Research & Policy Briefs From the World Bank Malaysia Hub No. 2, March 2016 Structural Transformation of the Agricultural Sector: A Primer Raian Divanbeigi, Nina Paustian, and Norman Loayza From agriculture to agribusiness: Agriculture in developing countries is experiencing a remarkable transformation, with improved productivity, changing production composition, and integration with domestic and international markets Trends and Driving Forces Babcock, and Pardey 2010). In some cases, this expansion has been led “Structural transformation” is a term used to describe the process of by developing countries. Cereal yields in East Asia have risen by an change in the production structure of an economy. One such transforma- impressive 2.8 percent per year, much more than the 1.8 percent growth tion was the Industrial Revolution of the 1700s in England and 1800s in in industrial countries. Likewise, in low- and middle-income countries the continental Europe and North America, which marked the change from shares of arable and cultivated land have risen by 29 percent and 36 an agrarian society to an industrial one, and from artisanal manufactur- percent, respectively, since 1960, while in high-income countries they ing to mass production (Clark 1951). As economies grew and urbanized, have not increased, on average. services from commerce, finance, and the state also became increasingly Change in composition in production important (figure 1, panel a). The types of agricultural products have changed, from subsistence to In developing countries, structural transformation started much cash crops, from food staples to intermediate inputs, and from later, mostly in the 1900s. The process occurred less gradually, even low-value/low-risk to high-value/high-risk varieties. This change is abruptly and dissimilarly in some cases. The general trend was, however, reflected in the evolution of agricultural commodities in global markets. broadly similar: from mostly agrarian to a mix of agrarian, industrial, and Whereas traditional exports have grown at an average of 2.5 percent per service economies (figure 1, panel b). year in the last 50 years, cereals and fruits have grown by over 5 percent Along with this general trend, two basic features evolved (Kuznets per year, and livestock has grown by more that 7 percent per year. 1957). The first was a process of human and labor migration from rural Naturally, this evolution has differed across regions and countries, given to urban areas. The second was a gain in total factor productivity associ- their heterogeneous geographic and climatic endowments. ated with a shift from traditional to modern forms of production. A less obvious, though no less important, structural transformation Change in mode of commercialization has occurred within the agricultural sector itself (Timmer 1988). It shares Agricultural market transactions have become more integrated with the certain features with the overall structural transformation: moderniza- rest of the economy, more dependent on finance, and more oriented to international trade. Fueled by food industries and services, agribusiness tion in the mode of production and in market transactions, and integra- has expanded in most developing countries, despite the decline in the tion in its relationship with the other economic sectors and even other share of agriculture in GDP (figure 2). The percentage of adults in rural countries (WDR 2008). areas who have an account at a financial institution increased sharply The structural transformation of the agricultural sector has been from 2011 to 2014, in both low-income countries (by over 15 percent) characterized by the relative decline of basic agriculture; the rising and in middle-income countries (over 44 percent) (FINDEX 2016). In the importance of agribusiness, which includes the value added for last 50 years, exports of agricultural commodities from developing agro-related industries and for agricultural trade and distribution services countries have increased eight-fold (figure 3). The expansion of manufac- (figure 2); as well as the growing share of high-value agricultural products tured exports based on agricultural inputs has been at least as remark- in international trade with respect to traditional exports (figure 3). able (figure 4). Agricultural structural transformation has been shaped by three The three processes that characterize agricultural structural interrelated processes. transformation have, in turn, been driven by several forces. They can be Improvements in productivity grouped into three categories. Higher yields and lower costs from existing and new farming lands have • Technological progress: The use of more efficient irrigation, the increased agricultural productivity. From 1960 to the present, agricul- adoption of modern technologies and mechanization, and new and tural output per hectare has expanded