Enhancing economic subsistence: diversification activities and labor
intensification as economic setback mitigation in upland agriculture
communities
Simeon C. Bernados, Jr1
1College of Arts and Sciences, Cebu Technological
University, Cebu City, Philippines
E-mail:
simeonjr.bernados@ctu.edu.ph
Abstract
To demonstrate that pluriactivities can contribute to the economic
condition as a response to economic setback, the diversification
activities of upland farmers and the utilization of their available
labor pool were used to illustrate that economic well-being is
attainable through the use of lucrative undertakings. Using the 1995 and
2015 data to compute two growth years, upland farm household strategies
to cope with financial challenges were documented and analyzed.
Variables included in the analysis were the socioeconomic status of
upland households, the different agricultural phases, the labor types
used relative to the different agricultural phases, and the time
expended on the use of labor types in relation to the different
agricultural phases. Results showed that diversification activities have
helped the upland household meet the financial requirements needed for
both the farm and households. Recommendations for governments and
development planners to undertake development projects for upland
communities were discussed.
Keywords: upland farming, livelihood diversification, crop
diversification, labor utilization, agricultural phases, poverty
Introduction
Studies have shown that participation in rural nonfarm employment
(RNFE) have contributed to income increase, wealth and even agricultural
productivity (Barrett, Reardon, & Webb, 2001; Haggblade, Hazell, &
Reardon, 2005). These findings suggest that the correlation between
participation and higher income is a way out of poverty (Bezu, Barrett,
& Holden, 2012). But, studies of determinants of participation
suggested the opposite, that an unequitable access of remunerative
nonfarm activities only favors the rich rather than the poor (Barrett et
al., 2001; Corral & Reardon, 2001; Davis et al., 2010; Dercon, 2006;
Meert, Van Huylenbroeck, Vernimmen, Bourgeois, & Van Hecke, 2005).
Thus, there is a good reason to examine the positive trajectories of the
correlation.
Studies on economic activities of poor households in the rural areas
showed positive trajectories on the contribution of livelihood
activities to the well-being of rural household (Avila-Foucat &
Rodríguez-Robayo, 2018; Kassie, Kim, & Fellizar, 2017; Mentamo & Geda,
2016; Saha & Bahal, 2015). These studies demonstrated that the ultimate
outcome of pluriactivities was for the improvement of the well-being of
household through increase of income and high productivity. Households
engaged in numerous activities like trade, handicrafts, services to meet
their daily needs (Srisopaporn, Jourdain, Perret, & Shivakoti, 2015).
To measure affluence, accumulation of assets became the gauge (Barrett
et al., 2001; Ellis & Freeman, 2004; Saha & Bahal, 2016).
Farmers’ economic activities have not only improved their financial
capacity but also the ecological outcomes associated with the
activities. Studies have shown that crop diversification, for instance,
have improved soil condition through the cultivation of nitrogen-fixing
crops, reduced pest infestation through effective pest management
control, and lessened soil run-off or soil erosion (Gaba et al., 2015;
Kidane & Zegeye, 2018). Moreover, going beyond the carrying capacity of
the natural resource could be prevented by liberalizing access to the
different livelihood resources (Kamanga, Vedeld, & Sjaastad, 2009).
However, quantification of farmers’ labor expenditures in relation to
agricultural phases and their contribution to agricultural productivity
was rarely reported in the literature. This is the gap of research that
this paper addresses. Most of the discussions on farmers’ labor use were
placed in broad headlines, leaving out the specific value of time use
and their allocation of it in cognizance of their economic activities.
This method of inquiry is directed at the understanding farmers’ values
and needs for time use is expressive of prioritization of needs
(Chambers, 1995; Rhoades & Booth, 1982).
The main objective of this paper then is to demonstrate that
pluriactivities can contribute to the economic condition of the upland
farmers. This paper used the diversification activities of farmers and
the utilization of their available labor pool as means of improving
their economic condition.
Theoretical Framework
As a response against uncertainties and as alternative means to increase
household income, diversification of livelihood and resources becomes
the default response over specialization, and in fact, becomes the norm
(Barrett et al., 2001; Kasem & Thapa, 2011; Kyi & Doppler, 2011). This
subject was discussed extensively by Altieri (2018), Ellis & Freeman
(2004), Kidane & Zegeye (2018), Meert et al (2005), Saha & Bahal
(2016), Salvioni, Rondinelli, Esposito, & Henke (2009). Two types of
diversification strategies stand out in the literature i.e. livelihood
diversification and the agriculture or crop diversification.
