Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme in Zimbabwe: The case of Chegutu and Zvimba Districts

Muzeza, Norman T.; Taruvinga, Amon; Mukarumbwa, Peter Article Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme in Zimbabwe: The case of Chegutu and Zvimba Districts Cogent Economics & Finance Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Muzeza, Norman T.; Taruvinga, Amon; Mukarumbwa, Peter (2023) : Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme in Zimbabwe: The case of Chegutu and Zvimba Districts, Cogent Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/303936 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Economics & Finance ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaef20 Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme in Zimbabwe: The case of Chegutu and Zvimba Districts Norman T. Muzeza, Amon Taruvinga & Peter Mukarumbwa To cite this article: Norman T. Muzeza, Amon Taruvinga & Peter Mukarumbwa (2023) Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme in Zimbabwe: The case of Chegutu and Zvimba Districts, Cogent Economics & Finance, 11:1, 2163543, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 © 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 11 Jan 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1811 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaef20 GENERAL & APPLIED ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme in Zimbabwe: The case of Chegutu and Zvimba Districts Norman T. Muzeza 1 , Amon Taruvinga 1 and Peter Mukarumbwa 2 * Abstract: In an effort to address the decline in maize productivity, the government of Zimbabwe in 2016/17 endorsed a special program for input support named command agriculture scheme (CAS). Against this background, the study questioned the beneficiaries’ technical efficiency and factors that influence farmers to gravitate towards the frontier using Chegutu and Zvimba districts of Zimbabwe as case studies. The study used a cross-sectional survey of 240 households randomly selected through a three-stage multiple-sampling procedure. The single-stage modelling stochastic frontier approach was applied to assess technical efficiency of A1 smallholder command agriculture maize farmers. The study revealed that A1 smallholder command agriculture maize farmers in Chegutu and Zvimba districts were technically efficient at 85% and 94%, respectively. The major determinants of technical efficiency were basal fertilizer, labour, area allocated to maize production and topdressing fertilizer which all indicated a positive relationship. The main determinants of technical inefficiency were age, maize farming experience, level of education, marital status, occupation status and other sources of income. Results further revealed that farmers from Chegutu district had increasing returns to scale (1.43) while farmers from Zvimba district had decreasing returns to scale (0.54). The study therefore argues that despite the observed high technical efficiencies, ABOUT THE AUTHORS Norman T. Muzeza is a final year MSc. student with the University of Fort Hare, in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension. His research interests are in rural development, women entrepreneurship, food value chains, livelihoods and women entrepreneurship. Amon Taruvinga was born in Zimbabwe. He received his BSc (Hons) degree in Agricultural Economics from the University of Zimbabwe and his PhD, also in Agricultural Economics, from the University of Fort Hare, South Africa (2012). He is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension at the University of Fort Hare, South Africa. Prof Taruvinga specializes in biodiversity, environmental economics, human wildlife interactions, food security, climate change and smallholder agriculture. He is interested in promoting sustainable human-wildlife interaction. Peter Mukarumbwa holds a PhD in Agricultural Economics from the University of Fort. Hare, South Africa. He is a full-time Senior Lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension at the National University of Lesotho. Currently, he teaches several courses in agricultural economics and has engaged in the supervision of research projects for both undergraduate and postgraduate students in the same department. He has over a decade of researching and working with marginalized communities in different countries from Southern Africa which include, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Botswana and Namibia. He has also participated in a number of conferences which include experts from the region and beyond to address key issues such as climate change, food security, global financial crisis and innovative farming methods for the rural poor in Africa. Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 1 of 19 Received: 09 August 2021 Accepted: 24 December 2022 *Corresponding author: Peter Mukarumbwa, Agricultural Economics and Extension, National University of Lesotho, Roma, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Raoul Fani Djomo Choumbou, Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Chegutu farmers could bridge their 15% gap between the observed output and the frontier output by focusing more on input usage with increasing returns to scale while Zvimba farmers could bridge their 6% gap by focusing more on socioeconomic drivers of technical inefficiency given their decreasing returns to scale. Subjects: development studies; politics & development; sustainable development; development policy; economics and development Keywords: technical efficiency; stochastic frontier; productivity; maize; smallholder farmers 1. Introduction Maize production is an essential component of food security and livelihoods among smallholder farming communities in Zimbabwe. Being the staple food of many people in the country, maize is the most important commodity in terms of food security. Most smallholder farmers grow maize primarily for subsistence purposes (Mazvimavi et al., 2012). Since the implementation of the fast track land reform programme (FTLRP) in 2000, there have been radical changes in the structure of the agricultural sector in Zimbabwe. An estimated 70% of the Zimbabwe population now lives in small-scale farming areas (Mano, 2006). This has significant