Rural non-farm engagement and agriculture commercialization in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Ghana's economy is largely agrarian, and the business of agriculture is dominated by smallholder farmers who are predominantly rural dwellers. As a result, efforts to lift rural farming households from poverty have been narrowed to the promotion of agricultural development to the neglect of the rural non-farm sector. However, this is fast changing in the advent of a burgeoning rural nonfarm economy and must engage the attention of policy actors. This study thus assesses the effect of non-farm participation on households' level of commercialization of agricultural crops in Ghana. Design/methodology/approach The study applies a generalized structural equation model (GSEM) to the Ghana Living Standards Survey round 6 dataset, a stratified and nationally representative random sample of 16,772 households in 1,200 enumeration areas. Findings This study finds that non-farm participation increases the produce sold to output ratio. It is concluded that non-farm engagement by farmers boosts commercialization in Ghana. Thus, for the Ghanaian and similar contexts, agricultural development interventions that incorporate non-farm activities are more likely to be successful in improving livelihoods. Research limitations/implications The study uses only the ratio of sales value to output value definition for commercialization and acknowledges use of multiple definitions could be superior. Originality/value Various empirical studies have examined the link between the farm and nonfarm sectors. This paper is original in its approach as it tackles an aspect of the subject that has been understudied, namely, an exploration of nonfarm and farm linkages from the perspective of agricultural commercialization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".