A cross-country comparison of rural income generating activities
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The total wage share in the PEN sample is lower (15.2%) than in the Davis et al. (2010) sample (25.3%).
“The total wage share in the PEN sample is lower (15.2% compared to 25.3%) than in the Davis et al. (2010) sample, possibly because our sites tend to be located in more remote areas with lower market integration.”
From Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Davis et al. (2010)
Income shares for crops (28.7%) and livestock (12.3%) in the PEN sample are close to the shares of 16 country-level rural income surveys presented in Davis et al. (2010; 30.0% and 10.3%, respectively).
“The income shares for crops (28.7%) and livestock (12.3%) in the PEN sample are close to the shares of 16 country-level rural income surveys presented in Davis et al. (2010; 30.0% and 10.3%, respectively).”
From Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Davis et al. (2010)
Davis et al. (2010) recommend mean of shares if households are the main unit of analysis.
“We follow Davis et al. (2010) who recommend “mean of shares” if households are the main unit of analysis, as in our case.”
From Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Davis et al. (2010)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., Börner, J., Smith-Hall, C., & Wunder, S. (2014) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006 · Cited by 1,147 · see citing works
Entrepreneurship programs in developing countries: A meta regression analysis
Cho, Y., & Honorati, M. (2014) · Labour Economics · doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2014.03.011 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
- Authors
- Davis, B., Winters, P., Carletto, G., Covarrubias, K., Quiñones, E. J., Zezza, A., Stamoulis, K., Azzarri, C., & DiGiuseppe, S.
- Affiliations
- United Nations Children's Fund (US)
- American University (US)
- World Bank (US)
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (IT)
- Venue
- World Development
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 48-63
- ISSN
- 0305-750X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2133013164
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 50.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- Locations
- World Development (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- IFPRI E-brary (International Food Policy Research Institute) (submittedVersion)
- CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion)
- International Food Policy Research Institute (International Food Policy Research Institute) (submittedVersion)
- The World Bank Open Knowledge Repository (World Bank) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural risk and resilience
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
- Keywords
- off-farm income, income diversification, rural livelihoods, farm income, rural households, cross-national comparison
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