by over 250 percent (Alston, improved inputs (seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides). Figure 1. Historical and modern structural transformations have been marked by a shift away from agrarian societies to a mix of agriculture, manufacturing, and services a. Developed countries, sectoral shares of employment, 1870–1984 b. Low- and middle-income countries, sectoral shares of value added, 1960–2010 Labor share (% of total employment) 60 70 Average value added (% GDP) Services Services 60 50 50 40 Industry Industry 40 30 30 20 20 Agriculture 10 10 Agriculture 0 0 1870 1910 1950 1990 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Years Years Source: Maddison (1987). Source: World Bank World Development Indicators (WDI), March 2016. Note: Shares are averages for France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Note: Data are based on a sample of 39 low- and middle-income countries with and United States. almost complete information during the period 1960–2010. Affiliation: Divanbeigi and Paustian: Global Indicators Group, the World Bank. Loayza: Development Research Group, the World Bank. Acknowledgement: Greg Larson, Fabian Mendez-Ramos, Nancy Morrison, and Federica Saliola contributed to this Note. Objective and disclaimer: Research & Policy Briefs attempt to synthesize existing research and data to shed light on a useful and interesting question for policy debate. Research & Policy Briefs carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank Group, its Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. Structural Transformation of the Agricultural Sector: A Primer Figure 2. The relative GDP shares of agriculture and agribusiness Figure 3. High-value exports of agricultural commodities are change as incomes rise expanding rapidly in developing countries Aggregated export value, fob 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Years Livestock & fish products Cereals Fruits & vegetables Oilseeds & feeds Traditional Source: Reproduced from World Bank World Development Report (WDR) 2008. Note: Agribusiness includes the value added for agro-related industries and for Source: COMTRADE AND WDI. agricultural trade and distribution services. Data are for Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Note: Low- and middle-income countries. Traditional exports include cocoa, tea, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, coffee, rubber, tobacco, sugar, cotton, and spices. Units are billions of constant 2005 Republic of Korea, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. U.S. dollars. fob = free on board. • Public goods: Government-provided institutions and infrastructure. production depends on purchased inputs; thus effective input supply Land and water property rights are crucial, as well as the regulatory systems are essential. Inadequate formal seed supply systems have system that governs them. Regarding infrastructure, irrigation, slowed, or even precluded, the diffusion of new crop varieties (Tripp transportation, and conservation deserve special attention. 2001). Fertilizer use has long been hindered by difficulties in providing • Market access: Access to both trade and finance. Trade involves the right fertilizer types and in affordable pack sizes (Omamo and Mose markets for agricultural goods nationally and internationally, as well 2001). as for inputs and machinery. Finance comprises the ability to tap resources from the financial sector through credit, equity, and Change in commercialization insurance. Market-oriented production requires modernization of systems, which The rest of the policy note discusses how each of these driving forces depends heavily on the adoption of new technology and farm mechani- have affected the interrelated processes of agricultural structural zation (Omiti and others 2006). Lack of access to modern technology, as transformation. well as quality inputs such as fertilizers and improved seed varieties, lowers farmers’ ability to produce surpluses for the market (Olwande Technological Progress and Mathenge 2012). The growth in productivity of food crops in the developing world has Extension services promote the adoption of available technology by been extraordinary in the past 50 years. Although populations have more farmers and support their shift from traditional to modern and market- than doubled, the production of cereal crops has tripled during this oriented agriculture. For instance, the expansion of agricultural period, with only a 30 percent increase in land area cultivated (Wik, extension services significantly increased the intensity of input use, Pingali, and Broca 2008). Much of the success has been generated by the agricultural productivity, and market participation of smallholders in combination of high rates of investment in crop research, infrastructure Ethiopia (Gebremedhin, Jaleta, and Hoekstra 2009). Extension