ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

PROGRAM OF AGRIBUSINESS AND VALUE CHAIN MANAGEMENT

DETERMINANTS OF TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY IN MAIZE
PRODUCTION: IN THE CASE OF SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN
DHIDHESSA DISTRICT OF ILLUABABORA ZONE, ETHIOPIA

BY: Meron Takele

ID: NSR/004/T/15

Advisor: Gedisha K. (Msc)

RESEARCH PROPOSAL PAPER SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF

RDAE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE
DEGREE OF BACHELOR IN AGRO ECONOMICS

JUN, 2024

ARBAMINCH, ETHIOPIA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and for most I would like to extend my unshared thanks to the almighty GOD for providing
me the opportunity and smoothening of all aspects regarding the program. Next, I have no
enough words that express my deepest gratitude and profound thank to my advisor
mr.GADISHA K. (MSc) for her unreserved help, advice, directing, insight guidance, critical
review of my proposal manuscript, invaluable support and suggestions.Last but not least, I lack
words and spaces to express my heartfelt gratitude to “my family a part and parcel of my life,
who burn themselves to lightening my future like a candle from the very beginning, gave me
love, advise and bring me up through all my ups and down ideally, financially, materially which
are unforgettable memory forever.
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................2

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................3

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION..........................................................................................6

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................8

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................8

1.1 Background of the Study:......................................................................................................8

1.2 Statement of the Problem:....................................................................................................10

1.3 Objectives.............................................................................................................................11

1.3.1 General Objective..........................................................................................................11

1.3.2 Specific Objectives........................................................................................................11

1.4 Research Questions..........................................................................................................11

1.5 Significance of the Study.................................................................................................11

1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study...................................................................................12

CHAPTER TWO...........................................................................................................................13

2. LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................13

2.1. Theoretical literature review...............................................................................................13

2.1.1. Concept of Production Efficiency................................................................................13

2.1.2. Models of Measuring Production Efficiency...............................................................14

2.1.3. Cobb–Douglas Production theory................................................................................16

2.2 Empirical Literature Review................................................................................................18

2.2.1 Global Studies on Technical Efficiency in Agriculture................................................18

2.2.2 Studies on Technical Efficiency in Ethiopian Agriculture............................................19

2.2.3 Determinants of Technical Efficiency...........................................................................19

2.2.4 Gaps in the Literature....................................................................................................20

CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................................................21

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY......................................................................................21

3.1 Description of the Study Area..............................................................................................21

3.2 Sampling Technique and Sample size.................................................................................21

3.4 Sources and Methods of Data Collection.............................................................................22

3.4 Method of Analysis..............................................................................................................22

3.5.1 Descriptive Analysis......................................................................................................23

CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................................................24

4. WORK PLAN............................................................................................................................24

5. BUDGET PLAN/BUDGET BREAKDOWN...........................................................................25

6. REFERENCE............................................................................................................................27
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION
ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency

CRS Constant Return to Scale

CSA Central Statistical Agency

DEA Data Envelopment Analysis

EE Economic Efficiency

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GDP Gross Domestic Product

MOARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

 ABSTRACT
Agriculture is a cornerstone of Ethiopia's economy, significantly contributing to the country's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), exports, and employment. Despite this critical role, Ethiopian
agriculture, particularly maize production, faces numerous challenges, including limited access
to modern inputs, poor irrigation systems, and inadequate extension services. This research
investigates the determinants of technical efficiency in maize production among smallholder
farmers in the Dhidhessa District of Illuababora Zone, Ethiopia. Maize is a crucial staple food
crop, accounting for a significant portion of the national calorie intake. However, inefficiencies
in maize production persist, leading to suboptimal productivity levels. This study aims to assess
the levels of technical efficiency in maize production and identify the key factors influencing
these levels. By utilizing a cross-sectional survey methodology, the research examines various
determinants such as the use of improved seed varieties, access to credit facilities, extension
services, and ownership of oxen. The findings of this study are expected to provide valuable
insights into the inefficiencies in maize production and offer recommendations for improving
agricultural performance. Efficient utilization of resources is crucial for smallholder farmers to
maximize output and ensure food security. By addressing technical inefficiencies, the study aims
to contribute to the enhancement of maize productivity, thereby improving the livelihoods of
smallholder farmers and fostering economic development in the region.