implications for food security, given the critical role of the smallholder sector in producing the staple maize crop. Crop failures and inefficiencies in smallholder maize production have had negative serious repercussions on the country’s food security situation. Consequences of the FTLRP were clearly felt in the agricultural environment of Zimbabwe, forcing production numbers to dramatically change in a negative sense (Scoones et al., 2012). Unavailability and inaccessibility of inputs influenced the harvest and production of farmers, resulting in a decline of maize production (Mutonodzo-Davies, 2010). Hence, production inefficiency amongst resettled smallholder farmers caused a drastic decline in agricultural productivity since the launch of the FTLRP widening the supply and demand gap of food especially the staple maize leading to massive food insecurity in the country. Due to this continual reduction in maize production, during the 2016/2017 agricultural season, the government of Zimbabwe endorsed a program named Command Agriculture Scheme (Mazwi et al., 2017). Command Agriculture Scheme (CAS) is a special program for import substitution introduced to promote food self-security, through domestic agricultural production (Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development, 2016). The scheme was meant to mobilize sustainable and affordable funding for the agricultural sector. Farmers would benefit from agricultural inputs in an endeavor to boost production of strategic crops and restore sanity in the provision of adequate food and nutrition to rural populace (Makuwerere Dube, 2020). Moreover, the scheme had also an import substitution-led industrialization concept deliberately meant to empower local producers of cereal crops and creating employment for thousands of people in the sector (Kuhudzayi & Mattos, 2018). Against this background, the study investigated the drivers of technical efficiency among A1 smallholder maize farmers participating in the CAS. 1.1. Problem statement In recent years, maize production in Zimbabwe has steadily declined (Mango et al., 2015). Data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2016), show that Zimbabwe was a net exporter of maize prior to 2001, and a net importer after 2001. It is estimated that between 650 and 700 thousand tons, or about one-third of the total domestic maize demand, was imported for the 2015/16 marketing year (FAO, 2016). This exceptionally poor performance of the maize subsector in Zimbabwe, relative to comparable regional countries with similar natural environments, implies the existence of problems in internal mechanisms working against progress and diminishing Zimbabwe’s maize productivity. Agricultural production decline in the country contributed to Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 2 of 19 food insecurity and intensified poverty (Chimhowu et al., 2010; Nyawo, 2012). This is a concern given the significance of agricultural output to the viability of numerous industries and sectors that rely on agriculture for raw materials and market (Zikhali, 2008). This study utilizes survey data obtained from two districts of Zimbabwe to analyse factors affecting technical efficiency of resettled A1 smallholder maize farmers under the command agriculture scheme (CAS). Currently, there is dearth of information available on the command agriculture scheme and its contribution to agricultural productivity in Zimbabwe, especially under A1 smallholder farmers. The paper made an important policy contribution towards designing of both public and private policies on key entry points that can be tapped into, so as to improve smallholder maize farmers’ productivity under the command agriculture scheme. 2. Technical efficiency Technical efficiency is a component of economic efficiency and reflects the ability of a farmer to maximize output from a given level of inputs (e.g., output-orientation). Several studies have evaluated the efficiency of resource use in agricultural production. Tracing theoretical developments in measuring technical efficiency to early works by (Färe & Knox, 1978), there has been increasing literature on technical efficiency of smallholder agricultural production in Zimbabwe. However, there are limited studies related to state-led contract or government contract farming such as command agriculture scheme. Reviewing global literature, remarkable works focusing on smallholder farmers' technical efficiency under government programs, government contracts and private contract farming do exist (Mango et al., 2015; Masuku et al., 2015; Mishra et al., 2018; Siziba et al., 2017). The average technical efficiency of smallholder farmers reported in these studies ranges between 0.45 and 0.90. This shows that smallholder farmers have low and highly variable levels of technical efficiency, especially in developing countries. Literature on technical efficiency in African agriculture is emerging. Globally, however, there is a wide body of empirical research on the economic efficiency of farmers in both developed and developing countries. While empirical literature on technical efficiency of farmers under different input support programs is vast in developed countries, Asian economies and a few African countries, there are limited studies in Zimbabwe that mainly focus on farm level technical efficiency of farmers participating under command agriculture scheme. It is against this background, that this study applied the single-stage modelling stochastic frontier approach to assess technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under the command agriculture scheme in Zimbabwe. 