MEKELLE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTEMENT OF ECONOMICS

CONSTIRIANTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY

(IN CASE EMBA ALAJE WOREDA)

A SENIOR ESSAY SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AS

PARTIALFULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENT FOR BA DEGREE IN ECONOMICS

PREPARED BY: TESFAY MERESEE

ID.NO: CBE/UR78079/07

ADVISOR: G/zeher G /yohanis

JUNE 2017

MEKELLE, ETHIOPIA
Acknowledgement
First and most I would like to thank the ALMIGHTY GOD who helped and support me through
my ups and downs in preparing this paper and my heartfelt gratitude goes to all those that helped
me in preparation of this research paper. My deepest heartfelt thanks expands to my advisor,
GEBREZGHER for his unrevised sparking tight academic schedule in providing me valuable
supervision, comments, guidance, moral support and advance on the essence and content of this
senior essay to be trust full in this form.
I must express a special gratitude to my lovely mother who always stands at my right side
providing every materials and financial help.
Finally I would like to thanks all my respondents who provide available information about the
study honestly.
ACRONYMS

ADLI – Agricultural Development Led Industrialization

AFDB -African Development Bank

CSA-Central Statistics Authority

EEA- Ethiopia Economic Association

FAO-Food and Agricultural Organization

GDP- Gross Domestic Product

GNP- Gross National Product

IFPRI- International Food Policy Research Institute

LP- Labor Productivity

NBE- National Bank of Ethiopia

NPAD-New Partnership For African Development

PADETES- Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System

SFP- Single Factor Productivity

TFP- Total factor productivity

UNDP- United Nation Development Program

USA- United States of America

USD- United States Dollar

WARDO- Woreda Agricultural Rural Development Office

Table of contents page

Acknowledgement……………………….…………………………………………….i

Acronomy…………………………………………………………...............................ii

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………iii

List Of Table…………………………………………………………………………iv

Chapter One……………………………………………………….............................1

1. Introdution……..………………………………………………………………….1

1.1. Background of the Study…………………………………………………………1

1.2. Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………3.

1.3. Objective of the Study……………………………………………………………5

1.3.1. General objectives……………………………………………………………5

1.3.2. Specific objectives………………………………………………………….…5

1.4. Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………5

1.5. Limitation of the study……………………………………………………………5

1.6. Scope of the Study…………………………………………………………………5

1.7 .Methodology of the study…………………………………………………/………6

1.7.1 Description of the study area…………………………………………………6

1.7.2 Types and Source of data…………………………………………………….6

 1.7.3Method of Sampling and Sample Size……………………………………….6

1.7.4 Method s of data Analysis……………………………………………………7

1.7.5 Research design…………………………………………………………….…7

1.7.6 Econometric model selection and specification……………………………..8.

1.7.7Description of variable used In OLS Model…………………………………9

1.8. Organization of the Study…………………………………………………………..10

Chapter Two……………………………………………………………………………..11

2. Literature Review…………………………………………………………………….11

2.1. Theoretical Literature Review……………………………………………………..11

2.1.1TheConceptofAgriculturalproductivity……………………………………….…1……
1…………

2.1.2. agriSources of Agricultural

Progress…………………………………………………………

2.1.3. Constraints of Agricultural Productivity……………………………………………….

2.2. Empirical Literature Review……………………………………………………………..

2.2.1. Agricultural Production System in Ethiopia………………………………………………

2.2.2. Challenges of Agricultural Production and Productivity in Ethiopia…………………….

2.2.3. Prospects of Agricultural Production and Productivity in Ethiopia………………

CHAPTER THREE…………………………………………………………………………

DATA ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………………………..

3.1
 Abstract

As a backbone of Ethiopian economy, from the inception, agriculture is subsistent and

encountered different backbreaking constraints. Stemming from this logical ground, this study
considered the constraints of agricultural productivity. With due emphasis on determinants of
crop production, effect of off-farm participation on agricultural production. Cross sectional
data, supplemented by interview was collected through semi-structured questionnaire
administered on 60 randomly selected smallholder farmers. Descriptive statistics and
econometric techniques mainly OLS employed to analyze the data. Results showed that, majority
of the respondents were male-headed and productive labor force who low use fertilizer, pesticide
credit access, and improved seed. With irrigation presence and these all positive applications,
crop production was found at low level. Besides, farm income was found to be determined
significantly by pesticide, compost, fertilizer use, improved seed use; carried positive sign.

The main constraints for the agricultural productivity arises in lack of credit access, shortage
land, inadequate rainfall, soil erosion, shortage improved seed, lack of pesticide use, lack oxen;
and mostly land management practiced crop rotation.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Study

The history of agricultural and rural development since the end of World War II in 1945 is
characterized by changing priorities and concerns. Immediately after this war and the widespread
Experience of serious malnutrition, there was a determined effort to increase food production in
developed world (Reimund et al., 2007).

The results of determined effort given for agricultural production in the post-World WarSecond
are, increased habits of various technologies such pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers as well as
new breads of high yield crops were employed after the second World War to greatlyincrease
global food production(FAO,2oo6).

Unlike other regions of the world productivity of agriculture per worker in Africa has declined
during the past twenty years. Rising productivity of agriculture per worker can make critical
contribution to economic growth and alleviation of poverty by generating the surpluses that can
be used for investment on agriculture and non-agriculture activities. Agricultural has been also
level or falling for many crops in many countries of Africa. Significantly yields of most
important food grains, tubers and legumes (maize, millet, sorghum, yams, cassava, ground nuts)
in most countries no higher today than 1980. Africa’s share of total world agricultural trade fell
from 8% in 1965 to 3% in 1996. Low productivity is the result of low investment in all factors
that contribute to agricultural productivity and effective use available resources. To correct the
problem will require Africa to significantly increase investment in agriculture. This in turn
requires that the profitability of agricultural investment be increased and so made attractive
(FAO, 2006).

Rural areas are home to 75 percent of Africa’s people, most of whom count agriculture as their
major source of income. Fortunately, Africa has experienced continuous agricultural growth
during the past few years. However, much of the growth has emanated from area expansion
rather than increases in land productivity. In most countries, future sustainable agricultural
growth will require a greater emphasis on productivity growth, a suitable area for new cultivation
declines, particularly given growing concerns about deforestation and climate change (IFPRI,
2012).

Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the world’s poorest regions. Its population and land area are
approximately three times that of the USA. The region’s economies are heavily dependent on
agriculture, which accounts for two-thirds of the labor force, 35% of GNP and 40% of foreign
exchange earnings. Productivity performance in the agricultural sector is thus critical to
improvement in overall economic well-being in Sub- Saharan Africa (Lilyan et al., 2004).

There are different priorities Africa working with the way forward to improve agricultural
productivity. For example, Comprehensive African agricultural Development Program (CAADP)
of NEPAD is directed at Africa’s policy makers in NEPADS own institutions at national policy
makers in both public and private sectors, at those who influence public opinion through
nongovernmental institutionat academic and think thanks concerned with Africa’s development
and at officials in development cooperation agencies of donor and material bodies. It prepared to
present broad themes of primary opportunity for investment to reverse the crises situation facing
Africa’s agriculture which has made the continent import dependent, vulnerable even small
vagaries of climate and dependent on an in ordinate degree on food aid.Its main contribution is in
sensitizing policy makers that they need that they need to act in selected fronts in order to make
to quick difference to Africa’s agricultural malaise (FAO, 2006).

Agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopian economy. There is no disagreement about dire situation
of Ethiopian agriculture. Agricultural output has fallen short of population growth for over two
decade. Despite an increasing productivity through introduction of improved inputs over the past
three decades, due to unavailable provision of those inputs the average output per hector of farm
land has not shown significant increase to warrant optimal about the sector in the foreseeable
future (Seifu, 2004).

Ethiopian agriculture development led industrialization strategy (ADLI) has the basic objective
of increasing agricultural production and productivity. Though agriculture is the crucial sector in
the national economy, its production and productivity in is unsatisfactory because of its
dominance on non-mechanized traditional agricultural system (EEA, 2009).

Ethiopia, like most countries in sub-Saharan Africa, is heavily dependent on agriculture;

agriculture accounts for almost 50% of GDP, provides employment to 85% of the population,
and supplies raw materials for 70% of the nation’s foreign exchange earnings (Seifu, 2004).
According to Ethiopia Economic Association(EEA) report(2009), possible gains in yields levels
in some region on farming areas over the past few years for most cereal crops has not been able
to increase average yield for the country as a whole despite substantial increase in the use of
modern farm inputs particularly fertilizers and improved seeds. In the meantime the number of
farmers suffering from food insecurity was raised,and increasing the country’s high dependency
of food imports to sustain the livelihood of its population.

As agriculture play a dominant role in the economy the real sustainable development of Ethiopia
is any event, unthinkable without the sound progress in the expansion of agricultural output<<it
was in the agricultural sector that the battle for long term economic development has been won
or lost>>(Todaro Smith,2003).

The Northernmost tip of Ethiopia, Tigray region, is generally regarded as the most degraded part
of the country; with erratic and insufficient rainfall, poor soil quality; low availability of
infrastructure like inputs and markets (Fetien et al., 2009). Albeit this, recently in the region,
yield has been increased as a result of composting water and soil conservation activities, agro-
forestry and crop diversification (Kumasi & Asenso-Okyere, 2011). Due to evident
topographical variation of the region, Southern Tigray particularly Raya-Azebo and Raya-
Alamata districts have fertile soil, agriculture conducive though no remarkable production has
yet been registered.

The Emba Alaje woreda is found in Tigray region South zone. The economy of the woreda
mainly depends on agriculture and the majority of the population gains its livelihood directly or
indirectly from agricultural production.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

The role of the agricultural sector is the fundamental for food security, because food is the
second in importance only to potable water for the survival of human kind. In rural areas,
agriculture is an important activity, which assures access to both food and a source of income.
Agriculture also can provide formal and informal employment for those with both adequate and
limited education (World Bank, 2009).
Agriculture also plays a major role in the economy of many developing countries, as it is a
significant source of nourishment for citizens and a means of livelihood for the most vulnerable
members of these countries. As a consequence, raising agricultural productivity is an important
policy goal for concerned governments and development agencies (Oni et al. 2009).

Ethiopia, once expected to be the bread basket of Africa is now suffering from a severe shortage
of food for its citizens and chronic poverty. The major reason behind is mainly the backwardness
of the dominant economic sector of the country, agriculture. Land, traditional tools, draft animals
and family labor are still the most important factors of production (Beyene, 2004).

The opportunities and constraints facing Ethiopian agriculture are strongly influenced by
conditions which vary across geographical space. These conditions include basic agricultural
production potentials, access to input and output markets, and local population densities which
represent both labor availability and local demand for food (Jordan et al., 2011).

Key constraints to agricultural productivity in Ethiopia include low availability of improved or

hybrid seed, lack of seed multiplication capacity, low profitability and efficiency of fertilizer use
due to the lack of complimentary improved practices and seed, and lack of irrigation and water
constraints. In addition, lack of transport infrastructure and market access decreases the
profitability of adopting improved practices (Kate & Leigh, 2010).

One important way to increase agricultural productivity is that reducing constraints of agriculture
(physical constraints, economic constraints and institutional constraints) through diffusion of
improved technologies, using chemical fertilizer and land management practices and training
farmers (CSA,2009).

In the country, some researchers have tried the better to identified constraints of agricultural
productivity. For example, researcher(Seifu Ketema, 2004) was undergone a research by
emphasis on environmental degradation decreases productivity of the sector. So, this research is
attempted to investigate and identify on the current issue that related to hindrance like of
agricultural productivity of the Emba Alajeworeda.
1.3. Objective of the Study

1.3.1. General objectives

The main objective of the study is to identify constraints in enhancing agricultural productivity in
Emba Alaje woreda.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

 To investigate causes for the constraint on agricultural productivity in the study area.

 To identify types of land management practices used to improve soil fertility in the study
area.

 To assess how to minimize the constraint of agricultural productivity in the study area.

1.4. Significance of the Study

This study conducts on constraints of agricultural productivity in the case of Emba Alaje woreda.
Hence the significance of the study is to identify the causes, consequences and remedies of
agricultural problem in the study area. It is also suggests the appropriate recommendation and
helpful to improving general idea and information from individuals and officials. In addition to
this the study may serve as a starting point for other further and detailed researches in the future.

1.5 Limitation of the study

One that can be the most limitation factory for the study is that data requirement may not be fully
satisfied due to households’ lack of interest to give ample information. These inadequacies of
reliable data, problem access to information and shortage of time have effect on quality and
coverage of the study. Moreover, due to time, finance and experience constraints, the researcher
took only 2 kebeles of from that of 21 kebeles of Emba Alaje woreda.

1.6. Scope of the Studies

This study is carried out in Emba Alajeworeda, which is found under Tigray Region,South Zone.
The study is mainly focuses on identifying the facts that are affecting agricultural productivities
in the woreda. The core idea is disclosing agricultural productivity problem.

1.7 Methodology of the study

1.7.1 Description of the study area

The Alaje woreda is situated between 1422710 and1439170 north latitude and 530543 and
560142 east longitude and lies at an altitude of 2,350metres above sea level. Long term
metrological data indicates that the mean annual rainfall for the area is 912 millimeter with a
mean daily temperature ranging between 9-23 . It is bordered by woreda Saharti Samre in the
north, Endamohonito the south Raya Azebo and Hintallo Wajerat to the east and by the Amhara
region to the west. The Woreda comprises 21 kebeles and is dominant highland , medium ,and
lowlands. Rainfall in Alaje is bimodal; short rain called belgi which rains from February to
march and main rain kremti that rains from end June begnnig of September the most intensive
rainfall being between July and august. The total land cover of the woredais estimated 76,722
hecjtares 28,327 hectares of arable land ,2,618 hectares, and19,366hectares of grazing land
26,hectares which fall under the category of others. The population of the woreda is about
118,545 the total cultivated land in the woreda is 28,327 hectares of which 25 709 hectares is
cultivated on rain.

