Effect of Market Participation on Household Income Among Smallholder Indigenous Poultry Farmers in Kesses Sub-County, Kenya

Rural poverty remains prevalent in Kenya, where the majority of the population primarily depends on smallholder agriculture for their livelihoods. The indigenous poultry sub-sector has been recognised as a pathway for improving household incomes through market participation. Despite its considerable potential for poverty reduction, indigenous poultry farming in Kesses Sub-County has been characterised by persistently low levels of market participation, limiting the income gains that farming households could otherwise realise. This study sought to determine the effect of market participation on household income among smallholder indigenous poultry farmers in Kesses Sub-County. A cross-sectional research design was used in data collection among 384 smallholder indigenous poultry farmers in Kesses Sub-County, Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. A multistage sampling technique was then used to select respondents from the sub-county level down to individual indigenous poultry farmers. A Probit regression model was used to analyse the determinants of market participation, and the Endogenous Switching Regression (ESR) model was employed to estimate the causal effect of market participation on household income, correcting for self-selection bias arising from the endogenous nature of the participation decision. The Probit results show that market participation was determined by gender, level of education, occupation, distance to the market, access to extension services, access to credit facilities, and group membership. The ESR model confirmed the presence of self-selection bias, validating the framework. Market participation had a positive and statistically significant causal effect on household income, with participating farmers earning 67.1% more than they would have earned without participation (Treatment effect on the treated (ATT) = 0.513, p < 0.001). Within the participant regime, income was significantly determined by active market selling, number of chickens sold, sales frequency, average price received, age of the farmer, group membership, market channel, and distance to the market. Non-participating farmers would have gained 57.0% in household income had they entered the market (Treatment effect on the untreated (ATU) = 0.451, p = 0.022), underscoring the substantial income foregone due to low market participation. The government and poultry value chain development partners should improve market infrastructure and strengthen programs supporting flock expansion and productivity to increase marketable surplus. Extension services targeting indigenous poultry production should be expanded, and farmers encouraged to join farmer groups to benefit from collective training and joint commercialisation.