Key words: Technical efficiency, maize production, smallholder farmers, Ethiopia, agricultural
productivity, resource utilization, food security, economic development.
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study:
Agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopia's economy, playing a pivotal role in the country's Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), exports, and employment. The sector contributes 46.3% to the GDP,
60% to exports, and employs 80% of the population (FAO, 2014). Predominantly rain-fed and
characterized by smallholder farming on land areas averaging less than two hectares, Ethiopian
agriculture faces significant challenges, including limited access to modern inputs such as
chemical fertilizers, improved seeds, and financing, as well as poor irrigation systems and
agricultural markets (MoARD, 2018).

Despite these challenges, the agricultural sector showed remarkable performance from 1996/97
to 2003/04, with an annual growth rate of about 10%. However, this growth slowed to 9.3%
between 2003/04 and 2011/12, with a significant drop to 4.9% in 2011/12 (MOFED, 2020).
Increasing crop production is essential for enhancing agricultural output, improving the GDP,
and uplifting the living conditions of the majority of Ethiopians (FAO, 2017).

Maize (Zea mays) is a crucial cereal crop for Ethiopian smallholder farmers, accounting for 28%
of total grain production during the 2011/12 Meher season. More than nine million smallholder
farmers cultivated maize on approximately two million hectares of land in the same season
(CSA, 2020). Since the early 1990s, maize area and yields have doubled, yet there remain
unexploited opportunities for further increasing productivity and production (Tsedeke Abate et
al., 2015). Low productivity persists, partly due to technical inefficiencies among smallholders
(Gebreselassie, 2019).

In response to agricultural challenges, Ethiopia implemented the Agricultural Development-Led

Industrialization (ADLI) strategy, which emphasizes the agricultural sector's role in economic
growth (MoFED, 2020).

Subsequent plans, such as the Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development to End Poverty
(PASDEP) and the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), aimed to increase the adoption of
agricultural inputs and enhance productivity (MoFED, 2020).
Despite these efforts, maize productivity has not seen substantial improvement, highlighting the
need to address technical inefficiencies (Arega and Zeller, 2015).

Improving agricultural productivity is crucial for addressing food insecurity and poverty in
Ethiopia. Promoting the use of improved agricultural technologies and enhancing production
efficiency are key strategies to achieve this goal (Sinafikeh et al., 2010; Yu and Nin-Pratt, 2014).
Cereals, particularly maize, are the major staple food crops in Ethiopia, cultivated on 9.9 million
hectares of land and producing 22 million tons of food grains in the 2013/14 main crop season,
representing 79.38% of the total area and 85.81% of food grain production (CSA, 2014a).

This study investigates the determinants of technical efficiency in maize production among
smallholder farmers in the Dhidhessa District of Illuababora Zone, Ethiopia. By identifying these
determinants, the study aims to provide insights to improve maize productivity, contributing to
agricultural growth and economic development in the region.
1.2 Statement of the Problem:
Maize is a crucial staple food in rural Ethiopia, accounting for 16.7% of the national calorie
intake, making it the most important cereal in terms of dietary energy provision (Berhane et al.,
2011). Despite its significance, maize production in Ethiopia faces considerable inefficiencies.
The share of maize consumption among cereals more than doubled from the 1960s to the 2000s,
while the share of teff declined significantly during the same period (Demeke, 2016).

Food production in developing countries, including Ethiopia, often involves substantial

inefficiencies due to farmers' unfamiliarity with new technologies, inadequate extension services,
limited access to education and credit, and poor input supply systems (Alene et al., 2015). In
Ethiopia, the gap between the demand for and supply of extension services is widening, leading
to poor quality and low coverage of these essential services.

