Relationship between Social Capital and Livelihood Enhancing Capitals among Smallholder Farmers in Uganda

Social capital is an important characteristic of a community and is one of the components of the asset pentagon of the sustainable livelihood framework. The study aimed at assessing the levels and dimensions of social capital and how social capital influences other livelihood capitals. A Cross-sectional survey of a random sample of 208 households was conducted in Masindi and Hoima Districts in Uganda to assess the current livelihood conditions and strategies for improving rural livelihoods. An Index of social capital was generated using density of group membership and three levels of social capital where generated i.e. high, medium and low. Two dimensions of social capital (bonding and bridging) were considered. Results showed that households with high and medium social capital had enhanced skills to solve problems, do research and bargain with middle men. Social capital empowered more women to participate in decision making, fostered asset base creation and use of natural resource management technologies. There was a significant difference between level of social capital and participation in collective farming. Households with high social capital rated highly the community level of trust, reciprocity, and women’s confidence. However, there was no significant effect of social capital on household income. In conclusion, there was a positive relationship between level and dimension of social capital and access to livelihood assets implying that strengthening social capital is a powerful way to improve communities and requires consistent and effective approaches to build and reinforce the social and human capital.Relationship, Social Capital, Livelihood Capitals, Smallholder Farmers, Agricultural Finance, Consumer/Household Economics, Environmental Economics and Policy, Farm Management, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Health Economics and Policy, Labor and Human Capital, Marketing, Production Economics, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Linking smallholder farmers to markets, gender and intra-household dynamics: Does the choice of commodity matter?

Linking smallholder farmers to markets and making markets work for the poor is increasingly becoming an important part of the global research and development agenda. Organizations have used various strategies to link farmers to markets. These approaches have mainly been evaluated for their potential to increase participation in markets and household incomes. The evaluations have assumed a unitary household where income and resources are pooled and allocated according to a joint utility function. In most households, however, income is rarely pooled and neither are resources jointly allocated. This article uses data from Malawi and Uganda to analyze what influences income distribution between men and women, focusing on the type of commodity, type of market and approaches used. The results indicate that commodities generating lower average revenues are more likely to be controlled by women, whereas men control commodities that are high revenue generators, often sold in formal markets

Harmonizing the agricultural biotechnology debate for the benefit of African farmers

The intense debate over agricultural biotechnology is at once fascinating, confusing and disappointing. It is complicated by issues of ethical, moral, socio-economic, political, philosophical and scientific import. Its vocal champions exaggerate their claims of biotechnology as saviour of the poor and hungry, while, equally loudly, its opponents declare it as the doomsday devil of agriculture. Sandwiched between these two camps is the rest of the public, either absorbed or indifferent. Biotechnology issues specific to the African public must include crop and animal productivity, food security, alleviation of poverty and gender equity, and must exclude political considerations. Food and its availability are basic human rights issues—for people without food, everything else is insignificant. Although we should discuss and challenge new technologies and their products, bringing the agricultural biotechnology debate into food aid for Africa where millions are faced with life-or-death situations is irresponsible. Agricultural biotechnology promises the impoverished African a means to improve food security and reduce pressures on the environment, provided the perceived risks associated with the technology are addressed. This paper attempts to harmonize the debate, and to examine the potential benefits and risks that agricultural biotechnology brings to African farmers. Key words: Agriculture, biotechnology, biotechnology debate, biotechnology and Africa, biotechnology issues, food security, poverty alleviation. African Journal of Biotechnology Vol.2(11) 2003: 394-41