CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 221Agricultural Innovations and PracticesEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesAgricultural Development and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Non-farm entrepreneurship in rural sub-Saharan Africa: New empirical evidence

Open access
Nagler, Paula, Naudé, Wim·2017·Food Policy
DOI 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.019PMC PMC5384454
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We report on the prevalence and patterns of non-farm enterprises in six sub-Saharan African countries, and study their performance in terms of labor productivity, survival and exit, using the World Bank's Living Standards Measurement Study - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). Rural households operate enterprises due to both push and pull factors and tend to do so predominantly in easy-to-enter activities, such as sales and trade, rather than in activities that require higher starting costs, such as transport services, or educational investment, such as professional services. Labor productivity differs widely: rural and female-headed enterprises, those located further away from population centers, and businesses that operate intermittently have lower levels of labor productivity compared to urban and male-owned enterprises, or enterprises that operate throughout the year. Finally, rural enterprises exit the market primarily due to a lack of profitability or finance, and due to idiosyncratic shocks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.019

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 7 Productivity dispersal – by gender. Note(s): In (a)–(d) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises with a female enterprise owner and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises with a male enterprise owner. Authors’ own calculations based on LSMS-ISA data.
Fig. 7 Productivity dispersal – by gender. Note(s): In (a)–(d) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises with a female enterprise owner and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises with a male enterprise owner. Authors’ own calculations based on LSMS-ISA data.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 Productivity dispersal – by ability to read & write. Note(s): In (a)–(d) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises where the enterprise owner has the ability to read & write and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises with an illiterate enterprise owner. Authors’ own calculations based on LSMS-ISA data.
Fig. 8 Productivity dispersal – by ability to read & write. Note(s): In (a)–(d) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises where the enterprise owner has the ability to read & write and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises with an illiterate enterprise owner. Authors’ own calculations based on LSMS-ISA data.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 9 Productivity dispersal – by shock experience. Note(s): In (a)–(d) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises where the corresponding household experienced a shock during the 12 previous months and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises where the corresponding household did not experience a shock. Authors’ own calculations based on LSMS-ISA data.
Fig. 9 Productivity dispersal – by shock experience. Note(s): In (a)–(d) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises where the corresponding household experienced a shock during the 12 previous months and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises where the corresponding household did not experience a shock. Authors’ own calculations based on LSMS-ISA data.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 10 Productivity dispersal – by location. Note(s): In (a) and (b) the continuous lines represent the productivity of rural enterprises and the dotted lines the productivity of urban enterprises. Malawi (1) shows the productivity measure using profit in the numerator, and Malawi (2) additionally makes use of time-use information of workers in the denominator.
Fig. 10 Productivity dispersal – by location. Note(s): In (a) and (b) the continuous lines represent the productivity of rural enterprises and the dotted lines the productivity of urban enterprises. Malawi (1) shows the productivity measure using profit in the numerator, and Malawi (2) additionally makes use of time-use information of workers in the denominator.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 11 Productivity dispersal – by gender. Note(s): In (a) and (b) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises with a female enterprise owner and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises with a male enterprise owner. Malawi (1) shows the productivity measure using profit in the numerator, and Malawi (2) additionally makes use of time-use information of workers in the denominator.
Fig. 11 Productivity dispersal – by gender. Note(s): In (a) and (b) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises with a female enterprise owner and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises with a male enterprise owner. Malawi (1) shows the productivity measure using profit in the numerator, and Malawi (2) additionally makes use of time-use information of workers in the denominator.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 1 Contribution of activity to total household income. Note(s): Weighted shares. Rural areas only.
Fig. 1 Contribution of activity to total household income. Note(s): Weighted shares. Rural areas only.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Productivity dispersal – by location. Note(s): In (a)–(d) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises that are located in rural areas and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises that are located in urban areas.
Fig. 2 Productivity dispersal – by location. Note(s): In (a)–(d) the continuous lines represent the productivity of enterprises that are located in rural areas and the dotted lines the productivity of enterprises that are located in urban areas.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Productivity dispersal – by region and distance.
Fig. 3 Productivity dispersal – by region and distance.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Months in operation. Note(s): Malawi not reported due to a lack of data. Enterprises that are less than one year in operation are excluded. Rural areas only.
Fig. 4 Months in operation. Note(s): Malawi not reported due to a lack of data. Enterprises that are less than one year in operation are excluded. Rural areas only.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Months in operation – by location. Note(s): Survey weights included.
Fig. 5 Months in operation – by location. Note(s): Survey weights included.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Entries and exits of non-farm enterprises. Note(s): PP = Post-Planting, PH = Post-Harvest. Rural areas only.
