Nutrition demand, subsistence farming, and agricultural productivity
In many of the poorest countries, agriculture is unproductive and subsistence farming is widespread. I propose nutrition demand as a mechanism that drives the production decisions of subsistence farmers and ultimately contributes to low aggregate agricultural productivity. I explore this mechanism in a model of farm-operating households facing explicit caloric needs and costly domestic trade, and test the model’s predictions on Malawian household-level data. In the model and in the data, the smallest farmers focus their consumption on obtaining calories and specialize their production in unsold staple crops; medium farmers diversify both their diet and their subsistence production; the largest farmers shift consumption to purchased goods by producing and selling marketable farm products. I quantify the aggregate implications of this farm-level product choice using the model. It suggests that lowering trade frictions enough for the average share of output sold by farmers to reach even 50% would make the country’s agricultural sector 47% more productive. Half of this increase is caused by the mechanically reduced erosion of output, and the other half by a better alignment of individual farmers’ product choice with their comparative advantage rather than their family’s nutritional needs or food preferences. • Products that Malawian farmers choose to eat and grow depend on farm scale. • I develop a model in which farmers face explicit caloric needs and costly trade. • The model reproduces several salient patterns of farmer behavior. • Even partly reducing domestic trade costs raises agricultural productivity by 47%.
Authors
- Stepan Gordeev (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8864-7607)
Institutions
- Texas Christian University (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Development Economics
- Published
- 2025-11-20
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2025.103681
- Primary Topic
- Agricultural Innovations and Practices
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00