An economic evaluation of a crop insurance programme for small-scale commercial farmers in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hail insurance is provided by the private sector in South Africa but crop insurance (drought insurance) programmes, after a promising start, failed to attract customers. A crop insurance programme (drought) for small-scale commercial farmers, who are not yet paying tax, has been recommended to government. The purpose in this research is to study the economic viability of such a programme drawing on the US experience. The US programme is well developed but heavily subsidised. During 1998 US growers paid $900 million in premiums while during 1995- 98 the US government spent $1.2 billion per year on subsidies. An area insurance plan (farmers are insured as a group) is shown to be more appropriate for small farmers growing dryland field crops such as maize because risk is systemic (drought related) while adverse selection, moral hazard etc are overcome. Individual crop insurance will not be viable due to the cost of farm visits (verification of claims) and the non-availability of information. As a large part of the cost to government goes to administration of crop insurance it is recommended that an Income Equalisation Deposit (IED) scheme for small growers receive serious consideration with the government making a contribution as for example in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".