Low agricultural productivity, coupled with a rapidly growing population, exacerbates food
insecurity and poverty in Ethiopia and the broader Sub-Saharan Africa region (Geta et al., 2017).
Enhancing maize production and productivity requires efficient use of production inputs by
smallholder farmers. Understanding the relationships between productivity, efficiency, policy
indicators, and farm-specific practices is essential for policymakers to design effective programs
that can increase food production potential among smallholder farmers (Msuya et al., 2018).

To ensure food security and generate marketable surpluses, farmers need to adopt new farming
practices and increase their efficiency, especially as land per capita decreases due to population
growth (Jema Haji, 2018). Improving technical efficiency is a viable way to enhance current
productivity levels. Factors such as ownership of oxen, access to extension services, credit
facilities, use of improved seed varieties, and the promotion of soil and land conservation
practices and small-scale irrigation schemes can significantly influence production efficiency
(Sorsie et al., 2015).

This study aims to assess the levels of technical efficiency in maize production among
smallholder farmers in the Dhidhessa District of Illuababora Zone, Ethiopia, and identify the key
factors influencing these levels. By doing so, the research seeks to provide insights that can
inform strategies to improve maize productivity, contributing to food security and economic
development in the region.
1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 General Objective
The general objective of this research proposal is to identify the technical efficiency of
smallholder maize production in Ethiopia.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study are:

To identify the level of technical efficiency among maize-producing smallholder farmers

in Ethiopia.
To identify the principal factors causing efficiency differentials in maize production in
Ethiopia.

1.4 Research Questions

This research aims to answer the following questions:

1. What are the levels of technical, allocative, and economic efficiency of smallholder maize
producers in the study area?

2. What factors affect the technical, allocative, and economic efficiency of smallholder maize
producers in the study area?

1.5 Significance of the Study

Efficient utilization of resources is crucial for resource-poor farmers in Ethiopia to maximize
output. This study will provide valuable insights into inefficiencies in maize production, offering
a foundation for improving agricultural performance. Attaining technical, allocative, and
economic efficiency is essential for realizing potential gains from existing technologies. The
findings of this research will benefit agricultural experts, development planners, researchers, and
ultimately the smallholder farmers in the study area. Additionally, the study will highlight
opportunities to raise productivity by improving efficiency and serve as a reference for further
investigations into smallholder farmers' efficiencies on a broader scale.
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study
This research employs a cross-sectional survey rather than time series data due to limitations in
repeated measurements, cost, and time constraints. Consequently, the results may not reflect
inter-temporal differences in household efficiency levels. Due to time and financial constraints,
the study is confined to one district, focusing solely on maize production and excluding other
crops. Furthermore, the scope of the study is limited to the economic efficiency of smallholder
maize producers in the study area.
 CHAPTER TWO

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical literature review
2.1.1. Concept of Production Efficiency
Production in economics generally refers to the transformation of inputs into outputs (Thomas
and Maurice, 2016). The inputs are basically the raw materials or any other resources that are
combined to give an output. The output refers to the end product or final production of the
combination of resources. Production of different goods and services can be analyzed using short
and long-run concept. The central feature of short-run production analysis is the law of
diminishing marginal returns, which results in the short run when larger amounts of a Variable
input, like labor, are added to a fixed input, like capital (Thomas and Maurice, 2016).

Productivity and efficiency are two different concepts except under the assumption of constant
return to scale. According to Fried et al. (2018), productivity is a ratio of production output to
what is required to produce it (inputs). The measure of productivity is defined as a total output
per one unit of total input. This measure is easily calculated if the farmer uses a single input to
produce a single output. However, when multiple inputs are used to produce several outputs, the
output in the numerator and the inputs in the denominator have to be combined in some sensible
economic fashion so that productivity remains the ratio of two scalars (Coelli et al., 2020).

Efficiency is a commonly used term in economics it is measured by comparing the observed

output against the feasible (frontier) output (Fried et al., 2018). By many scholars productivity
and efficiency are used interchangeably and both are considered as the measure of performance
of a given firm. However, these two interrelated terms are not precisely the same (Coelli et al.,
1998).