Although crop production is the main activity of farmers engage in mixed farming be,becase
of their integrated crop and livestock production system.

1.7.2 Types and source of data

The study would bee use both primary and secondary data. The primary source of data was
collected from household and the concern government officials of the woreda through questioner
and interviews. The secondary data gathered from published and unpublished materials.

1.7.3 Methods of sampling and sample size

To made the study more realistic the target population were farmer households hence sampling
method would be based on simple random sampling the probability technique because this
method helped the researcher to choose specific farmer household in farmer population provided
the same chance in the lottery from censuses. Since it was not applicable enough to cover the
cost and the limited time of the researcher on all elements of the population.

The woreda have 21 kebeles from those the researcher would unable to collected the data from
all the kebeles so, this research would be taken two kebeles simret and fanaaccordingly in this
study the researcher was used sample size of 60 respondents 28 of farmers from dejen and 32
from Fana.

Kebele Total population Sample Size Percent

Fana 2,385 32 0.97

Dejen 1,878 28 1.5

Total 4,363 60 2.47

1.7.4 Method of data Analysis

For this study descriptive and econometric method of data analysis used inoder to condense data
in to more informative and meaningful manner.The researcher will use simple statistically
technique like simple average, percentage and tabulation for this purpse.

1.7.5 Research Design

To collect data the researcher used survey research design. This is because the survey design is
preferable to conduct research employing large number of people questioning about their
attitudes and opinions towards the specific issue, events or phenomena (Marczyk&Dematteo,
2005). It also enables the researchers to effectively administer and manage the tasks when the
data collection takes place. Hence, the research questions and objectives have been addressed by
cross-sectional survey data since the study has been done at one point of time and place.

1.7.6 Econometric Model Selection and Specification

Econometric models were specified and used to identify the determinants of farm income and
off-farm participation; on the basis of dependent variables’ nature.

Econometric Model for Determinants of Farm Income and Variable Description

To identify the determinants of farm income, Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression model
was employed. The rationale was due to the continuous nature of the dependent variable, farm
income. Furthermore, according to Gujarati (2006), with the assumption of classical linear
model, OLS estimators are with unbiased linear estimators with minimum variance and hence
they are BLUE (Best Linear Unbiased Estimators). Besides, different researchers like

Babatunde&Qaim (2009) and Olujenyo (2008) has had used OLS model in addressing similar
issues. Since this study is similar with different prior researches, it has employed this model.
Hence, its specification is given below.

Y = β0 + βi Xi +Ui Where: Y = the dependent variable (farm income)

Xi = a vector of explanatory variables

βi =a vector of estimated coefficient of the explanatory variables

(parameters)

ui = disturbance term that is assumed to satisfy all OLS assumptions .

The economic model specification of the variables is:

lnFI = β0 + β1AGE+ β2 NW + β3TFL + β4FR + β5PC + β6IS + β7CO + Ui

Where:

FI=Continuous dependent variable indicating farm income

AGE = stands for age of farm respondents

NW = stands for numbers of worker

TFL = indicates total fertile land

FR= stands for smallholders’use of fertilizer in kg

PC=use of pesticide take value1,if households use pesticide,0 otherwise

IS =use if improved seed in kg

CO=binary variable which is compost which takes value 1,copost use and 0,otherwise

1.7.7 Description of Variables used in OLS Model

Variables type, unit of measures and expected signs were described below

Numbers of workers; is a continuous variable that measured in number. The greater numbers of
works have higher crop production.

AGE: It is a continuous variable measured in number of years that also indicates farm
experience and proper time allocation for farm activities until a certain age limit and thereafter
their farm income would decrease. Hence, negative coefficient was expected from the final
regression result.

Total fertile land: It is a continuous variable measured in hectare. Those with larger farm size
could produce a lot that could potentially increase farm income. Hence, positive sign was
proposed.

PC: This is a categorical variable representing 1 if the farmer uses pesticides and 0 otherwise. As
the famer uses pesticides, insecticides and herbicides can harm crops and the resultant farm
income will also be increased. As a result, positive sign was hypothesized for the final regression
result.
Fertilizer use: This is a continuous variable measured in kg. The farmers those who use
chemical fertilizer were expected to have greater crop yield and there by farm income. Hence,
positive coefficient was expected from the regression.

Compost (CO); it is a categorical variable represent 1if the farmer uses compost and 0
otherwise. If the farmer uses a compost the crop yielding gats greater production. Therefore,
positive coefficient was expected from the regression.

1.8 Organization of the Study

This paper was organized into four chapters. The first chapter is an introduction part that
includes the background of the study, statement of the problem, objective of the study,
significance of the study, scope of the study, limitation of the study and organization of the
study. And also brief description of the study area and a thorough explanation of the
methodologies used for the study are presented. The second chapter elaborates a review of some
theoretical and empirical concepts related to the issues reviews. The findings of the study are
presents with the results and discussions part in chapter three. Finally, chapter four deals with the
conclusions and recommendation that are drawn from the

CHAPTER TWO

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
 2.1. Theoretical Literature Review

2.1.1. The concept of Agricultural Productivity

Agricultural productivity is measured as the ratio of agricultural outputs to agricultural inputs.

While individual products are usually measured by weight, their varying densities make
measuring over all agricultural output difficult. Therefore, output is usually measured the market
value of final output, which exclude intermediate products such as corn of feed used in the meat
industry. The output value may be compared to many different types of inputs such as labor and
land (yield). However, measures of productivity can be divided into partial or total measures
depending on the number of inputs under consideration. Total output as a ratio of some measure
of labor quantity, usually man days in developing countries, is called labor productivity (LP) and
provides some notion of output per worker; while output per area of land planted is land
productivity. The two previously mentioned measures are examples of single factor productivity
(SFP), defined as the ratio of a measure of output quantity to the quantity of a single input used.
Partial measures of productivity can be misleading because they ignore the role of other inputs in
any observed output changes. As a result of this shortcoming, a total measure of productivity was
developed. Total factor productivity (TFP) is defined as the ratio of a measure of total output
quantity to a measure of the quantity of total input. This method of calculating agricultural
productivity compares an index of agricultural was established to remedy the shortcomings of
the partial measures of productivity, notably that it is often hard to identify the factors cause
them to change. Change in total factor productivity is usually attributed to technological
improvements (Encyclopedia, 2012).

2.1.2. Sources of Agricultural Progress

The major sources of agricultural progress such as technological change and innovation and
appropriate government economic policies discussed blow.

2.1.2.1. Technological change and innovation

In most developing countries, new agricultural technologies and innovation in farm practices are
precondition for sustained improvement in levels of output and productivity. Two major sources
of technological innovation can increase farm yield (Todaro and Smith, 2003).

A. The introduction of mechanized agriculture to replace human labour

This is the introduction of labour saving machinery which has a dramatic effect especially where
land is extensively cultivated and labour is scarce. But in the rural areas of most developing
nations were land parcels are small, capital is scarce and labour is abundant and the introduction
of mechanized techniques, is ill suited the physical environment, creation more rural
unemployment and as the beat development and tends to exacerbate the already serious problem
of rural poverty and unemployment.