services and market development, and appropriate policy support that took place are improving rapidly, thanks to the diffusion of information and commu- during the Green Revolution (1966 to 1985) and the two decades that nications technology (ICT). Mobile applications support commercial followed (Pingali 2012). The fundamental strategy for the growth in farmers by providing them with information on prices, good farming productivity in food crops was that spillovers from existing advanced practices, soil fertility, pest or disease outbreaks, and extreme weather technologies could be captured across political and agro-climatic bound- (World Bank 2012). In Zimbabwe, access to extension services, as well as aries. As neither private firms nor national governments had sufficient ownership of basic ICT technology, increased farmers’ participation in incentive to invest in all of the research and development of such the soybean market (Zamasiya and others 2012). international public goods, great focus was put on promoting appropri- ate institutional mechanisms (Hazell 2010). The Consultative Group on Public Goods International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was established specifically By providing and regulating public goods, governments influence the to generate technological spillovers for countries that underinvest in cost of production as well as the distribution of agricultural goods, and agricultural research. thus determine the degree to which the private sector can benefit from specialization, investment, and trade (Engerman and Sokoloff 2011). By Change in productivity setting the right institutional and regulatory framework, governments The rapid increase in agricultural output resulting from the Green can help increase the competitiveness of farmers, enabling them to Revolution came from an impressive increase in yields per hectare. integrate in regional and global markets. Between 1960 and 2000, yields for all developing countries tripled for wheat, more than doubled for rice and maize, and increased by 78 Change in productivity percent for potatoes, and 36 percent for cassava (Evenson and Gollin Secure and clearly defined property rights enforced by efficient institu- 2003; FAO 2004). Global total factor productivity for agriculture nearly tions enable farmers to reap the benefits of their work, and thus provide doubled from the 1970–89 period (0.87 percent) to 1.56 percent for the incentive for them to invest in their land and manage it in a more sustain- 1990–2006 period (Fuglie 2010). The decrease in time to maturity able way (Besley 1995; de Soto 2000). In Ghana, insecure land tenure is allowed for an increase in cropping intensity, which explained the rapid associated with greatly reduced investment in land fertility (Goldstein spread of the rice–wheat system in the plains of the Indes and Ganges and Udry 2008). Equally important, the transferability of land rights Rivers (Pingali and Shah 1998). Other improved inputs, including fertiliz- promotes efficiency gains by allowing land to be reallocated to more ers, irrigation, and—to a certain extent—pesticides, were critical compo- efficient users via land markets (Deininger and Jin 2005). The resulting nents of the Green Revolution. consolidation of plots increases productivity through economies of scale While many regions have improved their agricultural technologies (Barrett 1996; Adamopoulos and Restuccia 2014). over the last three decades, a number of countries worldwide still make The regulation and enforcement of water rights has a significant very little use of modern inputs (figure 5). Sub-Saharan African countries impact on productivity by influencing decisions on investment and register the lowest levels of modern input use, as well as fertilizer use cropping patterns. In India, the redistribution of water rights of the and irrigation (WDR 2008). Krishna River led to productivity gains of the downstream state—which Change in composition were more than offset by the productivity losses of the two upstream Access to technology influences choices in crop allocation. Modern states (Das 2012). 2 Research & Policy Brief No.2 Figure 4. Exports of manufactured products based on agricul- Figure 5. Use of improved varieties of cereal has increased in tural inputs have grown considerably in developing countries developed countries, 1980 and 2010 Cereal area (%) 0 20 40 60 80 40 Aggregated export value, fob 24 30 Sub-Saharan Africa 2 77 20 South Asia 44 48 10 Middle East & North Africa 17 59 Latin America & Caribbean 0 22 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Years 85 East Asia & Pacific Beers, wines & other beverages Oils & fats 41 Processed meat & dairy products Packaged food Textiles (non-synthetic) 1980 2000 Source: COMTRADE AND WDI. Source: WDR 2008. Note: Low- and middle-income countries. Units are billions of constant 2005 