Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development

Vol. 6(2), pp. 842-850, August, 2020. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0477

Research Article
DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’
COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of
ETHIOPIA
Daniel Hailu
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Email address: danielhailu19@yahoo.com/dahagm19@gmail.com

Ethiopian agricultural sector is dominated by traditional technologies dependent on low input,

rain-fed and mixed farming. A shift from subsistence-oriented production to market-oriented
agricultural production is essential to meet the food needs of a growing and urbanizing
population. The study was carried out in Central Highlands of Ethiopia to determine the level of
household commercialization index (HCI) and to identify factors that determine variation in the
level of commercialization. The study used household level cross sectional data collected from
196 smallholder farmers selected by multistage sampling technique using a structured
questionnaire. Output commercialization indices were derived for all the participating farmers
and the mean HCI during the survey period was 61 percent. Tobit regression model were
employed to determine factors that affect smallholder commercialization. The model revealed
that level of commercialization was positively and significantly affected by higher levels of
potato production, educated household heads and household heads who owned larger number
of livestock (TLU) whereas household heads with highest family size, old aged household heads
and distant market from farm negatively and significantly affected commercialization. The study
concludes that smallholder farmers have a great potential for HCI that can be developed.
Younger peoples are comparatively more business-minded, produced beyond home
consumption and participated in selling than their older counterparts. Nowadays the farming
population is growing older and younger peoples are migrating to urban areas choosing city
life. Therefore, attracting the young generation to engage in agriculture is necessary. The study
suggested the need for policies to encourage the participation of young peoples in agriculture
sector and the development of market facilities in the area. Since the consumer demand is
shifting from fresh tubers to processed products the study also recommends the policy to
encourage farmers to sell processed products than fresh tubers.

Key Words: Commercialization, commercialization index, Smallholders, Potato, Determinants, Market participation,
Ethiopia.

INTRODUCTION

The world’s population currently (2020) reached 7.8 billion
and about 81 million people will be added to the world’s
population every year (Worldometer, 2020). The report
shows that 56.2% of these populations live in urban areas.
Meeting the food needs of a growing and urbanizing
population will be difficult for the world’s agricultural
production and trading systems in coming decades. In
Ethiopia, small-scale subsistence-oriented farmers
dependent on low input, rain-fed and mixed farming
DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’ COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of ETHIOPIA
agriculture dominated with traditional technologies
accounted for about 95 per cent of the output (Pender et
al. 2004). A small-scale farmer produces more for their
own consumption and participates in the market as both
buyers and sellers.
Market-oriented agricultural production by these farmers to
improve productivity, economic development, social
welfare, income distribution and food security of
Daniel H. 843
developing countries is a challenge and need a policy
intervention. Therefore, to shift subsistence-oriented
production to market-oriented agricultural production, a
well-functioning policy options is important.
Smallholder commercialization is part of an agricultural
transformation process in which individual farms shift from
a highly subsistence-oriented production towards more
specialized production targeting markets both for their
input procurement and output supply (Jaleta et al., 2009).
Commercialization of agricultural systems leads to greater
market orientation of farm production; progressive
substitution out of non-traded inputs in favor of purchased
inputs; and the gradual decline of integrated farming
systems and their replacement by specialized enterprises.
Agricultural commercialization can broadly be seen from
two perspectives: a rise in the share of marketed output
and of purchased inputs per unit of output (Jaleta et al.
2009). Commercialization of smallholder farming can bring
about benefits to rural based households. Certain factors
influence its potential success or a farm household’s
decision to participate in the market is put in place. Factors
determining smallholder commercialization can be broadly
categorized as external and internal. External factors are
beyond the smallholder’s control. (Von Braun et al., 1994;
Pingali and Rosegrant, 1995; Pender et al., 2006). On the
other hand, factors like smallholder resource endowments
are household specific and considered to be internal
determinants (Jaleta et al., 2009).
Figure 1: Trends of potato production, population and per capita consumption.
1,000,000,000
900,000,000
800,000,000
Production (Kg)
700,000,000
600,000,000
500,000,000
400,000,000
300,000,000
200,000,000
100,000,000
-
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Production Year
Source: Own computation, data from CSA (2005-2016).
Potato can play an important role in improving food
security and cash income of smallholder potato growers in
Ethiopia. Potato produces more dry matter per hectare
than the major cereal crops in the world, more protein per
unit area than any other crop except soybeans and more
food per unit of water than any other major crop. It’s
relatively short crop cycle (3-4 months) and water efficient
qualities further magnify potato’s use value in
intensification and mitigation of prevailing climate change
challenging long cycled cereals.
DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’ COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of ETHIOPIA
Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is the third most important
food crop after rice and wheat for human consumption and
over a billion people on earth eat potatoes (Derek Stewart
and Gordon McDougall, 2012). According to FAO (2009)
potato is grown in more than 125 countries and hundreds
of millions of people in developing countries depend on
potatoes for their survival. From 2005, for the first time, the
developing world’s potato production exceeded that of the
developed, world developing countries are the world’s
biggest potato producers and importers FAO (2008).
Potato has been highly recommended by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a food security crop as
the world faces not only uncertainties in food supply, but
also steady hunger rates, a growing population, and an
increasing demand for food (FAO 2009).
Ethiopia is one of the principal potato producing countries
in Africa and probably displays a unique position for having
the highest potential area for cultivating potatoes (Tadesse
et al. 2018). Over I.3 million highland farmers could grow
Potatoes in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian highlands are densely
populated and home to millions of smallholder farmers.
The area under potato production in Ethiopia in the year
2016 was about 70,131 hectares with an average national
yield of 134.5 quintal (1.3 tons) per hectare for the main
cropping season and per capita consumption in 2016 was
10.3 kg per person.
Production (kg)
Population
per capita consumption
Despite its importance as a staple food and in combating
hunger and poverty, potato has been neglected in
agricultural development policies for food crops. Potatoes
are commonly regarded as a bulky, perishable commodity
with high transport costs and limited export potential,
confined mostly to cross-border transactions. The
increased demand in the food processing industry acts as
a major driving force behind the growth of the potato
market. Therefore, study on agricultural sales play an

