The dynamics of rural livelihoods and household welfare in Ghana

• Main Author: Dzanku, Fred Mawunyo
• Published: University of Reading 2012
• Subjects: 307.1412
• Online Access: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.577984

Household welfare effects of changes in rural livelihoods and their diversity is the central theme of this argument. Inter- and intra-livelihood diversification dynamics and effects on choice and intensity of participation in farm and nonfarm activities have been analysed using a three-period panel dataset on 464 households located in 8 villages of two distinct geoeconomic and agroecological zones of Ghana. This research is situated within the debate of whether or not the agriculture-led rural poverty reductionrenaissance is pragmatic in terms of both analytical and policy thinking of rural economic development. Almost every conclusion reached depends on isolation or proximity to "national capital, anti agro-productive potential of study area under rain- fed conditions. First of all, the notion of a shift from farm to nonfarm oriented rural livelihoods is rather a hyperbole. Quality of human capital, access to other productive assets, price and income risk sensitivity are the most important determinants of choice of, and returns to rural livelihood activities. Second, in high agro-potential zones, both farm and nonfarm oriented livelihood strategies produce similar welfare outcomes. Third, concerning diversification within agriculture, resource allocation to high-value crops enhances household food security in high agro- productive potential zones. Fourth, farm productivity is decreasing in pluriactivity, suggesting that returns to nonfarm labour supply must more than offset the value of productivity loss from agriculture if a household is to maintain a given level of welfare. Finally, neither farm nor nonfarm productivity was responsible for rural poverty exit in the 2000s; spatial location of household, living in a female headed household, human capital quality and rural - urban linkages through urban social network capital were the drivers of poverty exit. So, 'livelihood-led poverty reduction policy thinking' appears more pragmatic than a sectoral view of rural development policy and practice.