Despite the achievements of smallholders in Asia during the green revolution, there is scepticism that
Africa’s smallholders — who dominate the farm area in most countries — can imitate this model and deliver
agricultural growth. This paper assesses whether such pessimism is justified.
Given the high transactions costs of hiring labour of farms, diseconomies of scale can be expected when
labour is relatively cheap and abundant compared to other factors of production: which may explain the
survey evidence that small farms often produce more per hectare than larger farms. In conditions of low
development with relatively cheap labour, small units may have advantages over larger ones.
The empirical record of performance of small and large farms in Africa is uneven and incomplete. Given the
dominance of small farms in agriculture in many African countries, national data may be indicative of small
farm performance. The record since the 1960s shows variable performance in agricultural growth through
time and space, with slow growth in the 1970s followed by acceleration from the early 1980s. Even more
striking is the difference in the performance of Northern and Western Africa compared to that of other
regions of the continent. But the differences are not just regional: there is great variation across countries.
While many African countries have a disappointing record of growth, thirteen doubled or more their
production in the twenty years from the early 1980s onwards. These include countries where the bulk of
output comes from small farms — Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Niger, etc. Countries that have, or had,
notable large-farm sectors such as Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe are well down the growth ranking.
This proves little about scale since other factors are so much more important for agricultural growth, but it
does show that to have an agriculture dominated by small farms is no obstacle to growth, and quite rapid
growth at that.
On labour productivity, either by level or rate of growth, small farming suffers in comparison to large-scale
farming. This is to be expected: small farms tend to apply much more labour per hectare than large units.
This creates employment, but the statistics suggest that too often this is poorly rewarded.
Detailed studies and historical reviews show many instances where agricultural booms —periods in which
substantial increases in marketed output of both food and cash crops have been seen —have taken place,
based on small-scale farming. These can be seen or both export and food crops. An IFPRI survey of
technical successes shows that almost all have been applied to good effect by small farmers.
On the other hand, there is no record of generalized success with large farms: on the contrary, there have
been some notable failures with large farms — for example, the groundnuts scheme — often associated with
reliance on (heavy) machinery unsuited to local soils. There are reasons other than history to explain why,
other than for some high value enterprises and for crops that require processing in large-scale plants, large
farms are not common in Africa.
For policy these debates are perhaps less important than understanding the conditions under which
smallholder development takes place. There is broad understanding that the combination of creating a
Despite the achievements of smallholders in Asia during the green revolution, there is scepticism that Africa’s smallholders — who dominate the farm area in most countries — can imitate this model and deliver agricultural growth. This paper assesses whether such pessimism is justified.
This paper was presented 12-13 October 2009 at The Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN FORUM) hosted the online-discussion “How to Feed the World in 2050”. The discussion gathered views from a broad range of interested parties to prepare for discussions at the High-Level Expert Forum. A broad range of food security, nutrition and agricultural experts contributed to these views.