important role in improving food security and cash income
of smallholder potato growers in Ethiopia.
Objectives of the Study
The general objective of this study was to describe the
characteristics of farm household’s market participation in
potato and explore strategies to promote smallholder
farmers’ participation in market oriented potato in the study
area. The specific objectives were:
 To describe the characteristics of farm
household’s market participation in potato
 To determine the level of the smallholder farmers’
market participation (HCI).
 To identify factors that determines the level of
commercialization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Study Area
The study was conducted in central highlands of Ethiopia.
The district is known in potato production and source of
potato supply for Addis Ababa and other urban
markets. Welmera is the district where the study was
conducted and located 29 km away from the capital city of
Addis Ababa. The area ranges in elevation from 2,000 to
3,000 masl.
Sampling Techniques
Multistage sampling procedure combining both purposive
and simple random sampling was used to identify farmers
to include in the sample. District and peasant associations
were selected purposively based on potential potato
production, cultivated land and number of potato farmers.
Finally, respondents were selected proportionally from
each peasant associations using systematic random
sampling techniques.
Sample Size Determination
The sample size was computed by Statistics Canada
(2010): that is a step-by-step approach where, first an
initial sample size is calculated and then it is adjusted for
the population, design effect and the response rate. Based
on the formulation, sample sizes of 196 respondents were
selected through random sampling.
Data Type and Sources
Data was obtained from both primary and secondary
sources using appropriate data collection instruments.
Primary data was collected from 2015/16 cropping season
using personally administered structured questionnaires.
Secondary data was gathered from country's statistical
report, crop variety register, annual reports, research
papers, website, books and unpublished reports.
DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’ COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of ETHIOPIA
J. Agric. Econs. Rural. Dev. 844
Method of Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics, Household Commercialization Index
(HCI) and Tobit model were used to analyze the primary
data collected from smallholder household heads using
structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics was used to
describe and analyze the socioeconomic characteristics of
small holder farmers. The HCI was used to determine
household level of commercialization. Finally, Tobit model
was used to analyze factors determining level of potato
commercialization.
Descriptive Statistics
The collected data from 196 smallholder farmers are
analyzed to describe the relevant demographic, social,
economic and farm specific features of the farmers.
Household Commercialization Index (HCI)
To analyze the commercialization level of households,
household agricultural output marketed index was used as
proxy of degree of commercialization. The index of
commercialization is calculated by taking the ratio of total
value of agricultural sales in the market by household in a
year to total value of agricultural production by the same
household in the same year. According to Von Braun et al,
(1994) HCI will be computed by:
Total value of crop sales
Market Participation / HCI / 
Total value of crop production
The index measures the extent to which household crop
production is oriented toward the market. A value of zero
would signify a totally subsistence oriented household
where a value closer to 1 implies the higher degree of
commercialization.
A two-limit Tobit regression model
Tobit regression model, originally formulated by Tobin in
1958, with a hybrid of the discrete and continuous
dependent variables was used to analyze determinants in
the potato producers’ level of commercialization. The use
of the Tobit model is intuitive because the parameter
estimates will be biased and inconsistent if OLS is used
(Gujarati, 2004). This is because OLS underestimates the
true effect of the parameters by reducing the slope. The
degree of bias will also increase as the number of
observations that take on the value of zero increases. This
suggests that OLS regression was not appropriate and
estimation with OLS would have led to biased parameters
estimates. Probit and Logit models could not be used in
this case because they are only used when the dependent
variable takes two values (Gujarati, 2006). Tobit model
was used because the dependent variable
commercialization index is censored and treated as
continuous values that range between 0 (subsistence
producers) and 100 (fully commercialized farmers),
Daniel H. 845
thereby avoiding crude distinction between
commercialized and non-commercialized household.
Therefore, Tobit regression model offered the most
preferred option.
The study followed Makhura (2001) and Bellemare and
Barrett (2006) who used Tobit model to specify a market
participation decision function. The Tobit model is
specified in Maddala (2001) and Hobbs (1997) as follows:
Y* = βx + µ -------------------------- (1)
Where, y* is the latent variable, and x is a vector of
independent factors, β is the corresponding vector of
parameters and µ is the error term.
Following Amemiya (1981) and Endrias et al., (2013), the
two-limit Tobit model was defined as;
n of the two - limit Tobit model is given by;
Yi*HCI   0    j zij  ui -------------------------- (2)
j 1
 loi  X 'i  
ln L   ln      ln . 
Yi  Loi   yi  yi *
Where Loi = 0 (lower limit) and L1i = 1 (upper limit) where φ and ϕ are normal and standard density functions.
The Marginal Effects
Tobit model parameters cannot be directly interpreted as
changes in the dependent variable brought about by
changes in independent variables. A Tobit model provides
a single coefficient for each independent variable despite
two distinct types of dependent variables censored and
uncensored. The marginal effects also account for the
probability of being commercialized.
The marginal effects of changes in explanatory variables
from Tobit regression analysis were computed following
the procedure proposed by McDonald and Moffitt (1980)
and later developed by Gould et al. (1989). McDonald and
Moffitt showed that a change in the independent variable
x has three effects on the dependent variable: The
marginal effects of these conditional expectations
respectively are given as:
1) The unconditional expected value of the dependent
variable: The marginal effects for the unconditional
expected value of the dependent variable.
E ( y |  ) 
 ( )                (5)
  study area was 8.7 TLU. Contracted land (rented,
2) The expected value of the dependent variable
conditional upon being between the limits: The
influence of explanatory variables on the expected value
of the dependent variable conditional on it being larger
than the lower bound.
E ( y |  )
                   (6)

DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’ COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of ETHIOPIA
Where Yi* is latent variable representing the HCI scores,
 0,  1,...,  n are parameters to be estimated, and HCI
is, Household Commercialization Index of the ith farmer. Zi
- factors that affect commercialization level. And ui - an
error term with mean zero and variance  (ui ~ IN (0, 
2 2
)) and HCI scores for the smallholder potato producers
range between zero and one.
1, if Yi* ≥ 1
Yi = Yi*, if 0< Yi* < 1
0, if Yi* ≤ 0 ---------------------- (3)
Two-limit Tobit model allows for censoring in both tails of
the distribution (Greene, 2003). The log likelihood that is
based on the doubly censored data and built up from sets
1  Yi  X 'i    l1i  X '  
      ln 1   (

i
)  ------------------ (4)
 Yi l1i  
3) The probability of being between the limits: The
influence of explanatory variables on the probability of
dependent variable to fall in the uncensored part of the
distribution.
 Pr( y  0 |  )  
  ( )            (7)
  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Descriptive Results
This sub-section presents the demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics of the 196 respondents.
The results of descriptive statistics analysis indicated that,
the majority of respondents were relatively old. Sampled
age of respondents was between 18 to 73 years. About
52.5% of the total sampled HHs had at least 6 persons in
the household. The results of this study show that only
27% of the farmers in the study area received off-farm
income. Average livestock holding per household in the
sharecropped, gifted or borrowed) covered 51.2 percent of
the potato farm in the production period which is
substantially larger than the size of owner-operated land.
About 52 percent of respondents participated in farmer
groups or cooperatives that facilitate agricultural
production and marketing process.
In the production period, 98.5 percent of the potato
producer participated in the markets. As shown in the
Table 1, 85 percent of the farmers sold potato during the
 J. Agric. Econs. Rural. Dev. 846