3. Material and methods 3.1. Study area The study was conducted in Chegutu and Zvimba Districts which are both located in Mashonaland West Province of Zimbabwe. Figure 1 shows location of these study areas. Mashonaland West Province has traditionally been the biggest producer of maize in the country (Odunze et al., 2015). However, the majority of people who dwell in Mashonaland West Province are classified as poor, and the main factor that accounts for the widespread poverty is lack of formal employment or poor salaries. As such, use of technical inputs is very low due to the fact that the majority of the farmers cannot afford them (Sachikonye, 2005). In addition, erratic rainfall patterns experienced in Zimbabwe have contributed to poor agricultural maize yields, and lead to poverty and food insecurity. Chegutu district is located in natural region II, in the middle of the northern part of the country. Rainfall ranges from 750 to 1 000 mm/year (Mazwi et al., 2017). It is fairly reliable, falling from November to March/April. Temperatures for Chegutu District range from 23°C in June to 31.3°C in October (Climate_Data, 2019). Following agrarian and land reform program initiated in 1999/2000, a large proportion of farms were subdivided into smaller units and allocated to new farmers under the A1 and A2 farming system. Chegutu district is a highly maize producing area, with production mainly done by A1 smallholder and A2 large-scale farmers (Katema et al., 2017). Smallholder Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 3 of 19 farmers constitute a larger population in the district. They produce maize mainly for consumption and sell surplus to local markets or the Grain Marketing Board (GMB). Zvimba district is under natural region IIa, with the highest diversified agricultural activities. In Zvimba district, the monthly maximum temperatures range between 21.8°C in June to 29.8°C in October (Climate_Data, 2019). This implies that maize performs well between September and April as it is a summer crop that requires a mean summer temperature of more than 23°C. Rainfall conditions are highly favorable for maize production, as it normally receives about 828 mm of rain per year, with most rainfall precipitating during mid-summer from October to March (Climate_Data, 2019). 3.2. Sampling procedure and sample size The study adopted a cross-sectional survey research design through employing face-to-face interviews. Multiple sampling methods were used in different stages with purposive, cluster and random sampling components being utilised to draw a representative sample of A1 smallholder maize farmers in Mashonaland West Province. In the first stage, purposive sampling was used to select Chegutu and Zvimba Districts out of the six districts in Mashonaland West Province. The two districts were selected because they possess climatic conditions of natural region IIa and IIb respectively, and these regions are very favorable for maize production (Mkodzongi, 2013). In the second stage clustered sampling procedure was applied followed by random selection in the third stage. A list of command agriculture scheme participants was collected from the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) for the two districts. There are 830 A1 smallholder maize farmers under CAS from Chegutu and Zvimba districts (Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization Irrigation and Development, 2017). For sample size determination, the (Yamane, 1967) formula for determining the sample size was used as illustrated below: n¼N ð1þNeÞ¼830 ð1þð830ð0:05Þ2Þ¼270 Where: n = sample size, N = population size, and e = Margin of error (MoE), e = 0.05. Thus far, 270 questionnaires were administered during data collection targeting 270 respondents (135 from each district). All of them responded giving a participation rate of 100%. During data analysis 240 questionnaires were used while 30 were invalid. Thus far, 89% of the target respondents were considered after discarding spoiled questionnaires to give a sample size of 240 respondents. Figure 1. Location of study areas in Mashonaland West Province, Source: (Google maps). Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 4 of 19 3.3. Conceptual framework The conceptual framework in Figure 2 demonstrates interrelationship of key variables that promote technical efficiency in maize production. Evidence exists that provision of input to farmers is one of the best ways of improving their agricultural activity and restore livelihoods to acceptable levels (Kato & Greeley, 2016). This is against a background where a production process is expected to transform inputs into outputs. For maize production, the following inputs are required; fertilizer, land seed and labour. Farmer managerial practices, socio-economic attributes and farm characteristics are also equally important in the transformation of inputs to outputs (Kassa, 2017). Thus far, efficiency of production is directly and indirectly affected by several institutional and socioeconomic factors (Chimai, 2011; Kassa, 2017; Magreta, 2011). Figure 2 therefore shows the interaction of a host of variables capable of impacting on the level of technical efficiency among smallholder maize farmers. Institutional (infrastructure, extension, credit and agricultural policies), farm and environmental (climate change, pest and diseases, soil fertility) factors may have direct or indirect influence of technical efficiency. Their indirect influence is manifested through technical and farmer level characteristics as illustrated in Figure 2. A host of these factors therefore influence the degree to which individual farmers gravitated towards the frontier. Environmental factors like climate change, pests and diseases have been reported to affect efficiency in maize production (Shrestha et al., 2014). Institutional factors also influence maize production efficiency depending on whether they are supportive of non-supportive (Kassa, 2017; Magreta, 2011). At farmer level socio-economic attributes will also influence how individual farmers combine technical inputs into outputs (Addai et al., 2014; Kassa, 2017). Technical factors like fertilizer usage and labour will also influence technical efficiency of maize production given the generic poor soils in most rural farming areas of Zimbabwe. Figure 2. Conceptual framework, source: Modified from (Kassa, 2017). Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 5 of 19 The outcome of the conceptual framework presents the expected net effect of the interaction of endogenous (farm and farmer characteristics) and exogenous (environmental and institutional) variables (Kassa, 2017). Depending on how these variables exist at individual level, outcome effects of technical efficiency can be negative or positive (Chimai, 2011). A positive outcome is premised for this study assuming these variables provide a favorable environment for smallholder maize farmers. 