Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/4250 
Kompletter Metadatensatz
DublinCore-FeldWertSprache
dc.contributor.authorLay, Jannen
dc.contributor.authorM'Mukaria, George Michukien
dc.contributor.authorOmar Mahmoud, Tomanen
dc.date.accessioned2009-01-28T14:22:06Z-
dc.date.available2009-01-28T14:22:06Z-
dc.date.issued2007-
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
dc.language.isoengen
dc.publisher|aVerein für Socialpolitik, Ausschuss für Entwicklungsländer |cGöttingenen
dc.relation.ispartofseries|aProceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Göttingen 2007 |x20en
dc.subject.jelI31en
dc.subject.jelO17en
dc.subject.jelQ12en
dc.subject.ddc330en
dc.subject.keywordNon-agricultural activitiesen
dc.subject.keywordInequalityen
dc.subject.keywordIncome diversificationen
dc.subject.stwDorfwirtschaften
dc.subject.stwLandwirtschaftlicher Kleinbetrieben
dc.subject.stwDiversifikationen
dc.subject.stwLändliches Einkommenen
dc.subject.stwEinkommensverteilungen
dc.subject.stwKenia (West)en
dc.subject.stwAfrika südlich der Saharaen
dc.titleBoda-bodas rule: Non-agricultural activities and their inequality implications in Western Kenya-
dc.typeConference Paperen
dc.identifier.ppn560906692en
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungenen
dc.identifier.repecRePEc:zbw:ifwkie:6543en
dc.identifier.repecRePEc:zbw:gdec07:6543en

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
147.78 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.