Livelihood diversification
Livelihood diversification is the use of non-specific household assets
for non-agriculture activities unconnected to the farm business (Meert
et al., 2005) and is associated with increased income (Makate, Wang,
Makate, & Mango, 2016). Rural poor farmers diversify by adopting a
range of activities, e.g. trade, handicrafts, services, and rents like
plow animal rentals, to improve economic condition (Haggblade et al.,
2005; Saha & Bahal, 2016; Srisopaporn et al., 2015). Assets accumulated
coming from different sources become the measure of wealth and
well-being (Barrett et al., 2001; Ellis & Freeman, 2004; Saha & Bahal,
2016).
To understand rural small farmholders’ income seeking-behavior, myriads
of variables were drawn-out from various econometric models
(Avila-Foucat & Rodríguez-Robayo, 2018; Kassie et al., 2017; Mentamo &
Geda, 2016; Saha & Bahal, 2016). Among these were household age,
environmental consciousness, government regulatory requirements and
subsidies, civic engagements, education level, access to credit and
other financial resources, perceptions on land tenure, possessions of
livestock, and dependency ratio. These studies argued that these
variables need to be incorporated into the development plans to ensure
farmers’ chances of survival and well-being.
Livelihood diversification protects the overutilization of the natural
resources, such as the forestland. Forestland resource was one of the
sources of farmers’ alternative livelihood (Kamanga et al., 2009). In
this study, authors demonstrated that households of economically poor
farmers constituted the vast majority of forest consumers, implying that
limiting the poor households’ access to the forest resources could
contribute to disparity in income inequalities. But in granting them
liberal access to forest resources, pressure on forest resource is
inevitable (Vadez, Reyes-García, Huanca, & Leonard, 2008). Hence to
lessen the reliance on the use of forest resources, lucrative
enterprises should be made available to the rural poor farmers (Nguyen
& Tran, 2018; Wei, Chao, & Yali, 2016). In this study, the authors
argued that extremely poor households consumed and utilized forest
resource more than their well-off counterparts implying that access to
forestlands leads to increase in household per capita income, thereby
contributing to the reduction of poverty incidence.
Agricultural diversification
Agricultural or crop diversification increases household income (Dorsey,
1999) and household resiliency during lean periods (Singh, Kumar, &
Woodhead, 2002). It is performed either by growing a variety of crops at
one time or by growing different crops in different locations at the
same time. Farmers diversify crops for numerous ends (Bosma, Udo,
Verreth, Visser, & Nam, 2005).
Aside from financial necessity, crop diversification has non-finance
advantage (Kidane & Zegeye, 2018; Makate et al., 2016). These studies
reported the practical value of crop diversification e.g. improvement of
soil fertility, efficiency of agro-ecological systems which reduces crop
production risks, enhances production stability, yields, and improvement
of the diversity of human diet, suppression of diseases and pests,
weeds, and volunteer crops. Studies concluded that crop diversification
promotes ecological balance, reduces farm input use such as fertilizers
and pesticides through intraspecies management and mitigation of
environmental impacts, reduces pest infestation by preventing their
growth, reproduction, or dispersal, and minimizes soil erosion and the
associated loss of nutrients by acting directly on soil fertility
through nitrogen fixing species such as legumes (Gaba et al., 2015). In
conclusion, crop diversification could be implemented for food
production as well as ecosystem equilibrium.
Has diversification really improved the lives of the marginalized farm
households?
As a response to curb poverty among the marginalized farmers in the
rural areas, modernization of agro-technology improves rural farmers
lives and eliminate rural poverty (George, 2014). Lessons from Green
Revolution proved that by adoption of new technologies, lives of farmers
could be improved and the national production goals could be achieved as
well (Gollin, Hansen, & Wingender, 2018; Horlings & Marsden, 2011;
Pingali, 2012). However, there were reports in some few studies that
farmers rejected the introduced technology of the risk involved in the
adoption of modern technology, thus resulting to low income and
productivity (Fermont & Benson, 2011; Garibaldi et al., 2017; Loos et
al., 2014).
In poverty studies, crop diversification improved farmers’ livelihood
outcomes (Kasem & Thapa, 2011; Kyi & Doppler, 2011). For instance, in
one region in China, a five-year average yield increase was achieved
from 67.9% to 97% as a result of crop diversification (Zhang et al.,
2016). Similar gains were observed in South Africa (Michler &
Josephson, 2017) and in some developing countries like Malawi, Nepal,
Vietnam, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Albania, and Panama (Pellegrini
& Tasciotti, 2014).
Allocation of human resources in diversified household
Diversification activities begin at the household (Koomson & Asongu,
2016). Levy (1985), and Zepeda (2006) reported on the economic value of
children and their contribution to the agricultural production; Adewale,
Oladejo, & Ogunniyi (2005) examined the attitudinal factors of children
pertaining the drudgery of agricultural operation; Dinku, Fielding, &
Genc (2018) examined the roles children played in the household.
