)
Education	.021 (.008)***	.056 (.021)**
Marital status	.012 (.018)	−.010 (.008)
Member in the urban area	.004 (.005)	.052 (.034)
Children	−.023 (.029)	−.021 (.009)*
Access to NFA	.016 (.048)	.004 (.002)*
Access to credit	.038 (.014)**	.049 (.018)**
Price perception	−.038 (.018)*	−.033 (.029)
Farm size	.023 (.072)	.057 (.044)
Eastern	.018 (.004)***	.032 (.009)**
Central	.033 (.016)*	.029 (.040)
Bono East	.011 (.024)	.054 (.048)
Constant	3.104 (1.382)*	.066 (.028)***
Wald ${\chi }^2$	38.14***	49.82***
Observation	572	572

Notes: *, ** and *** respectively indicate that its statistically significant level is 10%, 5% and 1%; Robust standard errors are presented in parentheses; The reference region is Savannah; For the sake of simplicity, we only present the second-stage estimates of IV-Probit and IV-Poisson models.

Table A1. Pearson correlation analysis of the selected IV

Variables	Correlation coefficients	p-value
Organic food expenditure	0.007	.338
Off-farm income	0.018**	.015

Notes: ** indicate that its statistically significant level is 5%.