In simple terms, productivity is the quantity of a given output of a firm per unit of input.
According to Farrell (2016), efficiency is measured by comparing the actually attained or real
value of the objective function against what is attainable at the frontier. A producer is efficient if
his/her goals are achieved, and inefficient if he/she falls below his/her goal. It is a relation
between end and means.
Efficiency measures the amount to which the ends and means available to the unit and to the
society are matched. Thus, technical inefficiency is costly; both to the producing unit under
investigation and the society at large (Fare et al., 2018). Farrell (2018) proposed a measure of the
efficiency of a firm that consists of two types: Technical and allocative efficiency. These two
measures are then combined to provide a measure of total economic efficiency.

Conceptually, technical efficiency refers to the ability of a firm to produce as much output as
possible with a specified level of inputs, given the existing level of technology. Technical
efficiency concerns the method through which physical quantities of inputs are changed into
physical quantities of output. Producers are said to be technically efficient if they achieve
maximum feasible output from inputs (Coelli et al., 2018).

Technical inefficiency can be defined as the quantity by which a firm lies below its production
frontier or profit frontier. Once the frontier is known, simply comparing the efficiency level of
the firm relative to the frontier can help to know inefficiency of any specific firm (Farrell, 2017).

2.1.2. Models of Measuring Production Efficiency

Lovell (1993) provides an excellent introduction to this topic. The two principal methods that
have been used are data envelopment analysis (DEA) and parametric models, which involve
mathematical programming and econometric methods, respectively.

The parametric frontier model may further be categorized into deterministic and stochastic
frontier models. The main feature of the deterministic frontier is that it assumes all firms share a
common family of production, cost and profit frontiers and all variations in the firm's
performance are attributed to variations in the firm’s efficiency. On the other hands, the non-
parametric deterministic frontier is based upon Farrell's original approach of piecewise linear
convex isoquant such that no observed points lie to the left or below it (Farrell, 2017).

This work has been extended by Charnes et al. (2019) and was called Data Envelopment
Analysis (DEA). The frontier methodology has been widely used in production analysis mainly
due to its consistency with the text book definition of a production, profit or cost functions (i.e.
with the notion of maximization or minimization). This popularity is evidenced by the
proliferation of methodological and empirical frontier studies over the last two decades.
Despite these wide arrays of applied work, the extent that empirical measures of efficiency are
sensitive to the choice of methodology remains a matter of controversy (Thiam et al., 2015). The
frontier methodologies are basically measurements of technical efficiency that shifts the average
response functions to the maximum output or to the efficient firm (Coelli et al, 1998). In a
production frontier, a technically efficient farmer is always located on the frontier while the
inefficient farmer at the anterior (Coelli et al., 2002). One way of reducing the cost of production
in a farm is to increase farm output by increasing technical efficiency (Fried et al., 2020).

2.1.2.1. Non-parametric frontier models

One of the methods of efficiency measurements is the non-parametric method. The DEA frontier
is both nonparametric and non-stochastic since it does not impose any a priori parametric
restrictions on the underlying frontier technology (because it does not necessitate any functional
form to be specified) and doesn't require any distributional assumption for the technical
inefficiency term. Therefore, the model avoids the imposition of unwarranted structures on both
the frontier technology and the inefficiency component that might create distortion in the
measurement of efficiency (Fare et al., 2018).

Charnes et al. (2020) proposed a model which had an input oriented constant return to scale
(CRS) model of DEA CRS assumption is only appropriate when all firms are operating at an
optimal scale. In case of different constraints, may cause a firm to be not operating at optimal
scale. The use of the CRS specification when not all firms are operating at the optimal scale, the
results in measure of TE which are confound by scale efficiency (SE).

The shortcoming of scale efficiency is that the value does not indicate whether the firm is
operating in an area of increasing or decreasing returns to scale (Coelli et al., 2018). The
advantage of non-parametric approach is that no functional form is imposed on the data, while its
disadvantage lies in its assumption of constant reruns to scale and susceptibility of the frontiers
to extreme observations (Forsund et al., 2020).