The division of labor by gender has been extensively published in the
literature and concluded that women has contributed to agricultural
production (Haddad & Reardon, 1993; Matshe & Young, 2004; Neitzert,
1994; Saenz & Thompson, 2017; Shiferaw, Gebremedhin, & Zewdie, 2017;
Udry, 1996; Udry, Hoddinott, Alderman, & Haddad, 1995). Saenz (2017)
reported on the marketing and production involvement of women; Shiferaw
(2017) documented women’s access to credit services reporting that some
government and nongovernment organizations preferred to extend credit
and other financial services to women rather than men for the reason
that women’s economic activities were in consonance with government’s
programs. However, Matshe & Young (2004) claimed that some domestic
concerns prevented women to fully participate in agricultural production
like children’s care, household care, and farm support
Accounting of labor and its contribution to agricultural productivity is
rarely reported in literature and is usually placed in broad headlines
in ethnographic efforts (Boserup, 1966). The quantification of farm
labor can lead researchers to the understanding of the working patterns
of farmers both in on-farm and off-farm seasons (Stone, Netting, &
Stone, 1990) as well as the prioritization of farmers’ needs and the
valuation of their resources in relation to their economic condition.
Method
The data used in this paper were component data of the project “Farm
Labor and the Agroecological Management of Upland Rice Farming in
Eastern Visayas, Philippines”. The research area is primarily
agricultural with rice as the principal crop and others such as legumes,
coconuts, rootcrops, and cash crops such as banana and vegetable as
secondary crops. The area has limited flat lands, surrounded with high
mountains with minor creeks flowing towards major creeks of three
composing villages. This project detailed upland farmers farming
practices.
Secondary data were used in this essay. The data were formal survey
interview, personal interviews with upland farmers and key informant,
and notes during the participant observation phase. Household units were
used as sampling units because they could be conveniently compared with
other cultural units (Gross, 1984). Furthermore, it was relatively easy
to observe behavior directly in a household or to use a single informant
to report on the activities of household members. A total of 57
household units were used in the analysis. Prior informed consent was
sought from the research participants prior the conduct of the formal
survey, and personal interview with upland farmers and key informant.
Furthermore, ethics clearance was granted by the departmental ethics
committee of the Provincial Agricultural Office, Province of Leyte,
Philippines.
In this article, authors used the 1995 and 2015 data to compute two
growth years. Data used in the analysis included among others:
socioeconomic status of upland farmers, the different agricultural
phases, the labor types used relative to the different agricultural
phases, and the time expended on the use of labor types in relation to
the different agricultural phases.
Socioeconomic status includes the demographic characteristics of the
household units, their livelihood and agronomic activities. Agricultural
phases are the different agricultural tasks such as field preparation/
repair (FP), planting/ transplanting/ replanting (PL), weeding and pest
management (HR), fertilizer application/ manuring (MA), and harvesting
(HA). Labor types are the labor used in the performance of the
agricultural phases, and these are the self labor, unpaid family labor,
collective or exchange labor, and hired labor. Time expenditure is the
amount of time spent in the performance of a task. These were computed
in terms of hours expended as estimated by the research participant
through the recall method.
Analysis
In soliciting the time expenditure data, the approximation method,
instead of the diary method, was adopted. Approximation method uses the
recall method. The farmer research-participant approximates the number
of hours or days in an agricultural task. Researchers were very much
aware of the inherent weakness of this method but was considered to be a
lesser demanding task compared to the diary method (Bernard &
Killworth, 1993; Paolisso & Hames, 2010). Descriptive statistics e.g.
frequency count, mean, and percentage were used in the analysis. For the
computation of the percentage of change, the entry of the final year
(t2015) is subtracted with the entry of the beginning
year (t1995) divided by t1995 and then
is multiplied by the constant 100.
Results
Table 1 describes the demographic characteristics of upland farm
households in terms of age of household heads, their educational
attainment, household size, and number of household dependents. Majority
of household heads were advanced in age (40-74 years) and have low
educational attainment (2-9 years). Furthermore, household units have
high population size (5-11 members) and have many dependents ranging
from 5-14 dependents. Not to mention that these were factors of poverty
(Jung & Smith, 2007), the data would point out that the farm household
units had high overhead expenses like caring for children and the
elderly, and household maintenance. Hence, capital requisites for
agricultural endeavours were needed and household heads have to source
out the much need capital for agricultural use.
Labor management of upland farm household
Farmers allocated a labor type in relation to the agricultural phases.
Households utilized four labor types, to wit: the unpaid family labor,
self-labor, collaborative/exchange labor, and the hired labor.
Self-labor is the type of labor performed by the household heads. In
this study, household heads were the research participants. Unpaid
family labor is the type of labor performed by every able-bodied member
of the household; collective or exchange labor is the labor type
extended to the members of the exchange group where reciprocity is the
norm of the group, and; hired labor is a form of a contract labor paid
by the households.
Table 1. Demographic profile of upland farm household in a rural village
in Eastern Visayas, Philippines