EconStor >
Institut für Weltwirtschaft (IfW), Kiel >
Publikationen von Forscherinnen und Forschern des IfW >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/4250
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLay, Jannen_US
dc.contributor.authorM'Mukaria, George Michukien_US
dc.contributor.authorOmar Mahmoud, Tomanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-01-28T14:22:06Z-
dc.date.available2009-01-28T14:22:06Z-
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/4250-
dc.description.abstractDiversification into non-agricultural activities in rural areas can be broadly classified as either survival-led or opportunity-led. The existence of these two types of non-agricultural activities implies a U-shaped relationship between the share of income derived from non-agricultural activities and household wealth as well as total household income. Survival-led engagement in non-agricultural activities would be inequality-decreasing through increasing the incomes of the poorer parts of the population and would reduce poverty. Opportunity-led diversification, by contrast, would increase inequality and have a minor effect on poverty, as it tends to be confined to non-poor households. Using data from a household survey conducted by ourselves in Western Kenya, we find the overall share of non-agricultural income in this very poor region to be important, but below the sub-Saharan African average. Multivariate analyses confirm the existence of both survival-led and opportunity-led diversification. Yet, the poverty and inequality implications of the differently motivated diversification strategies differ somewhat from our expectations. As expected, we find high-return activities to be confined to richer households, while both rich and poor households are engaged in low-return activities. Very poor households even appear to be excluded from the latter. Simple simulation exercises illustrate the inequality-increasing and very limited poverty effects of increases in high-return income, whereas increased low-return income shows substantial poverty reduction leverage. Our findings indicate that rural households do not only face asset constraints, but also very limited or relatively risky high-return opportunities outside agriculture.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesProceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Göttingen 2007 / Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics 20en_US
dc.subject.jelI31en_US
dc.subject.jelO17en_US
dc.subject.jelQ12en_US
dc.subject.ddc330-
dc.subject.keywordIncome diversificationen_US
dc.subject.keywordNon-agricultural activities-
dc.subject.keywordInequality-
dc.subject.stwDorfwirtschaften_US
dc.subject.stwLandwirtschaftlicher Kleinbetrieben_US
dc.subject.stwDiversifikationen_US
dc.subject.stwLändliches Einkommenen_US
dc.subject.stwEinkommensverteilungen_US
dc.subject.stwKenia (West)en_US
dc.subject.stwAfrika südlich der Saharaen_US
dc.titleBoda-bodas rule: Non-agricultural activities and their inequality implications in Western Kenyaen_US
dc.typeConference Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn560906692en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen-
dc.identifier.repecRePEc:zbw:ifwkie:4250-
Appears in Collections:Publikationen von Forscherinnen und Forschern des IfW
Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, 2007 (Göttingen)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
Lay.pdf147.78 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.