False Promise or False Premise? The Experience of Food and Input Market Reform in Eastern and Southern Africa

By T. Jayne, J. Govereh, A. Mwanaumo, J. Nyoro, A. Chapoto. 2002

315 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d7c05373acaca134621c8e39faf934e908519abc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. T. Jayne
2. A. Dorward
3. N. Mason
4. B. Shiferaw
5. J. Kydd
6. G. Muricho
7. John Thompson
8. W. Burke

In Soil Science

1. B. Shiferaw
2. G. Muricho
3. J. Sumberg
4. G. Obare
5. A. Dorward
6. J. Kydd
7. Shahid Rashid
8. P. Dorosh

Citations in the corpus

• Review: Taking stock of Africa’s second-generation agricultural input subsidy programs (2018, background): “Political economy analyses (e.g., van de Walle, 2001; Jayne et al., 2002) contend that influential rural elites benefitted from ISPs and lobbied forcefully for their reemergence.”
• Rural market imperfections and the role of institutions in collective action to improve markets for the poor (2008, background): “Moreover, partial implementation of reforms and policy reversals have tended to mute the positive effects of liberalization (Jayne et al. , 2002).”
• Commodity market reform in Africa : some recent experience (2003, background): “More recently, Jayne et al. (2002) report on reforms related to food markets in Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.”
• Why agronomy in the developing world has become contentious (2013, background): “State involvement in agricultural marketing (e.g. through marketing boards) and processing was also targeted (Bates, 1981; Jayne et al., 2002; Sandbrook, 1985).”
• Neopatrimonialism and the Political Economy of Economic Performance in Africa: Critical Reflections (2015, background): “67 Jayne et al. 2002 were writing about kenya and Zimbabwe. the need to resort to the patronage argument seems so overwhelming that they are left appealing to it, even when their own research raises serious questions. thus they appeal to path dependence to explain the higher prices paid to farmers…”
• Implications of market and coordination failures for rural development in least developed countries (2004, background): “Kherallah et al. 2000 and Jayne et al. 2002, for example, argue that the principal problem is a lack of sufficiently thorough liberalisation, as fitful and often reluctant piecemeal liberalisation, together with real or perceived threats of policy reversals, reintroduction of price controls and…”
• Institutions and Policies for Pro-poor Agricultural Growth (2004, unknown): “Lack of progress is explained by some in terms of government foot-dragging and incomplete liberalisation inhibiting private sector investment (for example, Kherallah et al., 2000; Jayne et al., 2002).”
• Rural Institutions and Producer Organizations in Imperfect Markets: Experiences from Producer Marketing Groups in Semi-Arid Eastern Kenya.Socioeconomics and Policy Working Paper Series no. 23 (2006, background): “…such economic transformation after liberalization has been attributed to factors such as partial implementation of reforms and policy reversals (eg, Jayne et al. 2002; Kherallah et al. 2000; Jayne and Jones 1997) and lack of strong institutions that support market and private sector development…”
• Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya: H. De Groote et al. / Agricultural Economics xx (2010) 1-16 (2010, background): “Preferences are also influenced by policy, as shown by the shift from sifted maize meal to whole maize during market liberalization (Jayne et al., 2002).”
• Overcoming Market Constraints on Pro‐Poor Agricultural Growth in Sub‐Saharan Africa (2006, unknown): “Development Policy Review 24 (3) These explanations of continuing market failures in smallholder agriculture are largely complementary, but there is clear scope for disagreement as regards appropriate policy responses, in particular between proponents of views (i) and (iii) (Jayne et al., 2002), dep”