Fig. 6 Entries and exits of non-farm enterprises. Note(s): PP = Post-Planting, PH = Post-Harvest. Rural areas only.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Ackah, 2013, Non-farm employment and income in rural ghana, J. Int. Develop., 25, 325, 10.1002/jid.1846 · DOI
  2. Ali, 2011, Value added of cluster membership for micro enterprises of the handloom sector in Ethiopia, World Develop., 39, 363, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.07.002 · DOI
  3. Babatunde, 2010, Impact of off-farm income on food security and nutrition in Nigeria, Food Policy, 35, 303, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.006 · DOI
  4. Banerjee, 1993, Occupational choice and the process of development, J. Polit. Econ., 101, 274, 10.1086/261876 · DOI
  5. Barrett, 2001, Non-farm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, issues, and policy implications, Food Policy, 26, 315, 10.1016/S0306-9192(01)00014-8 · DOI
  6. Bekele, 2008, Factors that affect the long-term survival of micro, small and medium enterprises in Ethiopia, South African J. Econ., 7, 548, 10.1111/j.1813-6982.2008.00207.x · DOI
  7. Blattmann, 2014, Generating skilled self-employment in developing countries: experimental evidence from Uganda, Quart. J. Econ., 129, 697, 10.1093/qje/qjt057 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bloom, 2013, Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry, Econometrica, 81, 1347, 10.3982/ECTA9466 · DOI
  9. Bloom, 2010, Why do management practices differ across firms and countries?, J. Econ. Perspect., 24, 203, 10.1257/jep.24.1.203 · DOI
  10. Brueck, 2013, Business under fire: entrepreneurship and violent conflict in developing countries, J. Conflict Resol., 57, 3, 10.1177/0022002712464846 · DOI
  11. Bryceson, 1996, Deagrarianization and rural employment in sub-Saharan Africa: a sectoral perspective, World Develop., 24, 97, 10.1016/0305-750X(95)00119-W · DOI
  12. Canagarajah, 2001, Non-farm income, gender, and inequality: evidence from rural Ghana and Uganda, Food Policy, 26, 405, 10.1016/S0306-9192(01)00011-2 · DOI
  13. Chiappori, 1992, Collective labor supply and welfare, J. Polit. Econ., 100, 437, 10.1086/261825 · DOI
  14. Christiaensen, 2013, Urbanization and poverty reduction: the role of rural diversification and secondary towns, Agric. Econ., 44, 435, 10.1111/agec.12028 · DOI
  15. Davis, B., DiGuiseppe, S., Zezza, A., 2014. Income Diversification Patterns in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Reassessing the Evidence. Policy Research Working Paper No. 7108. · DOI
  16. Davis, 2010, A cross-country comparison of rural income generating activities, World Develop., 38, 48, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Dercon, 2009, Rural poverty: old challenges in new contexts, World Bank Res. Observer., 24, 1, 10.1093/wbro/lkp003 · DOI
  18. Escobal, 2001, The determinants of non-farm income diversification in rural Peru, World Develop., 29, 497, 10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00104-2 · DOI
  19. Evans, 1989, An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints, J. Polit. Econ., 97, 808, 10.1086/261629 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Fafchamps, 2003, The spatial division of labour in Nepal, J. Develop. Stud., 39, 23, 10.1080/00220380312331293577 · DOI
  21. Foster, 2008, Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: selection on productivity and profitability?, Am. Econ. Rev., 98, 394, 10.1257/aer.98.1.394 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Fox, L., Pimhidzai, O., 2013. Household Non-Farm Enterprises and Structural Transformation: Evidence from Uganda. Paper presented at the UNU-WIDER Conference on Inclusive Growth in Africa, Helsinki.