B. The biological innovation and chemical innovation

This is the introduction of hybrid seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and etc. They are land
augmenting that improves the quality of existing land by raising yield per hectors. These
measures are technological scale; neutral theoretically, they can be applied equally effectively on
large and small farms.

2.1.2.2. Appropriate Government Economic Policies

A developmental innovation is a great potential for alleviating rural poverty and raising
agricultural output. The major improvement in government policies is needed to pricing of food
grains for local markets. With farm prices so low, there was no incentive for farmers to expand
output in new productivity by raising technology. Then local food supplies fell. Therefore, the
government must more appropriate institutional and market adjustment and also provide
incentives for small farmers by implementing pricing policies that truly reflect internal market
condition (Todaro and Smith, 2003).

2.1.3. Constraints of Agricultural Productivity

A high level understanding of the physical input constraint, economic environment constraint,
institutional constraint and knowledge constraint in the sector set these constraint to the
recommendation.

2.1.3.1. The physical input constraints

The physical input constraints include the following (Bill and Melinda, 2011)

A. Unpredictable Weather Condition

Lack of adequate amount of rainfall, the variability and seasonality of rain fall affected
agricultural output in general and cereal crop in particular living the country exposed to
commercial food import and food aids.

B. Land Degradation

As population pressure increase particularly in the highlands, farmers intensively exercise

deforestation. This will result soil erosion and fertility depletion which are followed by massive
degradation.

C. Land Fragmentation

The increase in the size of rural population coupled with limited area of farming land in the high
land has led to land fragmentation. As the size of farm household increases redistribution of land
has continued reducing the size of land per farmer house hold.

D. Shortage of Fertilizer

Fertilizer specialists emphasizes that fertilizer is the major source of growth in agricultural
output. But due to low unstable domestic production of fernier shortage, fertilizer is a serious
constraint to agricultural productivity growth.

2.1.3.2. The Economic Environment Constraints

Lack of infrastructure is one of the critical problems in rural Ethiopia. This lenders production
process from purchase of inputs to making product transportation cost will account a high
proportion of the price of agricultural products. The existence of agricultural credit market has a
lot of impact on the amount of output who farmers cannot afford to finance purchase of
improved seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and provision of irrigation facilities, etc. Thus the absence
of cerecloth of facilities could become on consequential bottleneck to the use of modern
technology (Bill and Melinda, 2011).

2.1.3.3. Institutional Constraints

An important institutional constraint is the absence of clear titles to land. Group ownerships of
land Ethiopia have been associated with such problem as limited tenure security, restrictions on
farmer’s mobility and the inevitable fragmentation of holding among future heirs. It may also
limit access to formal credit, since the farmer cannot use lands collateral. These incentives to
invest in land quality maintenance or improvement become poor. Farmers cannot alter
alternative from lands man and do not have customarily access to lands inhabited. They remain
on depleted lands and further degrade these sources. In security of tenure limited the land holder
exercises their land right (Berhanu, 2006).

The critical institutional constraints for the production and flow of cereals in Ethiopia are: tenure
insecurity; weak agriculture research base and extension system; lack of appropriate financial
system; imperfect agricultural markets; lack of appropriate pricing and incentive policies; and
insufficient information dissemination mechanism (MOA, 2012).

2.1.3.4. Knowledge Constraints

In developing countries most of the farmer were uneducated and have no training. They simply
produce by experience they have. Technological advancement is the obvious difference between
farmer in developed and developing countries. Farmer in developing countries still use animal
power to cultivate while their counter parts in developed countries ease their burden by using
machinery and equipment for agricultural production. Low level of technology utilization is one
of the major factors behind the poor performance (Mullat and Geta chew, 2005).
2.2. Empirical Literature Review

The role of agriculture in economic development has been viewed as passive and supportive role
based on the historical experiences of western countries in economic development was seen as
required a rapid structural activities transformations of economy from one predominantly
focused on agricultural activities to more complex modern industrial and service society. As a
result agriculture primary role was providing sufficient low priced man power to expanding in
economy. The major objective of agriculture and rural development in developing nations is
progressive improvement in rural level of living through increasing in small farming income
outputs in productivities (Legese, 2011).

The impacts of investments in road infrastructure on agricultural output and productivity are
particularly important in Sub-Saharan Africa for three reasons. First, the agricultural sector
accounts for a large share of gross domestic product (GDP) in most Sub-Saharan countries.
Second, poverty is concentrated in rural areas. Finally, the relatively low levels of road
infrastructure and long average travel time result in high transaction costs for sales of agricultural
inputs and outputs, and this limits agricultural productivity and growth. Thus, investments in
road infrastructure and related transport services can have a significant impact on rural and
national incomes through their effects on agriculture (Paul et al., 2012).

2.2.1. Agricultural Production System in Ethiopia

Agricultural production is dominated by smallholder households which produce more than 90%
of agricultural output and cultivate more than 90% of the total cropped land. Smallholders drive
their income either in cash or through own-consumption from agricultural production. According
to the national accounts, the agricultural sector consists of crop, livestock, fishery and forestry
sub-sectors. Crop production is the dominant sub-sector within agriculture, accounting for more
than 60% of the agricultural GDP followed by livestock which contributes more than 20% of the
agricultural GDP. The contributions of forestry, hunting and fishing do not exceed 10% (Mulat et
al., 2004).
The viability of the agricultural production systems in Ethiopia, as in many areas in developing
countries, is highly constrained by degraded soils and increasing lack of reliability in rainfall
resulting from climate change. There are two main production systems in Ethiopia: the pastoral
nomadic system, and the mixed crop production system. The pastoral livestock production
system dominates the semi- arid and arid lowlands (usually below 1500 meters above sea level).
These regions cover a vast area of lands with a small livestock production. The crop production
system can be classified into smallholders’ mixed farming, producers’ cooperative farms, state
farms, and private commercial farms based on their organizational structure, size, and ownership.
The major objectives of small holder farmers’ production are to secure food for home
consumption and to generate cash to meet household needs such as clothing, farm inputs, taxes
and others (Menale et al., 2010).

2.2.2. Challenges of Agricultural Production and Productivity in Ethiopia

The agricultural production trends throughout the 1980’s up to mid-1990’s were characterized by
wide fluctuations in total output and weak growth, with grain production increasing at rate of
1.37% annually compared to population growth of 2.9 % (World Bank, 2004).

Despite large scale extension efforts since mid-1990s, agricultural performance over the past
decade has continued to be weak, with production gains mainly driven by weather and area
expansion, and weak yield gains limited to maize. There are multiplicity of factors explaining
this on limited modern varieties, the lack of animal traction, the lack of mechanization, under
investment in agricultural research, weak rural infrastructure and skills on the demand side, poor
market linkages, high transaction costs, and weak purchasing power leading to thin and volatile
markets, make agriculture more risky and reduce production incentives (World Bank, 2004).