Particularly, the main criticism of DEA is that it assumes all deviations from the frontier are due
to inefficiency and because of this, non-parametric frontier methodology may overstate
inefficiencies and hence outliers may have profound effect on the magnitude of inefficiency
(Licwelgn and Williams, 2016).
In addition, in DEA no account is taken of the possible influence of measurement errors and
other noise upon the frontier. All deviations from the frontier are assumed to be the result of
technically inefficiency. An alternative method or approach to the solution of the noise problem
has, however, been widely adopted. This is the method known as the stochastic frontier
approach, which is thoroughly reviewed below.

2.1.2.2. Parametric frontier models

The parametric model of efficiency analysis uses econometric techniques and can be classified
into deterministic and stochastic frontier. The basic difference between the two types of models
is the following. The deterministic model assumes that any deviation from the frontier is due to
inefficiency, while the stochastic approach allows for the statistical noise.

2.1.3. Cobb–Douglas Production theory

The theory explains the factors of production, resources, or inputs are what are used in the
production process to produce output that is, finished goods and services. The amounts of the
various inputs used determine the quantity of output according to a relationship called the
“production function”.

There are three basic resources or factors of production; land, labor, and capital. These factors
are also frequently labeled "producer goods" to distinguish them from the goods or services
purchased by consumers, which are frequently labeled "consumer goods." All three of these are
required in combination at a time to produce a commodity. The essence of a firm is to buy
inputs, convert them to outputs, and sell these outputs to consumers and the firm owners seek to
improve their positions by producing goods and service either those they consider most
important for themselves or those that can be sold to command the goods they consider most
important (Thomas and Maurice, 2013).

Cobb–Douglas production function is a particular functional form of the production function,

widely used to represent the technological relationship between the amounts of two or more
inputs, particularly physical capital and labor, and the amount of output that can be produced by
those inputs.
The term has a more restricted meaning, requiring that the function display constant returns to
scale in which case 1 IIn its most standard form for production of a single good with two
factors, the function is JKL Whereas;

• Y = total production (the real value of all goods produced in a year)

• L = labor input (the total number of person-hours worked in a year)

• K = capital input (the real value of all machinery, equipment, and buildings)

• A = total factor productivity

A and B are the output elasticities of capital and labor, respectively. These values are constants
determined by available technology I + = 1, the production function has constant returns to
scale, meaning that doubling the usage of capital K and labor L will also double output Y. If I +
< 1, returns to scale are decreasing, and if α + > 1, returns to scale are increasing. Assuming
perfect competition and I + = 1, α I and can be shown to be capital's and labor’s shares of output
(Maddala, 2002).
2.2 Empirical Literature Review
Technical efficiency in agriculture, particularly among smallholder farmers, has been widely
studied across different contexts. This section reviews empirical studies that examine the
determinants of technical efficiency in maize production, focusing on both global and Ethiopian
contexts.

2.2.1 Global Studies on Technical Efficiency in Agriculture

Several studies have investigated the technical efficiency of smallholder farmer’s worldwide,
highlighting diverse factors influencing efficiency levels. Bravo-Ureta and Pinheiro (1997)
conducted a meta-analysis of technical efficiency in developing countries, covering over 30
empirical studies. Their analysis revealed an average technical efficiency of approximately 70%,
indicating substantial inefficiency and potential for productivity improvement. They found that
higher education levels, better access to extension services, and credit facilities significantly
improved technical efficiency, emphasizing the role of institutional support in agricultural
productivity.

In Kenya, Murage et al. (2011) studied the impact of adopting improved maize varieties and the
use of fertilizers on smallholder farmers' technical efficiency. Using a sample of 400 maize
farmers, their study showed that technical efficiency varied between 40% and 95%, with an
average of 70%. The study underscored the importance of extension services in disseminating
knowledge about modern farming practices and improving farmers' efficiency. They also
highlighted the role of farmer education and access to credit in facilitating the adoption of
improved technologies.