U.S. Note: The horizontal axis represents land cultivated with improved varieties of dollars. fob = free on board. cereals as a share of the total cereal cultivated land. Infrastructure increases agricultural productivity by reducing Without proper storage and conservation facilities, farmers are transaction costs, protecting against shocks, and providing vital inputs. forced to sell what they harvested immediately. This also impacts the High costs due to low density or low quality of transport infrastructure choice of crops. By contrast, having access to storage facilities makes alter investment decisions and represent a major obstacle to agricultural farmers move from heartier storable goods with lower yields, such as growth. In particular, roads that link farmers to markets significantly staples, to perishable goods with higher profits (von Thuenen 1966). affect the use of inputs and crop choices. In Ethiopia, improvement in Adequate storage facilities and technologies promote the integration road quality increased the likelihood of purchasing crop inputs by 29–34 into global markets and the development of agribusiness industries, percent (Dercon and others 2009). especially those that specialize in highly perishable agricultural products. Public investment in irrigation systems can significantly reduce the Change in commercialization dependency on rain and therefore the vulnerability to shocks such as The provision of public goods to strengthen farmers’ competitiveness droughts. The productivity of irrigated land is significantly higher than and create a favorable investment climate is key to integrate farmers into rain-fed land (Lipton, Litchfield, and Faurès 2005). While 20 percent of value chains and international markets, especially more demanding the world’s cultivated land is irrigated, it contributes about 40 percent to ones. For example, obtaining access to the horticultural global value the world’s total crop production (FAO 2016). However, there are huge chain requires a sound regulatory sanitary and enforced phytosanitary regional differences: in Sub-Saharan Africa, only 4 percent of the arable standards (SPS) framework, access to conservation and cold-storage land is irrigated, compared to 34 percent in Asia (WDR 2008). facilities, as well as testing and certification centers to comply with Efficient storage and conservation technologies increase productiv- quality standards and ensure a consistent supply of quality products ity by reducing post-harvest losses through better preservation, leading (Jouanjean 2013). In Peru, the SPS authority (SENASA) supports farmers to increased yield and profitability. Losses of fruits and vegetables after in two main ways: it consolidates and negotiates market opportunities harvest in India are equal to a year’s consumption in the United Kingdom and has developed a strong regulatory framework assuring quality (WDR 2008). standards. As a result, asparagus exports increased from $6.4 million in Change in composition 1993 to $286 million in 2011 (Schuster and Maertens 2015). Many factors influence a farmer’s decision on the composition of Consolidation of land plots promotes specialization, which in turn production. Larger plots may promote higher degrees of specialization, leads to an increase in farmers’ export orientation and the formation of leading to economies of scale. A land reform in Vietnam led to an agribusinesses. Access to credit is key to enable farmers to invest and increase in the proportion of land devoted to multiyear crops by 7.5 grow their businesses: for example, to purchase quality inputs such as percentage points (Do and Iyer 2008). Furthermore, secure land rights as high-yield seeds and chemical fertilizers. Therefore, the provision of a well as effectively regulated water rights reduce uncertainty, and sound (physical and/or virtual) financial infrastructure and a correspond- promote the production of crops with higher returns despite higher risk. ing enabling regulatory framework—allowing land and non-traditional Adequate infrastructure enables access to input and product assets as collateral, for example—is crucial to promote agricultural markets, shifting farmers’ production toward producing goods for more growth. Beyond credit, crop insurance systems can have a significant distant markets, and away from an exclusive focus on goods for local impact on making farmers more willing to invest in their land and take up consumption. Transport costs can make up one-third of the farmgate higher-return projects (Dercon and Christiaensen 2011). price in some Sub-Saharan African countries (WDR 2008) and therefore In order to monitor progress and benchmark across countries, public significantly affects crop choice, up to the point where they prevent goods and regulations should be regularly assessed. On the latter, one farmers from specializing in the goods where