Because of the diverse agro-ecological zones, topography and natural vegetation’s, Ethiopian
small farmers have developed complex farming methods and cropping patterns. Accordingly,
seven different cereal crops, six pulse crops, seven oilseed crops, and a number of different other
and tree crops are grown. Diversification has allowed farmers to cope with the drought or erratic
rains but identifying the right technological package for the various ecologies and crops has been
of considerable challenge to researchers and extension system (Mulat et al., 2004).
The agricultural sector continues to face major challenges. Rural livelihoods remain extremely
vulnerable to meteorological shocks, as food production is mainly rain-fed. Despite
improvements, productivity levels are still very low and the marketing infrastructure is also
weak, leading to high transaction costs. The limited use of improved farming practices by the
majority of smallholders is an important factor contributing to low productivity (AfDB, 2012).

The effects of land tenure and property right on agricultural productivity using Ethiopia as case
study said that the basic problem of low agricultural productivity is the shortage of land and
population pressure. The major focus of the paper is describing all the matters regarding land
tenure system, its rights and effects due to change in climate. The result proved that proper land
ownership policy is important for the majority of rural areas because their quality of life is totally
dependent on farming. Besides that land administration department of Ethiopia should play their
efficient role in enhancing proper land tenure and property rights (Shima, et.al. 2011).

Production in the rural non-farm sector is highly elastic. That is because there is normally a large
supply of underemployed labour, or because labour productivity at very low levels of
productivity can be increased with little or no investment. That contrasts with agriculture, which
because of the land constraint is inelastic in its supply. In agriculture, production is increased by
technological change which shifts the production function. The demand for agricultural output is
highly elastic because agricultural goods are tradable including on international markets. Of
course, other sources of rural income increase may have a similar multiplier effect on the rural
non- farm sector. They are however all very small compared to agriculture (John and Paul,
2010).

Soil erosion is one of the major agricultural problems in the highlands of Ethiopia. Deforestation,
overgrazing, and cultivation of slopes not suited to agriculture together with the farming practice
that do not include conservation measures are the major causes for soil erosion in much of
Ethiopia’s highland areas. Degraded soils are also the major constraints to agricultural
production and food security in the Southern Ethiopian highlands (Abay, 2011).

Land degradation is one of the major causes of low and in many places declining agricultural
productivity and continuing food insecurity and rural poverty in Ethiopia. The major interacting
root causes of land degradation in Ethiopia are the following; the impact of natural conditions
especially periodic drought, inaccessibility of rural areas due to topographic constraints, steady
growth of population and livestock totals without changes in agricultural and other economic
systems, historical patterns of feudal ownership of land followed by government ownership and
despite policy changes uncertain status of land ownership, institutional overlap, duplication of
effort and shortage of financial resources, lack of rural infrastructure and markets, lack of
participation of stakeholders in management decisions especially at the local level, weak
extension services and low technology agriculture, leading to risk aversion and reliance on cattle
as wealth (Berry, 2002).

2.2.3. Prospects of Agricultural Production and Productivity in Ethiopia

Increasing productivity in smallholder agriculture is the Government’s top priority. This

recognizes that: (i) smallholder agriculture is the most important sub-sector of Ethiopia’s
economy; (ii) there remains a high prevalence of poverty among smallholder farming
communities; and (iii) there is a large potential to improve crop and livestock productivity using
proven, affordable and sustainable technologies (MoARD, 2010).

The contribution of agriculture to food security both through its direct impact on food production
and indirect effect on farm incomes (i.e. through improving entitlement capacity) has failed to
recover even after the economic reforms of the 1990s. Despite some short-lived successes in
some areas and years, the impact of the country’s new development strategy that is commonly
known as ADLI and its main instrument, PADETES (the agricultural extension system that was
designed based on ADLI strategy) was too little to affect per capita agricultural production or
productivity at national level or in a sustainable manner (Samuel, 2003).

In 2011, Ethiopia was ranked 174th out of 187 countries, with a GDP per capita adjusted with the
Purchasing Power Parity of USD 971 (compared to almost USD 2000 average for Sub-Saharan
countries). After a significant contraction in 2003/04 due to a severe drought that affected
agricultural production, the Ethiopian economy has experienced a broad-based and steady
growth of real GDP. In general, the main determinants of the sustained economic growth are the
good performance of agricultural production, with significant contribution of manufacturing and
services as well as the expansion of the construction sector mainly housing, roads and
hydroelectric dams (UNDP, 2011).

Ethiopia continued to maintain the double digit growth rate which averaged 11.4 percent over the
last eight years. In the fiscal year 2010/11, real GDP growth was 11.4 percent moderately higher
than the previous year’s growth of 10.4 percent. Regarding sectoral development, agriculture
grew by 9 percent, industry 15 percent and services 12.5 percent. Consequently, agriculture and
allied activities accounted for 41 percent of GDP, industry 13.4 and services 45.6 percent.
Similarly, agriculture contributed 4.7, industry 1.5 and service 5.3 percentage points to the 11.4
percent real GDP growth in 2010/11. Although, the share of agriculture in GDP tended to decline
over time, it still remains the largest employer, the main source of foreign exchange, and supplier
of raw materials and market to domestic industries (NBE, 2011).

The growth in agricultural outputs was largely attributed to improved productivity aided by
favorable weather condition and conducive economic policy. Cultivated land expanded by 4.6
percent and reached 12 million hectares in 2010/11. Production is estimated to have increased by
about 8.8 percent while productivity rose from 15.7 quintal/hectare in 2004/05 to 16.3 quintal per
hectare in 2010/11. Cereal production accounted for about 87.7 percent of the total production
estimated for 2010/11. Meanwhile, the 15 percent annual growth in industry was largely due to
expansion in electricity and water subsectors. Manufacturing grew by 12 percent with mining
and quarrying expanded by 57.7 percent. The 12.5 percent growth in service sector which has
gained momentum in recent years was attributed to growth in financial sector, real estate and
hotel and tourism sectors (NBE, 2011).

Much of the increase in crop production in the past decade has been due to increases in area
cultivated. To what extent the area cultivated can continue to expand remains an important
question. It seems that in the highland areas, expansion of cultivated area will have to come
almost exclusively from reduction in pasture land. In most instances, this land is likely to be less
fertile than existing crop land. Increased use of inter-cropping or double cropping may allow
some expansion of area cultivated as well. Expansion of area cultivated outside of the highland
regions will require major investments in infrastructure and might involve reductions in forest
areas, with important negative environmental implications. As a consequence, it seems that
obtaining higher yield rates is the challenge of Ethiopia’s agricultural system (Alemayehu et al.,
2011).

Building on successful experience with model farmers, the GTP seeks to transform agriculture
by providing incentives for the commercialization of agriculture while continuing to support
smallholders to raise productivity. Thanks to the incentives that the government is providing,
foreign investment in commercial farming is expanding, which is expected to boost food
production and exports of commercial crops. Weather conditions remain a critical factor but
prospects for the agricultural sector to perform well in 2012 and 2013 are favorable in view of
the recent strides in commercialization and the positive response of smallholder farmers to
support services (AfDB

CHAPTER THRE

DATA ANALYSIS
This chapter presents the results from the descriptive and economic analysis. The descriptive
analysis made up of tools such as mean, maximum, standard deviation, minimum, percentage,
frequency and cumulative frequency. Econometric analysis was carried out to identify the most
important factor that determines agricultural productivity and to measure relative importance of
significant explanatory variables on agricultural productivity.
3.1. Descriptive result
This section is mainly concerned with descriptive analysis of the survey data and interpretation
of analytical finding of the constraints of agricultural productivity in Emba alaje woreda.
Therefore, this paper only considers those constraints that hinder agricultural productivity in the
study area based on the response potential households of the woreda.