Similarly, Alene and Manyong (2007) investigated the determinants of technical efficiency
among smallholder farmers in Nigeria. They found that technical efficiency ranged from 30% to
90%, with an average of 65%. Their study identified access to agricultural inputs, education, and
extension services as critical factors influencing efficiency. They emphasized that policies aimed
at improving access to these services could significantly enhance agricultural productivity in
developing countries.

2.2.2 Studies on Technical Efficiency in Ethiopian Agriculture

In Ethiopia, several studies have explored the technical efficiency of smallholder farmers,
focusing on various regions and crops. Kinde (2005) analyzed the technical efficiency of maize
production in the Bako area, using data from 150 smallholder farmers. The study found an
average technical efficiency of 60%, with significant variations across different farms. Key
determinants of efficiency included farm size, education level, and access to extension services.
The study concluded that improving farmers' access to agricultural knowledge and inputs could
enhance their productivity.

Gebregziabher et al. (2012) examined the technical efficiency of smallholder wheat farmers in
the Tigray region using stochastic frontier analysis. Based on a sample of 200 farmers, their
results showed that technical efficiency ranged from 40% to 90%, with an average of 65%.
Factors such as education, access to credit, and use of improved seeds were found to
significantly affect efficiency. The study recommended enhancing farmers' access to credit and
agricultural training to improve their technical efficiency.

A more recent study by Assefa et al. (2016) investigated the technical efficiency of smallholder
maize farmers in the Amhara region. Using data from 300 maize farmers, the study revealed an
average technical efficiency of 55%, with substantial variations among different farms. Factors
such as farm size, use of fertilizers, and access to extension services were positively associated
with technical efficiency. The study highlighted the need for targeted interventions to address the
specific constraints faced by smallholder farmers in the region.

2.2.3 Determinants of Technical Efficiency

Several determinants of technical efficiency have been identified in the literature. Education is
consistently found to be a significant factor, as it enhances farmers' ability to adopt and utilize
modern agricultural practices effectively. Alene and Manyong (2007) reported that higher levels
of education were associated with increased technical efficiency among smallholder farmers in
Nigeria. Similarly, Kinde (2005) found that education significantly improved the technical
efficiency of maize farmers in Ethiopia.

Access to extension services is another critical determinant of technical efficiency. Extension

services provide farmers with essential information and training on improved farming
techniques. Murage et al. (2011) emphasized the role of extension services in disseminating
knowledge about modern farming practices, which significantly improved technical efficiency
among maize farmers in Kenya. Assefa et al. (2016) also highlighted the positive impact of
extension services on technical efficiency in the Amhara region of Ethiopia.

Farm size plays a role in technical efficiency, with larger farms often exhibiting higher efficiency
due to economies of scale. Gebregziabher et al. (2012) found that larger farm sizes were
associated with higher technical efficiency among wheat farmers in the Tigray region of
Ethiopia. The study suggested that policies aimed at increasing farm sizes or promoting
cooperative farming could enhance technical efficiency.

Access to credit facilities enables farmers to invest in necessary inputs such as fertilizers and
improved seeds, which can enhance productivity. Bravo-Ureta and Pinheiro (1997) highlighted
the importance of credit facilities in improving technical efficiency in developing countries.
Similarly, Gebregziabher et al. (2012) found that access to credit significantly improved the
technical efficiency of wheat farmers in Ethiopia.

2.2.4 Gaps in the Literature

While existing studies provide valuable insights into the determinants of technical efficiency,
there is a need for more region-specific research in Ethiopia, particularly in areas like the
Dhidhessa District of the Illuababora Zone. Many studies focus primarily on technical efficiency,
with less emphasis on allocative and economic efficiency, which are also crucial for overall farm
productivity. Furthermore, there is limited research on the impact of institutional factors such as
land tenure security and market access on technical efficiency.