they have a competitive example is the World Bank’s project Enabling the Business of Agricul- advantage (Gollin and Rogerson 2010). In Kenya, high transport costs ture. shifted farmers’ production from cash crops that could bring higher gross income to lower yield food crops (Omano 1998). Also, higher price Market Access variability in isolated areas leads to a focus on low-risk and less produc- Sustained trade liberalization over the past five decades has greatly tive crops to be less dependent on input prices (Rosenzweig and boosted global agricultural trade and expanded opportunities for export- Binswanger 1993; Barrett 1999). ers of agricultural products. In the last 50 years, exports of agricultural Irrigation reduces the variability of prices and incomes because it products from developing countries have multiplied eight-fold while reduces the impact of climatic shocks. Like more secure water rights, those of agriculture-based manufactured products increased ten-fold access to adequate irrigation systems can shift farmers’ focus to products (figures 3 and 4; COMTRADE 2016). The positive trend has continued that require more water but have a higher export value. When they are recently: largely thanks to an increase in prices, export value of agricul- less dependent on rainfall, farmers can address new target markets with tural products nearly tripled between 2000 and 2012, while increased by different demands throughout the year. Increased access to irrigation around 60 per cent in terms of volume (WTO 2013). systems also contributes to price stability, facilitating access to inputs Change in productivity and creating incentives to produce “riskier” crops. In India, for example, Easier access to domestic and international markets generates important rice farmers shifted from drought-resistant varieties that do well in bad productivity gains. Better market access facilitates specialization and years to less drought-resistant seeds that bring higher returns (Mobarak exchange transactions in rural areas, allowing producers to allocate their and Rosenzweig 2013). land to higher value crops. Moreover, as the costs of trading agricultural 3 Structural Transformation of the Agricultural Sector: A Primer products decline, farmers raise their productivity by using inputs more average annual volume growth in agricultural trade between 1950 and intensively (Freeman and Silim 2002). In Kenya, improvements in market 2010 was about 4 percent—twice as high as the annual growth in global access increased aggregate agricultural productivity by 1.7 percent agricultural production of 2 percent (Cheong and Jansen 2013; Cheong, through direct specialization effects and by 7.5 percent through indirect Jansen, and Peters 2013). This reflects an increased integration of the input intensification effects (Kamara 2004). agricultural sector into global markets. For many developing countries, revenue from agricultural exports is a major source of income. In Latin Change in composition America, excluding Mexico, the share of agricultural export revenue in Greater market integration allows countries to diversify their trade total merchandise export revenue is 30 percent (Cheong, Jansen, and patterns. In the past 50 years, the share of raw traditional agricultural Peters 2013). In some Sub-Saharan African countries and several other exports in global agricultural exports has declined significantly, while the low-income countries, agricultural products account for almost half of weight of high value-added agricultural trade has increased. Until the merchandise export revenue (WTO 2013). mid-1980s, raw traditional agricultural products represented around 40 Agricultural commercialization involves the transition from subsis- percent of total trade in agricultural goods. In the following decade, the tence farming to increased market-oriented production. Marketing costs share dropped sharply by over 10 percentage points. Processed agricul- are an important determinant of the extent to which smallholders tural products (which include processed traditional export products) participate in the market. Proximity to markets and roads, ownership of now represent over 60 per cent of total exports of agricultural goods means of transport or access to affordable transport services, reduce (WTO 2013). marketing costs, and thus encourage market participation by farmers Livestock as well as beer and wine are good examples. Over the last (Gebremedhin and Jaleta 2012). 