1) The document summarizes research on the relationship between population pressure, farm size, and welfare in Ethiopia. It uses both quantitative data and qualitative focus groups. 2) Quantitative findings show very small average farm sizes despite apparent land availability, and negative correlations between population density, farm income, and total income beyond 500 people/km^2. 3) Qualitative findings indicate widespread land constraints, signs of agricultural intensification efforts but major input bottlenecks, increases in migration, declining fertility rates due to family planning, and mixed views on education and the future.

1. ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Population Pressure & Farm Size Evolution
in Ethiopia: Threads of a Narrative
Derek Headey, IFPRI
with Anna Josephson and Jacob Ricker-
Gilbert, Purdue University
Ethiopian Economic Association Conference
July 19-21, 2012, Addis Ababa
1

2. 1. Introduction
• Since Malthus (c. 1800), economists have been
intensely interested in the relationships between
land constraints and human welfare
• On the one hand, population growth amidst fixed
land constraints might imply persistence of poverty
and vulnerability to drought & famine
• More recent theories emphasize technological
intensification (Boserup 1965), human capital
accumulation, and agglomeration economies
through the growth of cities and rural towns
2

3. 1. Introduction
• So we have a race between two endogenous forces:
declining per capita land availability, and increasing
technology and non-farm capital.
• This already-complex story is made more complex
by government policies and agroecological factors
• Some agroecologies may be better suited to
intensification than others
• Governments can obviously facilitate or hinder
technological development and accumulation of
non-farm capital
3

4. 1. Introduction
• The question we ask in this paper is “Which of these
two basic forces is winning the race in Ethiopia?”
• Interesting theoretical question, but very practical
in a country with a long history of Malthusian and
Boseripian processes.
• Ethiopia also has an unusual mix of small farms and
apparent land abundance,
• Also an interesting history of land reform, and other
policies to address the small farm problem: ADLI,
roads, schools, safety nets, resettlement, family
planning, large farms, urban development
4

5. 2. Data & methods
• To address this question we use quantitative data
from the ERHS, and qualitative data from focus
group questionnaires in 12 ERHS villages
• ERHS is very advantageous because villages were
selected by agroecological differences
• QUANT data used to examine relationships between
population density and various welfare
indicators, mostly with non-parametric methods
• Population density is our focus because we think it
is less endogenous than farm size, and because it is
a better general equilibrium indicator
5

6. 2. Data & methods
• Qualitative data is also very useful in this context
because quantitative data has some omissions:
• Institutional history (e.g. past, present and
future of land regulation and reform)
• Community characteristics (land availability)
• Migration routes and trends
• Perceptions/aspirations on issues like education,
family size, general optimism/pessimism
• Recent trends (last ERHS round in 2009)
• So FCGs really complement formal ERHS analysis
6

7. 3. Quantitative results
• First, some background on population density &
farm size
• Like other African countries, Ethiopia appears to
have low population density (on average), but
almost pervasively small farms

8. Figure 1. “Expected” rural population densities in
Africa and Asia, circa 2005, from GIS data
Notes: Authors’ calculations from the Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMPS 2008). “Expected” rural population density is the sum of
populations in square kilometer grids in a country, weighted by the population shares of the grids within the total country population. This
measure is therefore “population-weighted population density”, and it reflects the population density experienced by an average rural person.
*These population densities are calculated for the region as a whole.

9. Fig. 2: The distribution of rural population density in
Ethiopian woredas, 2007 census
40
30
Percent
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Population density (persons per sq. km)

10. Fig. 3: The distribution of mean crop area per hectares
across 69 zones of Ethiopia, 2011
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Crop area per household (hectares)

11. 3. Quantitative results
Finding 1 – Very non-linear relationship between population
density and farm size. Largely positive. Controlling for land
quality may change this!
11

12. Quantitative results
Finding 2-Net farm income per adult equivalent negatively
correlated with population density
12

13. Quantitative results
Finding 3– Off-farm income has a non-linear relationship
with population density, but is very low in any case
13

14. Quantitative results
Finding 4– Total income falls after a threshold of just under 500
Person/km2. But as we saw in Figure 2, relatively few woredas
are above this threshold
14

15. Qualitative results
Finding 1-Access to land was regularly cited as one of
the most important constraints.
Clear links between population density & extent to
which farmers emphasized land constraints.
In no village did people say there were sizeable
amounts of unused cultivable land
In a few villages there appeared to be sizeable numbers
of people that were effectively landless
Half the villages said no link between farm size &
wealth because land reforms gave more land to poor*
15

16. Qualitative results
Finding 2-Substantial signs of intensification or
attempts to intensify, but major bottlenecks.
Quality & affordability of inputs a pervasive constraint,
particularly high price of fertilizers.
Seed quality a very mixed picture across villages. Some
reported big yield improvements, others said the
varieties were ill-suited, poor quality or late.
Quite a number of villages attempted adoption of
improved techniques, new varieties or new crops. But
in some areas these failed (e.g. Gara Godo)
16

17. Qualitative results
Finding 3-Substantial increases in out-migration
With one exception (Imdebir), almost all villages said
out-migration was more common than in the past.
Urban migration was sometimes mentioned, but
migration to the Gulf was the most frequent
Seasonal migration trending up, particularly to large
farms in the north. In Gara Godo respondents said
every household had at least one seasonal migrant.
Mixed perceptions on resettlement policies: “good
thing, but there is malaria, lack of infrastructure, etc”
17

18. Qualitative results
Finding 4-Education more important in the future, but …
Quality was a major concern
Private schools perceived as better, but few places had
access, and few were affordable
Many farmers perceived that it was not worth making
big investments in kid’s schooling because higher
education no longer guaranteed a job.
18

19. Qualitative results
Finding 5-Fertility rates are declining
Almost invariably respondents said this was largely due
to family planning interventions.
Recent results from the DHS confirm a large decline in
rural fertility in recent years (5.5 children to 4.8), which
does indeed seem related to family planning
interventions.
In no village did respondents say that family sizes were
directly shrinking because of land constraints (we plan
to test this in the future).
19

20. Qualitative results
Finding 6-Mixed perceptions about the future
Some optimism about improved farm
technologies, pervasive appreciation of improved road
infrastructure, some optimism about education
But there were major concerns about climate change
(late rains), soil degradation, rising costs of
fertilizer, land constraints.
20

21. Conclusions
• Ongoing work, so conclusions are tentative
• Overall, we find very complex results
• Farm sizes in Ethiopia are surprisingly small despite
suggestion of abundant land
• Land access is subjectively regarded as a major
constraint, although redistribution of land appears
to have de-linked farm size and wealth on aggregate
• High pop density is linked to lower income beyond
500 persons/km2. But not many areas above this.
21

22. Conclusions
• In the future we are planning to better control for
agroecological variation
• We’re also try to understand some of the possible
benefits of higher population density, like better
access to education, health and other services
Finally, we hope to explore some key policy questions?
1. Where are small farms a major constraint?
2. Should these areas be targeted for special
assistance?
3. If so, how? Farm or non-farm investments?
22

23. Thank you!