  23. Frazer, 2005, Which firms die? A look at manufacturing firm exit in Ghana, Econ. Develop. Cultural Change, 53, 585, 10.1086/427246 · DOI
  24. Haggblade, 1989, Farm-non-farm linkages in rural sub-Saharan Africa, World Develop., 17, 1173, 10.1016/0305-750X(89)90232-5 · DOI
  25. Haggblade, 2010, The rural non-farm economy: prospects for growth and poverty reduction, World Develop., 38, 1429, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.06.008 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Hurst, 2004, Liquidity constraints, household wealth and entrepreneurship, J. Polit. Econ., 112, 319, 10.1086/381478 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Janvry, 2001, Income strategies among rural households in Mexico: the role of off-farm activities, World Develop., 29, 467, 10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00113-3 · DOI
  28. Kinda, 2011, Firm productivity and investment climate in developing countries: how does the Middle East and North Africa perform?, Develop. Econ., 49, 429, 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2011.00146.x · DOI
  29. Klapper, 2011, Patterns of business creation, survival and growth: evidence from Africa, Labour Econ., 18, S32, 10.1016/j.labeco.2011.09.004 · DOI
  30. Lanjouw, 2001, The rural non-farm sector: issues and evidence from developing countries, Agric. Econ., 26, 1, 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb00051.x · DOI
  31. Lucas, 1978, On the size distribution of business firms, Bell J. Econ., 9, 508, 10.2307/3003596 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Manser, 1980, Marriage and household decision-making: a bargaining analysis, Int. Econ. Rev., 21, 31, 10.2307/2526238 · DOI
  33. Martin, 2011, Spatial concentration and plant-level productivity in France, J. Urban Econ., 69, 182, 10.1016/j.jue.2010.09.002 · DOI
  34. McPherson, 1995, The hazards of small firms in Southern Africa, J. Develop. Stud., 32, 31, 10.1080/00220389508422400 · DOI
  35. Minniti, 2010, What do we know about the patterns and determinants of female entrepreneurship across countries?, Eur. J. Develop., 22, 272
  36. Moretti, 2004, Workers’ education, spillovers, and productivity: evidence from plant-level production functions, Am. Econ. Rev., 94, 656, 10.1257/0002828041464623 · DOI
  37. Murphy, 1991, The allocation of talent: implications for growth, Quart. J. Econ., 106, 503, 10.2307/2937945 · DOI
  38. Nagler, P., Naudé, W., 2014. Non-Farm Entrepreneurship in Rural Africa: Patterns and Determinants. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8008. · DOI
  39. Nichter, 2009, Small firm growth in developing countries, World Develop., 37, 1435, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.01.013 · DOI
  40. Owoo, 2016, Spatial proximity and firm performance: evidence from non-farm rural enterprises in Ethiopia and Nigeria, Regional Stud.
  41. Reardon, 1997, Using evidence of household income diversification to inform study of the rural non-farm labor market in Africa, World Develop., 25, 735, 10.1016/S0305-750X(96)00137-4 · DOI
  42. Rijkers, 2012, Gender and rural non-farm entrepreneurship, World Develop., 40, 2411, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.017 · DOI
  43. Rijkers, 2010, A rural-urban comparison of manufacturing enterprise performance in Ethiopia, World Develop., 38, 1278, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.02.010 · DOI
  44. Serra, R., 2009. Gender and Occupational Choice in Africa: The Role of Time Poverty and Associated Risks. Paper Presented at the FAO-IFAD-ILO Workshop on Gaps, Trends and Current Research in Gender Dimensions of Agricultural and Rural Employment, Rome, 31 March–2 April.
  45. Shi, 2007, Choices between different off-farm employment sub-categories: an empirical analysis for Jiangxi Province, China, China Econ. Rev., 18, 438, 10.1016/j.chieco.2006.08.001 · DOI
  46. Shiferaw, 2009, Survival of private sector manufacturing establishments in Africa: the role of productivity and ownership, World Develop., 37, 572, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.08.004 · DOI
  47. Sonobe, T., Higuchi, Y., Otsuka, K., 2012. Productivity Growth and Job Creation in the Development Process of Industrial Clusters. GRIPS Discussion Paper No. 11-22. · DOI
  48. Start, 2001, The rise and fall of the rural non-farm economy: poverty impacts and policy options, Develop. Policy Rev., 19, 491, 10.1111/1467-7679.00147 · DOI
  49. van Biesebroeck, 2005, Exporting raises productivity in sub-Saharan manufacturing firms, J. Int. Econ., 67, 373, 10.1016/j.jinteco.2004.12.002 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Wiggens, 2000, Interpreting changes from the 1970s to the 1990s in African agriculture through village studies, World Develop., 28, 631, 10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00153-9 · DOI
  51. Zezza, 2011, Rural household access to assets and markets: a cross-country comparison, Eur. J. Develop. Res., 23, 569, 10.1057/ejdr.2011.15 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Nagler, P., & Naudé, W.
Affiliations
  • United Nations University – Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (NL)
  • IZA - Institute of Labor Economics (DE)
Corresponding author
Nagler, Paula
ORCID
Venue
Food Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
67
Pages
175-191
ISSN
0306-9192 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.019
PMC
PMC5384454
OpenAlex
W2534141963
Cited by
221
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 8
FWCI
59.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Food Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Development and Management
Keywords
non-farm enterprises, rural entrepreneurship, sub-Saharan Africa, labor productivity, business survival, firm exit, urban-rural differences, push and pull factors, idiosyncratic shocks, household livelihoods

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review