MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010944570 · doi:10.1093/jae/eju035

Rural Policies, Price Change and Poverty in Tanzania: An Agricultural Household Model-Based Assessment

2015· article· en· W3010944570 on OpenAlexaff
Luca Tiberti, Marco Tiberti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of African Economies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsWelfareConsumption (sociology)Arable landLabour supplyAgricultureShadow priceHousehold incomeAgricultural productivityShock (circulatory)WageAgricultural economicsProductivityLabour economicsMacroeconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exogenous shocks to farmers' consumption, production and labour market decisions are rarely considered accurately. For farm households, under labour market imperfections, such decisions are often interlinked. This calls for non-separable agricultural household models. According to this framework, second-order (or behavioural) effects include a direct (i.e., supply or demand reactions due to an exogenous shock) and an indirect (i.e., supply or demand adjustments to the endogenous variations in the shadow wage generated by the exogenous shock) component. Under large price changes or following structural interventions, such as those concerning land redistribution or mechanisation practices, neglecting such second-order effects on consumption and production can bias the final impact on household welfare. The main objective of this study is thus to develop a robust and comprehensive tool to evaluate the effect on household welfare of different agricultural policies in Tanzania and food price changes. A two-stage estimation strategy is adopted: the shadow price of labour is first estimated and then used to estimate production and demand systems as well as labour market functions. These models are subsequently used to simulate the effect on household welfare of a hypothetical 40% increase in the price of cereals and other crops and a hypothetical 10% increase in the hectares of arable land and in the use of ox-ploughs. The results are finally compared with the case in which a separable model is adopted.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.179 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of African EconomiesSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207