50 years, developing countries’ exports of these products have grown by Recent increase in agricultural trade has been accompanied by a more than 7 percent per year. Traditional exports, on the other hand, shift toward nontraditional products. High-value crops such as fruits and have grown by 2.5 percent per year in developing countries, confirming vegetables are usually associated with higher levels of market participa- their overall shift away from commodities towards processed and higher tion than staple crops. For instance in Bangladesh, farmers on average value agricultural products (COMTRADE/WDI 2016). sell 96 percent of their vegetable products, but only 19 percent of their Access to markets affects trade composition, as obstacles to trade cereal output (Weinberger and Genova 2005). can be more relevant to certain product types. Nontariff trade barriers—such as sanitary, phytosanitary, and technical standards—are Concluding Remarks extremely diffused in horticulture, given its perishable nature. These Far from becoming unimportant, agriculture in developing countries is measures can drastically limit market access, making it harder for experiencing a remarkable structural transformation, characterized by countries to trade in high-value agricultural products. For example, an increase in productivity, a change in production composition, and a Zambia’s estimated tariff equivalents for nontariff trade barriers were renovation in its mode of commercialization. This transformation is estimated to be 55 percent for imports of fresh peas to the Netherlands, supported on technological, governmental, and commercial pillars. and 98 percent to the United Kingdom (Nimenya, Frahan and Ndimira, Agriculture is becoming agribusiness, in the good sense of market 2012). integration and entrepreneurship. A question remains for future work. Agriculture has consistently Change in commercialization alleviated poverty across developing countries. Will agribusiness In recent decades, developing countries’ agricultural trade as a share of continue to do so? And will the conditions that facilitate the transforma- domestic agricultural production and consumption has increased. The tion also be necessary to benefit the poor? References Adamopoulos, T., and D. Restuccia. 2014. “The Size Distribution of Farms and International Productivity Gollin, D., and R. Rogerson. 2010. “Agriculture, Roads, and Economic Development in Uganda.” In African Differences.” American Economic Review 104 (6): 1667-97. Successes: Sustainable Growth. National Bureau of Economic Research. Alston, J. M., B. A. Babcock, and P. G. Pardey, eds. 2010. The Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Production and Hazell, P. 2010. “An Assessment of the Impact of Agricultural Research in South Asia since the Green Productivity Worldwide. CARD-MATRIC Electronic Book. Revolution.” In Handbook of Agricultural Economics, vol. 4, 3469–3530. Elsevier BV. Barrett, C. B. 1996. “On Price Risk and the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship.” Journal of Jouanjean, M. A. 2013. Targeting Infrastructure Development to Foster Agricultural Trade and Market Development Economics 51: 193–215. Integration in Developing Countries: An Analytical Review. Overseas Development Institute Report. ---------. 1999. “Stochastic Food Prices and Slash and Burn Agriculture.” Environment and Development Kamara, A. 2004. “The Impact of Market Access on Input Use and Agricultural Productivity: Evidence from Economics 4: 161–76. Machakos District, Kenya.” Agrekon 43 (2): 202–17. Besley, T. 1995. “Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana.” Journal of Kuznets, S. 1957. "Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations: II. Industrial Distribution of Political Economy 103 (5): 903–37. National Product and Labor Gorce." Economic Development and Cultural Change: 1-111. Binswanger, H. P., and M. R. Rosenzweig. 1993. “Wealth, Weather Risk and the Composition and Profitability Lipton, M., J. Litchfield and J-M Faurès. 2005. “The Effects of Irrigation on Poverty: A Framework for Analysis.” of Agricultural Investments.” Economic Journal 103 (416): 56–78. Journal of Water Policy 5: 413–27. Cheong, D. and M. Jansen. 2013. “Employment, Productivity, and Trade in Developing-Country Agriculture.” Mobarak, A. M., and M. Rosenzweig. 2013. “Informal Risk Sharing, Index Insurance and Risk-Taking in In Shared Harvests: Agriculture, Trade, and Employment. ILO and UNCTAD. Developing Countries.” American Economic Review 103 (3): 375-80. Cheong, D., M. Jansen, and R. Peters. 2013. Shared Harvests: Agriculture, Trade and Employment. ILO and Nimenya, N., B. H. de Frahan, and P-F Ndimira. 2012. “Tariff Equivalents of Nontariff Measures: The Case of UNCTAD. European Horticultural and Fish Imports from African Countries.” Agricultural Economics 43 (6): 635–53. Clark, C. 1951. The Conditions of Economic Progress. London: McMillan. Olwande, J., and M. Mathenge. 