533566742, February 21, 2008
Proposal for the Data Analysis
1
OBJECTIVES OF THE SECOND PHASE AND “THE ROAD AHEAD”
Our three main hypotheses remain our guideline for the discussion of the survey results:
-
-
H1: The restructuring of agro-food markets reinforce a process of differentiation and
segmentation within agriculture
H2: Marginalization trends introduced by these processes can lead to risks of
transitional dead-ends depending of the existing alternative activities (and sources of
employment)
H3: Agricultural households are adapting to this new context by adopting composite
strategies of activities and income that are reshaping the physiognomy of rural
economies
As discussed during the regional launching workshops of the second phase and during the
collective preparation of the questionnaire, the objectives of the household (HH) surveys and
of the chain analyses are to confirm and solidify the picture taken so as to move from the very
impressionistic vision resulting from the first phase to a better understanding of the processes
at stake:
-
-
-
What are the main characteristics of the rural HH, the current composition of rural
incomes, and the key explaining factors of differentiation between the HH, at the local
and regional level?
What are the current roles of agriculture?
How the development of integration does affect the farm pattern through new
marketing channels and contracts, if any?
Can we identify – even with the clear limits of a “one shot” survey without historical
reference on the same HH – processes of improvement or downgrading (through the
evolution of activities and assets, the head of HH prospects)?
How can we discuss the patterns of sustainability and vulnerability, and reason
possible trajectories?
These are important questions that need to be addressed to reach the goals of the second
phase.
1
533566742, February 21, 2008
2 DATA BREAKDOWN
Based on the information that we should obtain from the household surveys, we propose a
synthetic breakdown of the data which should guide us for the analysis, as a first step.
The worksheets in the attached file offer a set of key indicators and variables which are all
related to the V15bis of the questionnaire. As your own questionnaires clearly refer to the
V15 with some adaptations, you should be able to use this breakdown proposal.
The objective of this proposal is to have a common approach which will help to engage the
comparative work. It proposes: (i) a description of the sample at the village level and mainly
follows the items of the different modules; (ii) a way to estimate the global income per HH;
(iii) a description of incomes per types and classes; (iv) a first approach focused on the main
hypotheses with a description of the characteristics of the HH engaged with contracts (H1), a
description of the level of diversification of income (H3), a global picture on the share of the
different HH positioning per village/region (H2).
We started to work on “sustainability” indicators, which will provide a good synthesis of the
situation of the different HH. We will share the proposal with you when this work has reached
a more advanced stage.
For now, the file contains seven worksheets.
1/ Sample characteristics
The first worksheet - “sample characteristics” - refers to indicators, variables and indices that
may allow us to describe the situation of the sample per village and then per region in terms
of:
- Households’ characteristics (demography, human and social capital, settlement,
migration).
We are proposing the use of an adult equivalent index, which is commonly used in
this type of work, and will allow an effective comparison between HH. We provide a
WHO conversion table which gives a weight of the HH members by age and sex.
-
Farms’ characteristics in terms of factors of production and assets (land, workforce,
equipment).
We are proposing an agreement on a commonly-used definition of the farm size to be
used throughout the analysis. We will only consider the land effectively used by the
household which means that the farm size includes the land in use for cropping,
2
533566742, February 21, 2008
breeding, fallow land, etc., both owned and not owned (share-cropping, rent, lent,
etc.). Consequently, the land owned, which is rented or lent to other households will
not be included. It will be considered as a HH asset but not as a factor of production.
-
Activities and income characteristics (on-farm income, i.e. agriculture, animal
breeding, transformation of agricultural products; off-farm income, i.e. wages, income
received from non-farm activities when self-employment, private and public transfers,
rentals).
-
Non-agricultural assets (accommodation,
accommodation, savings).
other
properties
than
the
main
2/ Global income estimate
The second worksheet - “global income estimate” - summarizes the proposed mode of
calculation of on-farm, off-farm and global income, and also global expenditures and autoconsumption.
With regard to auto-consumption data, we will decide how to use it depending on the quality
of the information collected. Auto-consumption will also be estimated based on the difference
between production and sales in module 3.
3/ Income classes
The third worksheet - “income classes” - proposes an analysis per village and region of the
distribution of the income per type and quintile.
We are proposing two different approaches:
- HH diversification obtained by the share of each type of income per HH
- Rural diversification obtained by the sum of each type of income per village
4/ Hypotheses
The next three worksheets present examples of tables that may be used to respond the 3
hypotheses, mainly: characteristics and differences of the HH engaged with farm contracts,
degree of differentiation of incomes, classes of incomes.
We will of course elaborate more based on the results of the first data breakdown.
5/ Index
The worksheet “index” specifies the calculation of different indexes to be used for the
analysis.
3