3.1.1 Demographic characteristics of the respondent

The demographic data of respondents are presented and analyzed below.

Table3.1 Sex of the respondent

Sex of household Frequency Percent

Female 18 30

Male 42 70

Total 60 100

Source; on own survey,2017

The above figure shows about the sex composition of the respondents. From the figure the
survey results indicate that out of the 60 sample size farmers’ household respondents, the
majorities70 were male and the remaining (30%) were female. Therefore, female participation in
agricultural productivity in th e study area was very low.
Table3.2, Education status of the respondent
Education Frequency percent Cumulative percent
status of
household

Illiterate 27 45 45

Religious 5 8.33 53.33

education

Read and 4 6.67 60.00

write

Primary (1- 11 18.33 78.33

8)

Secondary 13 21.67 100.00

(>8)

Total 60 100.00

Source: own survey, 2017

The educational status of a society, particularly literacy level, is among the key factors
determining development and growth (Todaro and Smith, 2009). Survey results indicate that the
education level of the respondents is low: 45% are illiterate; 6.67% can read and write without
attending any formal schooling; 8.33% by religious education, 18.33% are attended in primary
(1- 8), while the remaining 21.67% attained in secondary school. This may indicate some
incapacitation in their ability to adopt new ideas and technologies in agricultural production in
the study.

Table3.3 Marital status of the respondent

Marital status Frequency Percent

Married 47 78.33

Single 4 6.67

Divorced 5 8.33

Widowed 4 6.67

Total 60 100
Source: own survey, 2017
With regard to the marital status, from the total sample respondents 78.33%, 6.67%, 8.33%,
6.67% were married, single, divorced and widowed respectively.
Table3.4 Age and family size characters of the respondent
Item Observation Mean Standard Minimum Maximum
deviation

Age of respondent 60 41.85 10.7 22 65

Family size 60 5 2 10 1

Source own survey; 2017

The above table shows that age and family size distribution of the respondents. Age and family
size were demographic factors thus affects the productivity of the farmer.

AGE;-the age of sample respondents are 42 year on average and standard deviation is 10.7
which shows the variation of households on age. The maximum age of the household in the
study area is 65 and minimum age of the respondent is 22 but doesn’t mean there is no individual
whose age is above 65 years rather it shows the maximum age of the productive farmers.
Family size of respondent (FMS); the average family size the respondent almost 5 and 2
standard deviation that shows the variation on numbers of family size in the given respondent.
And also the minimum and maximum is 1and10 respectively.

3.1.2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FCTOR

Table3.5 Farm inputs used in the study area
Items Observations Mean Standard Minimum Maximum
deviation

Numbers of 60 2.7 1.3 1 6

workers
Fertilizer in 60 88 55.5 0 200
(kg)

Improved 60 30.5 34 0 100

seeds in(kg)

Pesticide 60 .7 .46 0 1
use

Compost 60 .71 .45 0 1

Source; own survey 2017

Number of workers (NW);-a mean of the number of workers of the respondent is 3 and its
standard deviation is 1.3 it shows the variation of labor force of the households in the study area.
According to the result most of the respondents have small number of workers and it force to
produce low amount of output

Improved seed (IS);-According to the study the average use of improved seed is 30.5kg, 34
standard deviation and 100 kg of maximum use of improved seed and there are households not
use improved seed. Based on the finding there is high variation of use of improved seed among
households in the study area.
Pesticide (PS); it is dummy variable that represents 1 if the respondent use a pesticide and 0 for
the respondents that cannot ,and the survey show that, the averages of the respondent are almost
1 that means they use a pesticide and .46 standard deviation the variation of pesticide use among
the respondent. The maximum of 1 show the household use a pesticide and minimum 0 farmers
have not use pesticide in the study area.

Compost (CO);-compost is a natural fertilizer used by households without incurring much more
cost. It is categorical variable in the study represents 1 if the respondent uses compost and 0
otherwise. The mean 0.7shows almost the respondents use compost, 0.45 shows the variation of
respondent in the compost use, and the minimum and maximum was 0and1 respectively it
represent the farmers have both compost user and thus have not use compost in the study area.
3.1.2.1 Access to Agricultural land and size of land holding

As far as land is the asset ownership of rural household is concerned. It is the most important
source in which the livelihood of rural community is highly dependent. Thus, its unavailability or
scarcity is among the major constraints of agricultural productivity.

Table3.4 Total fertile land, Irrigated land, Rein feed land

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

-------------+--------------------------------------------------------

TFL | 60 1.14 0.50 0.25 2.5

IRL | 60 0.22 0.31 0 1

RL | 60 0.89 0.48 0 2

Source: own survey, 2017

The table reveals that the access to farm land per household.

TFL; the mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum total fertile land of the farm house
hold in the survey is 1.1, 0.50, 0.25, and 2.5 in hectare respectively. The standard deviation the
variation of land size own in hectare between the sample of the house hold.

IRL; the farm house hold of the sample have 0.222, 0.31 , 0,and1 hectares of the irrigated land
mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum respectively.

RL; in the survey rain fail land’s of respondents is 0.89, 0.48, 0, and 2 hectares of mean, standard
deviation, minimum ,and maximum respectively among the respondents.This shows that
irrigated land is low and rain fed land is high in the woreda. Therefore, the majority of the farmer
households were depends on rain fed for agricultural productions in the study area.

Table3.5 Source of land for farmers

Source of land Number of Average land Percentage (%)

Respondents in hector
Inheritance 34 1.5 57

Fixed rent 11 0.5 18

Share cropping in 15 0.75 25

Source: own survey, 2017

The above figure shows sources of land for farmers. The percentage of the household get land
for production by inheritance, fixed rent, and share cropping were 57%, 18%, and %25,
respectively. And also the averages of land in hector household get for production were 1.5, 0.5,
and 0.75 by inheritance, fixed rent, and share cropping respectively. Therefore, ways to get land
for production may hinder productivity of the sector in the woreda.

3.1.3The hindrance productivity of the sector

As the economy of developing countries including Ethiopia mainly depending on agriculture, it

was better to outline the hindrance of agricultural productivity in the study area.

Table3.6 The Major Hindrances Agricultural Productivity.