3.4. Data analysis The study adopted methods of analysis similar to the work of (Bempomaa & Acquah, 2014). Using various analytical techniques which are outlined below, data was analysed using a combination of Stata 15 (IC version) and Microsoft EXCEL. 3.5. Parametric stochastic frontier model (SF) The stochastic production function model proposed independently by (Aigner et al., 1977) was used for estimating technical efficiency in this study. For cross-sectional data, the model can be expressed as illustrated in equation (1) following (Bempomaa & Acquah, 2014) as indicated: Yi ¼fðXi;βÞexpðεiÞ¼ fðXi;βÞexpðVi UiÞ;i¼1;2;......:; N (1) Where Y i represents the output of the i th , X i is vector containing the logarithms of inputs, β is a vector of unknown parameters to be estimated, and ε i denotes the composed error term consisting of two independent elements V i and U i such that ε i = V i -U i . V i presents the stochastic noise and other factors beyond the farmers’ control; U i denotes the inefficiency error term which is nonnegative. This allows all observations to be below the stochastic production frontier. The two sided error term V i is identically and independently distributed with mean zero and variance ϐ 2v . Furthermore, V i and U i are distributed independently of each other and of the independent variables. Following from equation (1), technical efficiency can then be specified as: Ti ¼f Xi ;βð Þexp Vi Uið Þ=f Xi ; βð Þexp Við Þ¼ epf uig(2) With reference to equation (2), the T i (technical efficiency) is the ratio of the observed output to the frontier output. Technical efficiency takes a value between zero and one. If u i = 0, then the production firm is 100% efficient; if u i > 0, then there is some inefficiency. From a series of studies, authors have explored the implications of a variety of distributional assumption and estimation of efficiency (Balogun et al., 2017; Mango et al., 2015). Generally, it is required to assume a distribution of u i from (Balogun et al., 2017): Half-normal distribution: u t ~ N + (0, Ϭu) Exponential distribution: EXP (ƛ) Truncated-normal distribution: u t ~ N + (u i , Ϭu) Gamma distribution: ɼ~ (m, Ϭu) The choice of distribution of u i influences quite strongly a level of TE and less rankings of inputs. Under a weak assumption, it is usually possible and appropriate to estimate models using the method of least squares (Bempomaa & Acquah, 2014). Slightly stronger distributional assumption allows estimating unknown parameters using maximum likelihood (Coelli et al., 2005). 3.6. Specification of the empirical model The Cobb-Douglas production function was adopted to estimate the stochastic frontier production function. The Cobb Douglas functional form was selected because it is flexible, self-dual and its Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 6 of 19 returns to scale are easily interpreted (Bravo-Ureta & Evenson, 1994). The empirical model of the stochastic production frontier is specified as illustrated in equation (3) below: logYi¼β0þ∑4 i¼1βilog Xiþei;ei¼viui(3) Where Y i is the output of maize (tonnes) produced by i th A1 farmer in 2018/2019 season, X i is a vector of four input variables including labour, basal fertiliser, top dressing fertiliser, and area of land allocated to maize production, as indicated in Table 1. Β i denotes the unknown parameters to be estimated; v i denotes random shocks; u i is the one-sided non-negative error representing inefficiency in production. 3.7. Estimating factors affecting technical efficiency The single-stage approach was adopted for this study. From (Bempomaa & Acquah, 2014), the approach involves a concurrent estimation where inefficiency effects are expressed as an explicit function of explanatory variables. The study examined factors that affect farmers’ production performance, as illustrated in equation (4) following Mango et al. (2015): Ui¼α0þ∑8 i¼1αiZi(4) Where; α 0 . . . α i are parameters to be estimated, Z i is a vector of farmer and household socioeconomic characteristics including: marital status, gender, age, educational level of household head, household size, other sources of income and occupation status, as explained in Table 1 below: 3.8. Estimating the level of productivity According to (Onumah et al., 2010), the estimated parameters β 1 , β 2 . . . β 4 are output elasticities of corresponding inputs in the Cobb-Douglas stochastic frontier production function. However, elasticities of output based on different inputs are functions of the level of inputs employed in the CobbDouglas stochastic production function. Moreover, when the output and input variables have been normalized by their respective sample means, the first-order coefficient can be interpreted as elasticities of output in relation to the different inputs. That means elasticities of inputs from the Cobb Douglas production function are equal to coefficients. Based on the farm’s output elasticities, it would be known whether the farm exhibits constant returns to scale, decreasing returns to scale or increasing returns to scale and implication to the farm. The summation of all output elasticities gives the returns to scale (RTS) as illustrated by equation (5) below: RTS ¼∑4 I¼1ey (5) 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Summary statistics Table 2 presents a summary of demographics and socio-economic characteristics for sampled A1 smallholder maize farmers under Command Agriculture Scheme from Chegutu and Zvimba districts. On average, across all districts, the distribution of gender revealed more males than females, 56% and 55% for Chegutu and Zvimba Districts, respectively. Marital status findings indicated that the majority of household heads were married in Chegutu district (47.50%) and Zvimba district (48.33%). The survey identified that, among the participants, the largest group of A1 farm owners had attended secondary education across all the two districts 46% and 50% for Chegutu and Zvimba district respectively. In terms of occupation status, the largest group was represented with full-time farmers in Chegutu district (37.50%) and Zvimba district (35.83%). The dominant age group among sampled A1 smallholder maize farmers ranged from 41 to 50 years (30%) in all districts, with 30% in Chegutu district and 34.2% in Zvimba district, Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 7 of 19 large enough to pay for labour to manage maize production. Similar comparable observations were noted by several studies highlighting that off-farm income received might not be used for financing farming activities, and farmers might have spent much of their time working off the farm and failing to manage their maize farms properly, thus off-farm income opportunities may reduce farm resources and the farmers’ farming efforts (Alene & Hassan, 2003; Baruwa & Oke, 2012; Deme et al., 2015; Obwona, 2006). 