2012. “Market Participation among Poor Rural Households in Kenya.” Paper Das, S. 2012. “State Rights over Water and Agricultural Productivity: Evidence from the Krishna Basin.” presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists, August 18–24. Working Paper 12-03, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin–Whitewater. Omamo, S. W. 1998. “Farm-to-Market Transaction Cost and Specialisation in Small-scale Agriculture: Deininger, K., and S. Jin. 2005. “Tenure Security and Land-Related Investment: Evidence from Ethiopia.” Explorations with a Non-separable Household Model.” Journal of Development Studies 35: 152–63. European Economic Review 50: 1245–77. Omamo, S. W., and L. Mose. 2001. “Fertilizer Trade under Market Liberalization: Preliminary Evidence from De Soto, H. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Kenya.” Food Policy 26: 1–10. Basic Books. Omiti, J., E. Mccullough, D. Otieno, M. Madelon, T. Nyanamba, and A. Murange. 2006. “Participatory Dercon, S., and L. Christiaensen. 2011. “Consumption Risk, Technology Adoption and Poverty Traps: Evidence Prioritization of Issues in Smallholder Agricultural Commercialization in Kenya.” Discussion Paper 64, Kenya from Ethiopia.” Journal of Development Economics 96: 159–73. Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis. Dercon, S., D. O. Gilligan, J. Hoddinott, and T. Woldehanna. 2009. "The Impact of Agricultural Extension and Pingali, P. 2012. “Green Revolution: Impacts, Limits, and the Path Ahead.” Proceedings of the National Roads on Poverty and Consumption Growth in Fifteen Ethiopian Villages.” American Journal of Agricultural Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 109 (31): 12302–08. Economics 91 (4): 1007-1021. Pingali, P., and M. Shah. 1998. “Sustaining Rice-Wheat Production Systems: Socio-Economic and Policy Do, Q-T, and L. Iyer. 2008. “Land Titling and Rural Transition in Vietnam.” Economic Development and Cultural Issues.” Rice-Wheat Consortium, New Delhi, 1–12. Change 56: 531-579. Schuster, M., and M. Maertens. 2015. “The Impact of Private Food Standards on Developing Countries’ Engerman, S. L., and K. L. Sokoloff. 2011. “Institutional and Non-Institutional Explanations of Economic Export Performance: An Analysis of Asparagus Firms in Peru.” World Development 66: 208–21. Development.” In Economic Development in the Americas since 1500: Endowments and Institutions, Timmer, C. P. 1988. "The Agricultural Transformation." Handbook of Development Economics 1. Part II: 315-340. National Bureau of Economic Research. 276-331. Evenson, R. E., and D. Gollin. 2003. “Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000.” Science Tripp, R. 2001. Seed Provision and Agricultural Development: The Institutions of Rural Change. Overseas 300 (5620): 758–62. Development Institute and James Currey Ltd. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2004. The State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. UN (United Nations). 2016. COMTRADE. ---------. 2016. AQUASTAT Main Database. Accessed March 20, 2016. von Thünen, J. H. 1966. Isolated State. Pergamon Press. Freeman, A., and S. Silim. 2002. “Commercialisation of Smallholder Irrigation: The Case of Horticultural Crops Weinberger, K., and C. Genova. 2005. "Vegetable Production in Bangladesh: Commercialization and Rural in Semiarid Areas of Eastern Kenya.” In Private Irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa, 185–92. Proceedings of the Livelihoods." Technical Bulletin No. 33, AVRDC–The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan, China. Regional Seminar on Private Sector Participation and Irrigation Expansion in Sub-Saharan Africa. Wik M., P. Pingali, and S. Broca. 2008. “Global Agricultural Performance: Past Trends and Future Prospects.” Fuglie, K. 2010. “Total Factor Productivity in the Global Agricultural Economy: Evidence from FAO Data.” In Background Paper for the World Development Report 2008. World Bank. The Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Production and Productivity Worldwide. Midwest Agribusiness Trade World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Research and Information Center, Iowa State University. ---------. 2012. Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. Gebremedhin, B., and M. Jaleta. 2012. “Market Orientation and Market Participation of Smallholders in Ethiopia: Implications for Commercial Transformation.” Paper presented at the International Association of ---------. 2016. FINDEX. Agricultural Economists (IAAE), August 18–24. ---------. 2016. World Development Indicators. Gebremedhin, B., M. Jaleta, and D. Hoekstra. 2009. “Smallholders, Institutional Services and Commercial WTO (World Trade Organization). 2013. World Trade Report 2014. Trade and Development: Recent Trends Transformation in Ethiopia.” Agricultural Economics 40(S): 773–87. and the Role of the WTO. Goldstein, M., and C. Udry. 2008. “The Profits of Power: Land Rights and Agricultural Investment in Ghana.” Zamasiya, B., N. Mango, K. Nyikahadzoi, and S. Siziba. 2012. “Determinants of Soybean Market Participation Journal of Political Economy 116 (6): 981–1022. by Smallholder Garmers in Zimbabwe.” Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics 6 (2): 49-58. 4