The review of empirical literature highlights the importance of various factors such as education,
access to extension services, credit facilities, and farm size in influencing the technical efficiency
of smallholder maize farmers. This study aims to build on these findings by examining the
specific determinants of technical efficiency in maize production in the Dhidhessa District of
Illuababora Zone, Ethiopia. Understanding these factors will help in designing effective policies
and interventions to enhance agricultural productivity and food security in the region.

CHAPTER THREE

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

3.1 Description of the Study Area
This study will conducted in Dhidhessa district at Illubabor zone of Oromiya Regional state,
Ethiopia. The district is surrounded by Gatira district in west, Gechi in the north and Gummay
district in the south and Goma district in east. According to Dhidhessa district MoRD office, the
district covers approximately an area of 73,855 ha. Moreover the Oromia livelihood zone report
of 2007 indicated that the dominant agro ecology zone is midlands or woinadega while. The
topography is predominantly plains with some gentle undulating slopes. The mean annual
temperature is 20.7ºC and annual rainfall is one of the highest in the country receiving 1200-
1700 mm per year. Rain fed agriculture is the main source of livelihood in the area. The soil is
fertile loam soil with a potential possessing moderate productivity. The main rainy season,
genna, lasts from end of April to October while arfasa lasts from January to April. Major food
crops produced are maize, sorghum and teff while the common cash crops are coffee and chat. It
is a major coffee producing area which supplies markets with export quality coffee. (Tefera et
al., 2014).

3.2 Sampling Technique and Sample size

Multistage sampling technique will use to select the sample respondents. From Illuababora zone,
Dhidhessa district will select purposively based on accessibility for the study. There will 22
kebeles in Dhidhessa district where maize cultivation will carry on extensively. Out of these 22
maize producing kebeles, 4 kebeles will select randomly. A complete list of all farmers growing
maize along with their operational size of their landholding and area allocated under maize will
prepare. Finally 96 farmers from four kebeles will randomly select in probability proportion to
number of farmers in each kebeles. Thus a three stage sampling technique will follow in
selecting the sample households.

Sample size determination

The numbers of household in 4 kebeles are 2505

Determination of sample size is resolved by means of Solving’s sampling size formula

(Yemman’s) with 90 percent confidence level, and 0.1 error terms.

N
Statistical Formula: n= Where: n =is, sample size
1+ N ( e ) 2

n = 2505/1+2505(0.1)2 N = is total number of population

n = 96 e =is margin of error (10%)

3.4 Sources and Methods of Data Collection

The sources of data for this study are both primary and secondary sources. The Primary data will
be collected in the form of observation, focus group discussion and face to face interview. In the
levels of the maize producers that through structured (contain open ended questions) and semi-
structured (contains both closed and opened ended) questionnaire individually and supporting
institutions such as rural development office, trade and industry office. These respondents will be
selected based on their interest and ownership of maize farm. Data sheets will be prepared, and
data will be collected by questionnaires during the study period. The secondary data sources will
be obtained from Illuababora zone, Dhidhessa district agricultural office of agriculture and rural
development, trade and industry, finance and economic development, central statistical Agency.

3.4 Method of Analysis

After the relevant data to the study are collected, the subsequent task will be data processing that
involves analyzing and interpretation. The collected data will be edited and examined.
descriptive tools will be used to analyze the data collected from respondents in the study area.
3.5.1 Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive statistics techniques that will be used to describe the collected data include frequency
percentage and mean. Since descriptive statistics help one to have a clear picture of socio-
economic and socio-demographic situations of the respondents, it will be used wherever it is
appropriate. Mean and percentage will be analyzed and presented by table and figure.
 CHAPTER FOUR
4. WORK PLAN
Table 1: The time budget to perform the work

Activities MAY, JUNE, AUG. SEP. DEC. APR. JUNE.