Major constraints of NO YES

agricultural
Frequency present Frequency present
productivity

Shortage of land 28 46.67 32 53.33

Shortage of fertilizer 29 48.33 31 51.67

Shortage of improved 35 58.33 25 41.67

seeds

Low application of 33 55 27 45
pesticides

Soil erosion 21 35 39 65
Lack of oxen 25 41.66 35 58.34

Inadequate rainfall 17 28.34 43 71.66

Lack of credit access 32 53.33 28 46.67

Source: own survey, 2016

From the above table the survey result shows that in the in the study area the productivity of the
sector mainly affected due to shortage of land, shortage of fertilizer, shortage of improved seeds,
low application of pesticides, soil erosion, lack of oxen, and inadequate rainfall rather than
others. From the figure the percentage of shortage land, shortage of fertilizer, shortage of
improved seeds, low application of pesticides, soil erosion, lack of oxen, inadequate rainfall, and
lack of credit access were 46.67%, 51.67%, 48.33%,5 5%, 35%, 41.66% and71.66%
respectively. In general, the survey results indicated that shortage of improved seeds (58.33%),
inadequate rainfall (71.66%), low application of pesticides (55.5%), lack of credit access
(53.33%),were the major hinders productivity of the sector in the study area .

Generally, the reason behind constraints of agricultural productivity in the study area were high
price of agricultural inputs, late delivery of inputs, limited experience in the use of extension
methods and materials, late coming, erratic and low amount of rainfall particularly in lowland
areas, shortage of working capital (credit) to purchase modern inputs, and low level of farmers to
adopt new technology.

Table3.7. Land M management practice

Type of land Frequency Percent

Management
Practice

Mixed cropping 6 10

Crop rotation 35 58.33

Tree planting 3 5

Fallowing 9 15

Terracing 7 11.67

Total 60 100

Source; own survey 2017

Based on the result in the table most of the rural farmers practice crop rotation land management
system which is shows 58.33% of the rural households practice it.

3.2. Econometric result

The objective of the study was to empirically examine the constraints of agricultural productivity
among farm households which are an important limiting for agricultural productivity. The result
of estimation indicated that some of the variable like fertilizer, number of active labor force,
improved seed, and others positively explain the productivity of wheat. And the model was better
fit in explaining the variability in the dependent variable (farm income).
.
Table3.8
Note;- * and ** are shows the variable are statistically significant at 5% and 1% confidence level
respectively.
Source; own survey 2017
The result of regression analysis show that, from seven explanatory variables used in the model
only , improved seed, and fertilizer have positive and statistically significant effect on farm
income at 5% level of significance and also pesticide and composts have positive impact on
farm income significant at 1% level of significance.
Fertilizer: - looking into the result this variable affect productivity positively. The coefficients is
0.0026 which shows that 1 kg increase in fertilizer result in 0.26% increase in farm productivity
for farmers other variables remain constant. It was statistically significant at 5% level of
significance. Fertilizer is a modern farm input that improves the productivity of farmers. Based
on the survey most household’s said that lack of accesses to fertilizer matters our productivity.
This variable has very significant positive impact on agricultural productivity, not only on
productivity it has also significant positive effect on bran, which is importance for animal food as
many of the respondents said.
Improved seed (IS); it is a special seed measured in kg.it has positive effect on the productivity
of sector. The coefficient is 0.0026 which reflects a 1 kg increase improved seed causes 0.22%
change in the productivity or as farmers change their use of improved seed by 1 kg their output
will be changed by 0.26%.
Composite (CO); it is natural fertilizer which maximizes the agricultural productivity the
farmers. The coefficient is 0.465 which shows that, if the farmer that uses compost was increase
by 46.5% greater than the farmer cannot use compost in there farm income.
Pesticide (PC); it is a chemical an input for agricultural production by protecting the agricultural
product from insect and weed that hampers the agricultural production. The coefficient is 0.19
which shows that, if the farmer was used pesticide his productivity increased greater than that
cannot use by 17.1% at other were constant

3.2.1 MULTICOLLINEARITY TEST

The existence of multcollinearity might cause the estimated coefficients to have wider
confidence interval, higher R2 with insignificant t-ratios and wrong signs that might lead to
wrong conclusion. Accordingly, if multcollinearity exists between variables, it does not give
sense in economic meaning in this case dropping one of the variables that has high vif value is a
remedial option from other different alternatives. Moreover, it is difficult to assess the separate
influence of each independent variable with multcollinearity in CLRM. The problem of
multicollinearity must be checked, and if it exists, some remedial measures must be taken.

In this estimation the most familiar test of detecting the problem of multcollinearity has been
used. Accordingly, the result clearly shows that there is no problem of multcollinearity among
variables since the value of VIF for all variables is below the rule of thumb value (10). If the
value of VIF for any variable is greater than 10, then we would say there is a serious problem of
multcollinearity. However, the VIF value is far less than 10, implying that no danger or there is
no sever multicollinerity
.Table3.9

The value of vif is 2.82 which is less than 10 so that we can concluded that there is no problem
of Multicollinearity which means there is no correlation among explanatory variables in the
model.

3.2.2 HETEROSCEDASTICITY TEST

One of the important assumptions of the CLRM is that the variance of each disturbance term U1
conditional on the chosen value of explanatory variables is a constant number equal to δ 2. This is
the assumption of homoscedasticity, or equal or homo spread, that is, equal variance. However,
if the conditional variables of the explained variables continuously increase or decrease as the
value of the explanatory variable change, then the problem of hetroscedasticity is encounter. This
is the case, as homoscedasticity is one of the requirements of OLS estimation, estimation of
population parameters using CLRM will fail to be acceptable. The estimation of population
parameters will not be constant. To test it, the study has taken Breuch Pagan test and robust

standard error.
Table 3.10

The result shows there is problem of heteroskedasticity so we have to use the detection
mechanism which is robust standard error test.

TABLE3.11

The problem of heteroskedasticity is avoided.

CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION AND RECOMANDATION

4.1 CONCLUSION

The study includes eight explanatory variables in the econometric analysis. Based on the result
among the eight explanatory variables included in the model ,compost, fertilizer, pecticide, and
improved seed, are significant and positively related with the dependent variable farm income. In
addition to these variables as the respondents responded the farm income is constrained by the
availability of credit, inadequate rainfall, lack of oxen, erosion, and land shortage. Furthermore
the households in the study area get accesses to land through inheritance mostly, practice crop
rotation land management system, and farmers depend on rain fed agriculture. Generally the
study result shows the above listed factors constrained the farm income and force to get low level
of its productivity in the study area.

4.2 RECOMANDATION

Based on the analysis of the study the researcher recommended

As an access to fertilizer is one of the main problems of the farmers in the study
area the government should provide adequate fertilizer in timely manner.
 To improve the farm income of the households

-Provide credit accesses

-Provide incentives to the rural households

-Give adequate training to farmers

Furthermore farmers depend on rain fed so that government should expand irrigation
facility that farmers produce two ways of a year.

 Finally the government should provide modern technical inputs,droght resistance crop,
providing infrastructural facility, and set efficient pricing policy that equally benefit both
producers and consumers.