4.14. Marital status Marital status was significant at a 5% level with a p-value of 0.040 for Zvimba A1 smallholder maize farmers. The negative coefficient sign indicates that change of the household head from being single (0) to married (1) among A1 smallholder maize farmers decreases technical inefficiency. The results reveal that a 1% change of the household head from being single to married leads to a 0,399% decrease in technical inefficiency ceteris paribus. Married household heads have labour benefits critical for maize productivity that is labour intensive (land preparation, planting weeding, chemical spraying and harvesting). The observed association may be explained by extra labour benefits associated with married households. 4.15. Gender Gender was significant at 1% level with a p-value of 0.004 for Zvimba A1 smallholder maize farmers. The positive coefficient sign indicates that a change from a male (0) to female (1) headed household among A1 smallholder maize farmers increases technical inefficiency, implying that male farmers are relatively more efficient in maize production compared to female farmers. The results reveal that a 1% change from a male to female-headed household leads to a 0,399% increase in technical inefficiency ceteris paribus. Considering that planting, weeding, harvesting and other crop management operations are labour-intensive and more suited to males, this result is not surprising. Female farmers also have relatively less access to productive resources. The result could also be explained by the imbalance in resource access by gender. These findings are consistent with previous comparable studies highlighting that in some communities, agricultural activities are deemed a male’s work, meaning males allocate the majority of their times for outdoor activities where agriculture is the paramount (Belete, 2020). 4.16. Occupation status Occupation status was significant at a 5% level with a p-value of 0.030 for Zvimba A1 smallholder maize farmers. The positive coefficient sign indicates that an increase in occupation status increases technical inefficiency. The results reveal that a 1% increase in occupation status leads to a 0,39% increase in technical inefficiency ceteris paribus. A farmer with a formal occupation (outside farming) will have reduced farming time and attention on maize farming activities, thereby negatively affecting productivity, while income received from formal occupation outside farming might not be used to finance farming activities, as suggested by previous literature (Deme et al., 2015; Goodwin et al., 2004; McNally, 2002). 4.17. Estimating the productivity level Table 5 indicates productivity level of A1 smallholder maize farmers under CAS in Chegutu and Zvimba districts. The productivity is observed from the production elasticities and returns to scale. From Table 5, all inputs are inelastic, with a positive relationship with output from both districts. Input elasticities are deemed inelastic if a 1% increase in the input leads to a less than 1% increase in output (Bempomaa & Acquah, 2014). Under Chegutu district, basal fertiliser had the largest elasticity coefficient of 0.505, followed by area allocated to maize with an elasticity coefficient of 0.486. Under Zvimba district, the area allocated to maize had the largest elasticity coefficient of 0.273, followed by basal fertiliser with an elasticity coefficient of 0.160. Since all input elasticities are inelastic and have a positive relationship with output, an effort to increase their usage in Zvimba district will not significantly increase output ceteris paribus. With respect to Chegutu district, in as much as all input elasticities are inelastic, an effort to increase their Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 14 of 19 usage (basal fertiliser, labour and area) will increase output, albeit less in proportion to the amount of input used as follows: a 1% increase in basal fertiliser usage will increase output by 0.505%, while a 1% increase in labour will increase output by 0.433%. Lastly, a 1% increase in area allocated to maize production will increase output by 0.486%. In terms of returns to scale, the production function of farmers from Chegutu district exhibited increasing returns to scale (1.4326), whilst farmers from Zvimba district exhibited decreasing returns to scale (0.5369). Thus far, a proportionate 1% increase in all inputs for Chegutu A1 smallholder maize farmers under CAS will increase output by 1.43% ceteris paribus, since they are operating at an irrational stage of production with a mean technical efficiency of 85%. To improve their scale of production efficiently, the following inputs may be targeted: basal fertiliser, labour and area allocated to maize production ceteris paribus. With reference to Zvimba A1 smallholder maize farmers under CAS, a proportionate 1% increase in all inputs will increase output by 0.54% ceteris paribus, since their mean technical efficiency is close to 100% (94%). Thus far, to improve their scale of production efficiently, the following inputs may be targeted: basal fertiliser, top dressing fertiliser and area allocated to maize production ceteris paribus. 