(2023) (2023) (2023) (2023) (2023) (2023) (2023)
Title Selection

Proposal writing  

Presentation 

Data collection  
and analysis

Research writing 

Research 
submission

Research defense 
 5. BUDGET PLAN/BUDGET BREAKDOWN
Logistics
Supplies expense
Table 2: supplies expense
No- Item Units Quantity Price per unit Total budget
1 Paper Packet 1 350 350
2 Pens No 5 20 100
3 Pencil No 1 25 20
4 Markers No 1 20 20
5 Ruler No 1 20 20
6 EX, Book No 1 100 100
7 Flesh disk=8GB No 1 500 500

8 Total 1100

Travel expense
Table 3: travel expense

No- Description No. Of round Means of No of Cost per Total in birr

trip transport traveler round trip
1 From campus to 4 tax 1 40 160
woreda

2 From woreda to 4 tax 1 40 160

 campas
Total 320

Miscellaneous expens
Table 4: miscellaneous expense

No. Description Total(birr)

1 Photocopy 250
2 Telephone 200
3 Internet 180
Miscellaneous expense subtotal 630

Budget summary
Table 5 : budget summary

No. Description Subtotal expense

1 Supplies expense 1100
2 Travel expense 320
3 Miscellaneous expense 630
Total 2450
 6. REFERENCE
Aigner, D., Lovell, C. K., & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic
frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6(1), 21-37.

Aigner, D.J.and S.F. Chu, 1968. An estimating the industry production functions. American
Economic Review,

Alene, A. D., & Hassan, R. M. 2006. Erratum: The efficiency of traditional and hybrid maize
production in Eastern

Alene, A. D., & Manyong, V. M. (2007). The effects of education on agricultural productivity
under traditional and improved technology in northern Nigeria: An endogenous switching
regression analysis. Empirical Economics, 32(1), 141-159.

Alene, A. D., & Zeller, M. 2005. Technology adoption and farmer efficiency in multiple crops
production in

Asefa, S. 2011. Analysis of technical efficiency of crop producing smallholder farmers in Tigray,
Ethiopia. Munich

Assefa, T., Chilot, Y., Lemma, Z., & Melaku, W. (2016). Technical efficiency of smallholder
maize producers in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Development
and Agricultural Economics, 8(2), 27-35.

Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. 1988. Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a
generalized frontier

Bekele, A. R. 2013. Technical Efficiency Variation for Smallholder Irrigated Maize Producers:
A Case Study of
Berhane, G., Paulos, Z., Tafere, K., & Tamru, S. 2011. Food grain consumption and calorie
intake patterns in

Bravo-Ureta, B. E., & Pinheiro, A. E. (1997). Technical, economic, and allocative efficiency in
peasant farming: Evidence from the Dominican Republic. The Developing Economies,
35(1), 48-67.

Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2012. Agricultural Sample Survey Report on Area and
Production of Major

Coelli, T. 1995. Estimators and hypothesis tests for a stochastic frontier function: A Monte Carlo
analysis. Journal

Coelli, T., D.S.P. Rao and G.E. Battese, 1998. An introduction to efficiency effects in stochastic
frontier function

Eastern Ethiopia: A comparison of parametric and non-parametric distance functions.

Agricultural economics

Ethiopia. IFPRI Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II (ESSP II) Working Paper, 23.

Ethiopia: An extended efficiency decomposition approach. Journal of African Economies, 15(2),

I-xxvii. Food Crops: Private Peasant Holdings. Meher Season. Addis Ababa Ethiopia

Gebregziabher, G., Namara, R. E., & Holden, S. (2012). Technical efficiency of irrigated and
rain-fed smallholder agriculture in Tigray, Ethiopia: A comparative stochastic frontier
production function analysis. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 51(3), 203-
226.
Kinde, Y. (2005). Technical efficiency of maize production: A case study of smallholder farmers
in Bako area, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
5(1), 38-49.

Murage, A. W., Ng’ang’a, S. I., & Wambugu, S. K. (2011). Impact of improved maize varieties
on smallholder productivity: Evidence from Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 42(6), 541-
554. Of productivity analysis, 6(3), 247-268
Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 40461. Production function and panel data. Journal of
econometrics, 38(3), 387-399. Review, 6(1), 5. Tibila Surface Water Irrigation Scheme
(Doctoral dissertation, Mekelle University).