REFERENCE

 Abay, A. 2011. Construction of Soil Conservation Structures for improvement of crops

and soil productivity in the Southern Ethiopia, Journal of Environment and Earth
Science, 1(1), 2011.
 AfDB, 2012. AfricanEconomiOutlook,Ethiopia,2012. www.africaneconomicoutlook.org.
 Alemayehu, S., Paul, D., and Sinafikeh, A. 2011. Crop Production in Ethiopia: Regional
Patterns and Trends, Development Strategy and Governance Division, International
Food Policy Research Institute, Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II, Ethiopia.
 BerhanuNega, (2006). Land Tenure Insecurity in Ethiopia, Vol.1. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
 Berry, 2002. Land Degradation in Ethiopia: Its Extent and Impact, Commissioned by
Global Mechanism with support from the World Bank.
 Boyne Tadesse (2004) “The Impact of Policy Reform and Institutional Transformation
on Agricultural Performance: An Economic Study of Ethiopian Agriculture,”
Development Economics and Policy, Vol. 47.
 Bill and Melinda, (2011). Accelerating Ethiopia Agriculture Development for Growth,
Food Security and Equity. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 Central Statistical Authority, (2009). Statistical Abstract. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 Central Statistics Authority, (2007). Summary and Statistical Report Population and
Housing Census. Addis Ababa.
 Ethiopia Economic Association, (2009). Annual report on the Ethiopia economy. The
Ethiopia Economical Press Association, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 F. Y. Okunmadewa. And Adewuyi, S. A. 2009. “Economic Efficiency of Crop Farmers
in Kwara State, Nigeria.” Nigerian Agricultural Development Studies 2(1).
 IFPRI, 2012. Increasing Agricultural Productivity & Enhancing Food Security in Africa,
New Challenges &Opportunities, Washington DC, March 2012.
 John, W. M and Paul, D. 2010. Agriculture and the Economic Transformation of
Ethiopia, Development Strategy and Governance Division, International Food Policy
Research Institute – Ethiopia Strategy Support Program 2, Ethiopia.
 Jordan, C., and Emily, S. 2011. Ethiopian Agriculture: A Dynamic Geographic
Perspective, Development Strategy and Governance Division, International Food Policy
Research Institute – Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II, Ethiopia.
.
 Kate, S. & Leigh, A. 2010. Yield Gap and Productivity Potential in Ethiopian
 Agriculture: Staple Grains & Pulses, University of Washington.
 Legese G/Meskel, 2011<<Agriculture and Rural Development>>, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
 Lilyan, E. F., Richard, K. P., and Bingxin, Y. 2004. Institutions and agricultural
productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa, Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(2004) 169–
180.
 Menale, K., Precious, Z., Kebede, M, and Sue, E. 2010. Adoption of organic farming
technologies: Evidence from a semi-arid region in Ethiopia, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2010.
 Michalel P. Todaro and Stephen Smith, (2003). Economic Development. Eight editions,
Dorling Kinder Sley, India.
 Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). 2012. Ethiopia Country Programming Paper to End
Drought Emergencies in the Horn of Africa. Addis Ababa.
 MOARD, 2010. Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework (PIF)
2010-2020, 15 September 2010.
 Mulat, D., Fantu, G. and Tadele, F. 2004. Agricultural Development in Ethiopia: are
there alternatives to food aid? Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 Mullat B. and Getachew.T, (2005). Ethiopian Journal of Development Research Vol, 15,
no, 2, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 NBE. 2011. Annual Report / VII, Investment, 2011.
 Paul, D., Hyoung, G. W., Liangzhi, Y., and Emily, S. 2012. Road connectivity,
population, and crop production in Sub-Saharan Africa, Journal of Agricultural
Economics 43 (2012) 89–103.
 Reimund, R., Herman, V.K., Marijke, K., Jan, V. and Gon, V.L. 2007. Science for
Agriculture and Rural Development in Low-income Countries, Springer (2007) 1–6.
 Samuel, G.S. 2003. Summary Report on Recent Economic and Agricultural Policy,
Policy Module Ethiopia, International Conference, 20-22, Rome, Italy.
 SeifuKetema, (2004).<<Agricultural Development in Ethiopia. The Challenges Ahead In
Agricultural Intensification in Sub-Saharan Africa>>, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 Shima, et.al, 2011<<The Effects of Land Tenure and Property Right on Agricultural
 Production>>, Ethiopia.
 Todaro, M. & Smith, S. (2009). Economic Development, 10th edition, Pearson
Education Limited, England.
 UNDP, 2011. Human Development Index.
 Woreda Agricultural Rural Development Office, 2015.
 World Bank. 2004. Can Agriculture Lead Growth in Ethiopia? The Importance of
Linkages, Markets and Trade ability.
 World Bank. World Development Indicators data files, 2009.
 WWW.Wikipedia,http;//en.Wikipedia.Org/WikiAgriculturalProductivity.10April,2012

MEKELLE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Questionnaire for Farmer households
Dear Respondents
The researcher is to conduct the research on the topic known as constraints of agricultural
productivity in Emba Alaje Woreda for partial fulfillment of requirement of BA degree in
Economics. The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather relevant information regarding the
main objective of the study; to identify constraints of agricultural productivity in Emba Alaje
Woreda. Therefore, to make the work easy the researcher prepared some questionnaires papers,
so the researcher asks you politeness to fill each questionnaire patiently because each of your
response is very useful for the study.

Instruction
 No need of write your name
 Put  mark in the boxes provided for you for close ended question
and write the idea that related to the question at the space
provided to you for open ended questions

I am a 3rd year Economics students at Mekelle University and I am conducting a research for
partial fulfillment of requirement of BA degree in Economics. The purpose of this questionnaire
is to gather relevant information regarding the objective of the research; constraints of
agricultural productivity in woreda. It is used for academic research. So believe that there is
nothing behind the study and all your response will be kept secret. Hence, you are kindly
requisition listed below, use in the box.
1. Sex: male Female
2. Age.........................
3. Kebele....................
4. Family size....................
5. Marital status......................
1. Married 3. Divorced
2. Single 4. Widowed
6. Education status
1. Illiterate 5. Primary (5-8)
2. Religious education 6. Secondary (9-10)
3. Read and write 7. Preparatory (11-12)
4. Primary (1-4) 8. Above grade12
7. Do you have a land for production?
 1. Yes 2. No
8. If yes what type?
Types of land Land in hector

Irrigated

Rain fed

9. Do you get land for production?

Sources of land Yes No
Inheritance
Fixed rent
Share cropping
10. How settable your land to erosion?
A. High C. Low
B. Medium D. Not sensible to erosion
11. Do you use the following inputs in your plot?
Types of input Yes No
Fertilizer
Improved seeds
Pesticides
Compost
Other specify

12. If your answer for fertilizer in question 10 how much do use in kg……………
13. If your answer is yes in quastio.n10 for improved how much do use in kg………………
14. Did you face production failure due to the the following reasons in the past five years?
Major constraints Yes No
Land shortage
Soil erosion
 Fertilizer shortage
Shortage of Improved seeds
Lack of oxen
Inadequate rainfall
Lack of credit access
Lack applicable pesticide
Other specify

15. What types of land management practices you used to improve soil fertility?
A. Mixed cropping C. Crop rotation E. Tree planting
B. Terracing D. Fallowing
16. Estimate your production in 2008 E. C.
No Crop Kg Unit price (kg) Total
1 Wheat
2 Teff
3 Barley
4 Sorghum
5 Bean
6 Others
Total

17. What do you suggest to reduce hinder of agricultural productivity?

…..................................................................................................................................
…....................................................................................................................................
…..................................................................................................