4.18. Insights drawn from the analysis The following understandings can be drawn from the results presented in this chapter. Firstly, results highlight relatively high technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under the CAS from both districts (Chegutu = 85%; Zvimba = 94%). Despite the relatively higher mean technical efficiency, results reveal that all sampled A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme produced below the frontier, with a wide variation range in their technical efficiency scores suggesting that farmers’ combination of inputs yielded different output levels that can be attributed to different socio-economic attributes of farmers and location. Secondly, farmers could bridge the gap between their observed output and the frontier output by targeting input usage and several socio-economic factors, as detailed below. Chegutu farmers with a lower mean technical efficiency score (85%) have a better option of targeting input usage than socio-economic factors. A proportionate increase in all inputs for Chegutu farmers will more than double output. In addition, they could increase the scale of production efficiently by employing more inputs, specifically basal fertiliser, labour and area allocated, to maize production to expand output. Socio-economic factors like age and experience in maize farming are also other options that may be targeted to improve output. Thirdly, Zvimba farmers with a higher technical efficiency score (94%) have a better option of bridging the gap between their observed output and frontier output by targeting socio-economic factors such as farming experience, education, other sources of income, gender, marital status and occupation status. This may be supported by employing more inputs, specifically basal fertiliser, top dressing fertiliser and area allocated to expand output although this route may not yield much in terms of output improvement. Table 5. Elasticity of production and returns to scale (RTS) Variable Chegutu district Zvimba district Elasticity Elasticity In Basal Fertiliser .5050014 .1601673 In Topdressing (Nitrogen) fertiliser .0078996 .1015932 In Labour .433437 .0018922 In Area .4862647 .2732007 RTS 1.4326027 0.5368534 Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 15 of 19 5. Conclusions The study concluded that, A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme from Chegutu and Zvimba districts of Zimbabwe exhibited high level of technical efficiency (85% and 94%, respectively), suggesting good usage of inputs by the majority of these farmers. However, despite good usage of inputs by the majority of sampled farmers, all were producing below the frontier, with wide variation ranges in their technical efficiency scores. Thus far, farmers’ combination of inputs yielded different output levels, with room for improvement to bridge the gap between the observed output and the frontier output. Output can be increased by increasing the usage of the following inputs: basal fertilizer, labour and area allocated for maize production for Chegutu farmers. Zvimba farmers will need to increase usage of basal fertilizer, top dressing fertilizer and area allocated for maize production to boost output. With reference to socioeconomic factors, the following factors (age, other source of income, sex and occupation) increase technical inefficiency, while an increase/change in the following factors (maize farming experience, education and marital status) reduces technical inefficiency. Lastly, the production function of farmers from Chegutu district exhibited increasing returns to scale, whilst the production function of farmers from Zvimba district exhibited decreasing returns to scale. Overall, the study argues that despite high levels of technical efficiency from the study areas, Chegutu farmers could bridge their 15% gap between their observed output and frontier output by focusing more on input usage with increasing returns to scale (1.43%). Zvimba farmers could bridge their 6% gap between their observed output and frontier output by focusing more on socioeconomic drivers of technical inefficiency, given the decreasing returns to scale of their inputs (0.54%). 5.1. Policy recommendations To improve maize output for A1 smallholder maize farmers under the command agriculture scheme from Chegutu district: (1) The study recommends a proportionate increase in the usage of the following inputs: basal fertilizer, labour and area allocated to maize production. These inputs have a statistically significant positive influence on technical efficiency. The elasticity coefficients are close to one (although inelastic) and the return to scale is above 1% (1.43%), thus suggesting an increasing return to scale. (2) This may be supported by strategic targeting of the following socio-economic factors: age and experience in maize farming. Targeted training of less experienced maize farmers, informal education, digital literacy training and easy access of maize farming information among older farmers will reduce technical inefficiency. To improve maize output A1 smallholder maize farmers under the command agriculture scheme from Zvimba district: (1) The study recommends strategic targeting of the following socio-economic factors maize farming experience, other sources of income, education, marital status, gender and occupation. Customized informal education training on maize production targeting less experienced and uneducated farmers will reduce technical inefficiency and improve output. Addressing sex differential barriers will reduce technical inefficiency among female headed households capable of improving output. Allocating more labour to maize production (as manifested through marital status) among single headed households will also trigger output. For households with other occupations and sources of income outside maize farming, enough allocation of their time and resources to maize production may reduce technical inefficiency and promote output. (2) The above may be supported by a deliberate increase in the usage of the following inputs: basal fertilizer, topdressing fertilizer and area allocated to maize production. These inputs have a statistically significant positive influence on technical efficiency. Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 16 of 19 Acknowledgements The paper was formulated from an MSc dissertation titled: “Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under Command Agriculture Scheme in Zimbabwe: The case of Chegutu and Zvimba districts” submitted to the University of Fort Hare, South Africa. