Analysis of technical efficiency among youth involved in crop production in Njombe Region, Tanzania

Figures & data

Table 1. Inefficiency variables measurement with their expected sign

Variable	Description	Measurement	Expected sign
Z1	Age of youth farmer	years	+/–
Z2	Household size	Numbers	–
Z3	Poultry keeping	Dummy	+
Z4	Male	Dummy: 1 = Male	–/+
Z5	Married	Dummy: 1 = married	–/+
Z6	Land ownership	Dummy: 1 = own land; 0 = otherwise	–
Z7	Extension services	Dummy: 1 = yes; 0 = no	–
Z8	Access to credit	Dummy: 1 = yes; 0 = no	–
Z9	Education level	Levels: 0 = primary; 1 = secondary; 2 = Tertiary	– +
Z10	Njombe district	Dummy: 1 = yes; 0 = no	+
Z11	Njombe town	Dummy: 1 = yes; 0 = no	–
Z12	Makambako town	Dummy: 1 = yes; 0 = no	–

Source: Field Survey, 2018.

Table 2. Summary of descriptive statistics of key variables used in the analysis

Variable	Units	Mean	S. D
Total revenue (Value of crops-Tshs)	Tshs	1,684,059	10,274,789
Farm Size	Acres	1.089	1.05
Labor Expenses	Tshs	18,385.7	12,128.4
Fertilizer (Manure)	Tshs	35,662.8	66,121.1
Age	Years	29	5
Household Size	Number	4.6	1.6
Male	%	0.59	0.49
Married	%	0.747	0.435
Land Ownership	%	0.855	0.353
Extension Services	%	0.58	0.49
Access to Credit	%	0. 55	0.49
No education	%	0.012	0.11
Primary Education	%	0.77	0.42
Secondary Education	%	0.185	0.39
Poultry keeping	%	0.837	0.37
Tertiary Education	%	0.03	0.17
Njombe district council	%	0.64	0.48
Njombe town council	%	0.26	0.44
Makambako town council	%	0.18	0.39

*Data involves 572 youth between 15 and 35 years of age; SD = Standard Deviation.

Source: Field Survey, 2018.

Table 3. Hypothesis testing of frontier and technical inefficiency models with variances

Model	Hypothesis	${\delta }^2$	t-Statistic	p-Value	Decision
Overall	$H_0:{\beta }_0={\beta }_1=\dots {\beta }_k={\delta }_0={\delta }_1=\dots {\delta }_k=0$		14.27	0.0000	Rejected
Frontier		0.62	2.32	0.03	Rejected
Technical Inefficiency	$H_0:{\delta }_0={\delta }_1=\dots {\delta }_k=0$	0.78	26.59	0.000	Rejected

Table 4. Maximum likelihood estimates of the Frontier model

Dependent variable (total value of crops (TZS)	Parameters	Coef.	Std.Err.	t-Value
Frontier Production function
Constant	β0	60.84**	30.25	2.01
lnFS	β1	5.37**	2.80	1.92
lnEX	β2	−2.78	4.31	−0.64
lnMA	β3	−5.27*	2.94	−5.1.79
lnFS_2	β4	0.14	0.08	1.78
lnEX_2	β5	0.20	0.19	1.10
lnMA_2	β6	0.27**	0.11	2.53
lnFSlnEX	β7	−0.15*	0.25	−0.60
lnFSlnMA	β8	−0.35*	0.18	−1.92
lnEXlnMA	β9	−0.08	0.23	−0.36
Technical inefficiency function
Constant	δ0	18.06	3.48	5.20
lnAge	δ1	−0.60*	0.36	−1.66
lnHHSize	δ2	0.25	0.18	1.41
Use of Tractor	δ3	0.02	0.08	0.21
Poultry keeping	δ4	−0.04*	0.15	−0.27
Own land	δ5	–1.19**	0.48	–2.47
Extension contact	δ6	−0.03*	0.15	0.01
Access to credit	δ7	−0.19	0.15	−1.29
Njombe District Council	δ8	0.71**	0.33	2.16
Njombe Town Council	δ9	0.27	0.35	0.76
Makambako Town council	δ10	0.01	0.24	0.05
Sigma_u		0.78***	0.05	26.59
Sigma_v		0.62**	0.03	5.11
Lambda		1.52***	0.05	3.82
Loglikelihood		−584.3459
Number of observations		355
Wald chi-square (9)		14.27
Prob > chi^2		0.0000
Mean TE		19.32

Legend: ln = natural logarithm; FS = Farm size, EX = Expenditure on hired labor; MA = Fertilizer (Manure).

Source: Computed by authors using stata version 15 software, data from field survey 2018. Asterisks represent statistically significant at *** 1%, ** 5%, and * 10%, respectively.

Table 5. Elasticity of output with respect to inputs

Input	Elasticity
Farm Size	0.146
Expenditure on hired labour	0.436
Fertilizers (Manure)	−0.308
Return to Scale	0.275

Source: Field Survey, 2018.

Figure 1. Distribution of TE of youth crop farmers in Njombe.

Table 6. Technical efficiency farm size and income differences between males and females

Variable	Male	Female
Average Farm size	1.26	0.85
Average income	2,418,151	616,000
Average TE	19.3	19.2

Source: Field Survey, 2018.

Table 7. Two-sample t-test with equal variance among male and female youth TE

Variable	Male mean score (S.D)	Female mean score (S.D)	Mean difference	t (df)	P-value	95% C. I
Test result	15.3 (0.086)	14.9 (0.085)	0.458	3.69 (160)	0.0001	(3.69,160)

SD = Standard deviation; CI = Confidence Interval; df = degree of freedom.

Table 8. Technical efficiency by district

District	Mean TE	S. D
Njombe District Council	19.34	0.34
Njombe Town Council	19.29	0.29
Makambako Town Council	19.33	0.26

Source: Field Survey, 2018.

Table 9. Two-sample t-test with equal variances for districts’ technical efficiency

Districts	Mean (No)	Mean (Yes)		Dif	St. Err	t-Value	p-Value
Njombe District Council	19.30	19.34		0.035	0.025	0.99	0.84
Njombe Town Council	19.34	19.29		0.045	0.029	1.15	0.12
Makambako Town Council	19.33	19.32		0.009	0.038	0.21	0.4

Dif = mean difference; St. Err = Standard Error.