MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982077893 · doi:10.1017/9781787444294.006

Contract Farming in Tanzania: Experiences from Tobacco and Sunflower

2019· book-chapter· en· W2982077893 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph A. Kuzilwa, Bahati Ilembo, Daniel Mpeta, Andrew Coulson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTanzaniaSunflowerCultivation of tobaccoContract farmingAgricultureBusinessAgricultural scienceAgricultural economicsAgroforestryGeographySocioeconomicsEconomicsAgronomyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contract farming, where farmers sign contracts that commit them to growing specific crops or products and selling them to specific purchasers, is an important part of agriculture in developed countries. They are found in some situations in developing countries, when ‘outgrowers’ contract to supply an estate or company, which runs a processing operation such as a tea or sugar factory, or when exporters are committed to supply high-value crops for export, such as cut flowers or spices. Their relative importance is likely to continue to increase. Farmers also sign contracts when they accept inputs on credit. The contracts specify that they will sell their crops to a cooperative or trading organization that has arranged credit, which will deduct the costs of the inputs supplied from the money paid to the farmers for their crops. This chapter investigates some of the issues that have arisen when contract farming has been attempted in Tanzania. It draws on data from two research studies, which sampled farmers who were growing flue-cured tobacco, where contracts have been institutionalized for more than fifty years, and sunflower where contracts were introduced but did not survive as a significant component of the marketing system. From these studies and desk research, the chapter draws conclusions about what is needed to sustain and further develop contract farming in Tanzania. Background Eaton and Shepherd start their widely quoted briefing note by pointing out that contracts are not new and cover many situations. Thus any system of share-cropping, in which a landlord is entitled to a share of the harvest, implies a contract. T. J. Byres shows that the Greeks had systems of share-cropping more than 2,500 years ago (Byres 1983; 3). Some of the most exploitative share-cropping was in the Southern states of the USA in the last half of the nineteenth century. More recently, in Africa, farmers, recruited in the 1950s to the Gezira irrigation scheme on the Nile in the Sudan, signed contracts that required them to grow cotton and sell it to the scheme. The World Bank-funded schemes to support farmers growing a number of crops in Tanzania in the 1970s and 1980s included credit supported by contracts. Contracts are also fundamental to agri-business, when processing companies contract with large farms, but also when large farms or marketing agents contract with smaller outgrowers (Watts 1994: 26–8; Eaton & Shepherd 2001: 1–2).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207