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Author details Norman T. Muzeza 1 Amon Taruvinga 1 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8829-2826 Peter Mukarumbwa 2 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2387-9236 1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa. 2 Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, National University of Lesotho, Roma, Lesotho. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Citation information Cite this article as: Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme in Zimbabwe: The case of Chegutu and Zvimba Districts, Norman T. Muzeza, Amon Taruvinga & Peter Mukarumbwa, Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543. References Abdulai, S., Nkegbe, P. K., & Donkoh, S. A. (2013). Technical efficiency of maize production in Northern Ghana. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(43), 5251–5259. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.7753 Addai, K. N., Owusu, V., & Danso-Abbeam, G. (2014). Effects of farmer – basedorganization on the technical efficiency of maize farmers across various agro -ecological zones of Ghana. Journal of Economics and Development Studies, 2(1), 141–161. http://jedsnet. com/journals/jeds/Vol_2_No_1_March_2014/7.pdf Aigner, D., Lovell, C. K., & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(77)90052-5 Alene, A. D., & Hassan, R. M. (2003). The determinants of farm-level technical efficiency among adopters of improved maize production technology in Western Ethiopia. Agrekon, 42(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03031853.2003.9523606 Balogun, O. L., Akinyemi, B. E., & Adam, E. (2017). Land fragmentation effects on technical efficiency of cassava farmers in South-West Geopolitical Zone, Nigeria. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1387983. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1387983 Baruwa, O. I., & Oke, J. T. O. (2012). Analysis of the technical efficiency of small-holder Cocoyam Farms in Ondo State, Nigeria. Tropicultura, 30(1), 36–40. http://www.tropicultura.org/text/v30n1.pdf#page=38 Belete, A. S. (2020). Analysis of technical efficiency in maize production in Guji Zone: Stochastic frontier model. Agriculture and Food Security, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00270-w Bempomaa, B., & Acquah, H. D. G. (2014). Technical efficiency analysis of Maize production: Evidence from Ghana. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 8(2–3), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.19041/ APSTRACT/2014/2-3/9 Bravo-Ureta, B. E., & Evenson, R. E. (1994). Efficiency in agricultural Production: The case of peasant farmers in Eastern Paraguay. Agricultural Economics, 10(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1994. tb00286.x Chimai, C. B. (2011). Determinants of technical efficiency in smallholder sorghum farming in Zambia. The Ohio State University. Chimhowu, A. O., Manjengwa, J., & Feresu, S. (2010). Moving forward in Zimbabwe: Reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development through policy dialogue. University of Zimbabwe, Harare. Climate_Data .(2019). Climate data for cities worldwide). Accessed 13 January 2019. https://en.climate-data.org/ Coelli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., O’Donell, C. J., & Battese, G. E. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis (2nd) ed.). Springer. Deme, S. G., Matthews, N., & Henning, J. (2015). Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of smallholder maize farmers in Ethiopia. In Richard Cooksley (Eds.), 20th international farm management congress, Laval University, Québec City, Québec, Canada (Vol. 2, pp. 1–10). Laval University. http://ifmaonline.org/ wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/15_NPR_Deme_etal_ P44-531.pdf FAO. 2016. “World food programme crop and food supply assessment mission report.”. Färe, R., & Knox, C. A. L. (1978). Measuring the technical efficiency of production. Journal of Economic Theory, 19(1), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/00220531(78)90060-1 Goodwin, B. K., Mishra, A. K., Goodwin, B. K., & Mishra, A. K. (2004). Farming efficiency and the determinants of multiple job holding by farm operators. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(3), 722–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00614.x Kassa, Y. (2017). Determinants of technical efficiency in maize production of smallholder farmers; The Case of Fogera District, South Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. University of Gondar. https://core.ac.uk/download/ pdf/199937443.pdf Katema, T., Mwakiwa, E., Hanyani-Mlambo, B. T., Munashe Gomera, R., & Chamboko, T. (2017). An analysis of the profitability of groundnut production by small-holder farmers in Chegutu District, Zimbabwe. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 8 (8), 167–175. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index. php/JEDS/article/view/36608 Kato, T., & Greeley, M. (2016). Agricultural input subsidies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 47(2), 1–5. https://bulletin.ids.ac.uk/ index.php/idsbo/article/view/2716/html Kitila, G. M., & Alemu, B. A. (2014). Analysis of technical efficiency of small holder maize growing farmers of Horo Guduru Wollega Zone, Ethiopia: A Stochastic Frontier Approach. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 3(3), 204–2012. https://doi.org/10. 4314/star.v3i3.33 Kuhudzayi, B., & Mattos, D. (2018). A model for farmer support in ZimbabweOpportunity for Change. Agricultural Economics. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/view content.cgi?article=1968&context=agecon_corn hus-ker Magreta, R. (2011). Economic efficiency of rice production in smallholder irrigation schemes : A case of Nkhate Irrigation Scheme in Southern Malawi. University of Malawi. Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 17 of 19 Makuwerere Dube, L. (2020). Command agriculture and food security: An interrogation of state intervention in the post-fast track land redistribution Era in Zimbabwe. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 0021909620979330 https://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/abs/10.1177/0021909620979330. Mango, N., Makate, C., Hanyani-Mlambo, B., Siziba, S., Lundy, M., & Elliott, C. (2015). A stochastic frontier analysis of technical efficiency in smallholder maize production in Zimbabwe: The post-fast-track land reform outlook. Cogent Economics and Finance, 3(1), 1117189. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015. 1117189 Mano, R. (2006). Zimbabwe smallholder agriculture performance and recurrent food security crisis: Causes and consequences. In Paper prepared for the centre for applied social science (CASS).” University of Zimbabwe, Harare. Masuku, M. B., Raufu, M. O., & Malinga, N. G. (2015). The impact of credit on technical efficiency among vegetable farmers in Swaziland. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 4(1), 114. https://doi.org/10. 5539/sar.v4n1p114 Mazvimavi, K., Ndlovu, P. V., Henry, A., & Murendo, ca. 2012. “Productivity and efficiency analysis of maize under conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe.” In International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Foz Do Iguaçu, Brazil, 18-24 August, 2012., 1–23. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil: International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE). Mazwi, F., Chibwana, M., & Muchetu, R. G. (2017). Land, Agrarian reform in Zimbabwe viewed from a transformative social policy perspective. Africanus, 47(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.25159/0304-615X/2168 McNally, S. (2002). Are ‘Other gainful activities’ on farms good for the environment? Journal of Environmental Management, 66(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jema.2002.0576 Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development. 2016. “Crop and livestock assessment report, Mashonaland West Province, Zimbabwe.”. Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization Irrigation and Development. 2017. “Ministry of Agriculture Database Provincial Annual Report: Mashonaland West Province, Zimbabwe. Unpublished Report.”. Mishra, A. K., Shaik, S., Khanal, A. R., & Bairagi, S. (2018). Contract farming and technical efficiency: Evidence from low value and high value crops in Nepal. Agribusiness, 34(2), 426–440. https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/agr.21533 Mkodzongi, G. (2013). Fast tracking land reform and rural livelihoods in Mashonaland West Province of Zimbabwe : Opportunities and constraints, 20002013. The University of Edinburgh. https://era.ed.ac. uk/bitstream/handle/1842/9717/Mkodzongi2013.pdf? sequence=2 Mutonodzo-Davies, C. (2010). The political economy of cereal seed systems in Zimbabwe: rebuilding the seed system in a post-crisis economy . Future Agricultures Consortium (FAC). https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/open docs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/2333/FAC_ Working_P-aper_015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Nyawo, V. Z. (2012). Zimbabwe post-fast track land reform programme: The Different Experiences Coming through. International Journal of African Renaissance StudiesMulti-, Inter-and Transdisciplinarity, 9(1), 36–49. https://www.tandfon line.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18186874.2014.916858 Obwona, M. (2006). Determinants of technical efficiency differentials amongst small-and medium-scale farmers in Uganda: A case of Tobacco Growers. African Economic Research Consortium, Nairobi. https:// opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20. 500.12413/2237/RP-152.pdf?sequence= 1&isAllowed=y Odunze, D., Van Niekerk, J. A., & Ndlovu, S. (2015). Assessment of factors that impact on the viability of contract farming: A case study of maize and Soya Beans in Mashonaland West and Central Provinces in Zimbabwe. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 43(2), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.46694/jss. 2018.09.33.3.235 Onumah, E. E., Brümmer, B., & Hörstgen-Schwark, G. (2010). Elements which delimitate technical efficiency of fish farms in Ghana. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 41(4), 506–518. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1749-7345.2010.00391.x Sachikonye, L. (2005). Revisiting the land question: The land is the economy. African Security Review, 14(3), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10246029.2005. 9627368 Scoones, I., Marongwe, N., Mavedzenge, J., Murimbarimba, B., Mahenehene, F., & Sukume, C. (2012). Livelihoods after land reform in Zimbabwe: Understanding processes of rural differentiation. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(4), 503–527. https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.14710366.2012.00358.x Shrestha, R. B., Huang, W.-C., & Ghimire, R. (2014). Production efficiency of smallholder vegetable farms in Ilam district, Eastern Hill, Nepal. AmericanEurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 14(2), 150–154. https://doi.org/10.5829/ idosi.aejaes.2014.14.02.12287 Siziba, S., Katema, T., & Njerere, N. (2017). The efficiency of smallholder maize Production in Zimbabwe. An estimation of technical efficiency and its determinants. Cogent Economics & Finance, 4(2), 1– 14. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/TheEfficiency-of-Smallholder-Maize-Production-inSiziba-Katema/ 2d7d8d0b0292bcb7878423590b05407d5927ae8a Weldegebriel, H. (2015). The determinants of technical efficiency of farmers in Teff, maize and sorghum production: empirical evidence from central zone of Tigray region. Ethiopian Journal of Economics, 23(683– 2017–947), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.4314/eje.v23i1 Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd Editio) ed.). Harper and Row. Zikhali, P. (2008). Fast Track Land Reform, Tenure Security, and Investments in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe DP 08-23 EfD. Environment for Development Intiative. Accessed on14 May 2019. https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/ dpaper/dp-08-23-efd.html Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 18 of 19 © 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Economics & Finance (ISSN: 2332-2039) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Muzeza et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2163543 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543 Page 19 of 19