postharvest period (November to February) and also 91% Aggreg 108,52 45,32 437,2 1,344, 1,935, 69
of the marketing performed on the farm. ate 0 5 76 825 946
Percent 6 2 23 69 100
Table 1: Preferred period of selling by farmer age
Time of selling Freq. Percentage
March 14 7
April 7 4 Household Level Of Commercialization
October 7 4
November 40 20 The degree of household commercialization in the study
December 36 18 area ranged from 0 to 1 across the sampled households.
January 56 29 As shown in Table 3, about 72% of households found to
February 36 18 be at higher level of commercialization selling on average
Total 196 100 70% of the total quantity of the produce, whereas 7% of
Source: own computation the households are at low commercialization level, with
average sell of 20% of the produce, respectively. In
Why Farmers Grow Potato? The statistical summary general the average level of household commercialization
provided in Figure 2 shows that the larger proportion (86%) in the study area was found to be 61%, which is
of the farmers produces potato for selling purpose, which significantly above the national commercialization
indicates producers in the area were business-minded. average.

Table 3: Household Level commercialization Index

Figure 2. Target for growing potato (HCI)
Level of Freq. Percentage HCI
For Commercialization Min Mean Max
For
Consumpti Consumpti Low 14 7.14 0.00 0.20 0.30
on on and Medium 40 20.41 0.31 0.43 0.50
1% selling High 142 72.45 0.51 0.70 1.00
13% Total 196 100.00 0.00 0.61 1.00
For Selling
86%
Econometric Results and Discussions

Determinants of smallholder commercialization

Tobit regression model estimated to assess the

The average annual crop harvest of the households was determinants of commercialization. As shown in the table
0.99 ton. As shown in the table 2 below, 69% of the total 4, among the farmer-specific characteristics, higher levels
harvest of potato was marketed. High quantity of harvest of potato production, educated household heads and
could lead households to higher level of household heads that possess large number of livestock
commercialization. (TLU) were a positive and significant effect on
commercialization. However, household heads with
highest family size, old aged household heads and distant
Table 2: Household Decision on Production market from farm were a negative and significance effect
Potato Allocation of Production (Kg) Percentag on commercialization.
Varietie Quantit Quant Quant Quanti Quanti e
s y ity ity ty sold ty (sold/prod
consu spoile Left produc uced) Table 4: Tobit regression results (determinants of
med d for ed smallholder commercialization)
seed Variables Coef. (HCI) Std. Err. t P>|t|
Belete 3,200 1,800 16,80 48,400 70,200 69 Age of HHH -0.2969994*** 0.0912179 -3.26 0.001
0 Production of 0.0562684** 0.0241355 2.33 0.021
Digem 250 100 2,700 4,650 7,700 60 Potato
egn Tropical 0.0428146*** 0.0123548 3.47 0.001
Guasa 1,600 0 9,000 16,000 26,600 60 Livestock Unit
Guden 100,32 42,12 399,1 1,245, 1,786, 70 (TLU)
e 0 5 00 301 846 Family Size in -0.0409379* 0.0214026 -1.91 0.057
Jalene 3,000 1,300 7,376 25,924 37,600 69 the HH
Tolcha 150 0 2,300 4,550 7,000 65

DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’ COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of ETHIOPIA

Distance to -0.0400501** 0.0180554 -2.22 0.028 sell their product to the market. Therefore, higher levels of
the nearest crop production enhanced smallholders’ market
market participation. This result is in a line with previous studies
Education 0.0093938** 0.0045515 2.06 0.040 conducted by Tadele et al. (2017) and Gebreslassie et al.
level of HHH (2015).
Membership 0.0379705 0.0252467 1.50 0.134
to Education Level of the Household Head: The result
cooperatives showed positive and significant relationship between the
Land tenure -0.0243117 0.0249402 -0.97 0.331 educational status of the household head and the decision
status to participate in potato market at 5% significance level. A
Market price 0.0084667 0.0119151 0.71 0.478 unit change in the years of education level of households
of potato would increase the probability of a farmer to participate in
Credit service 0.0038328 0.0031188 1.23 0.221 the market by 0.9 percent the mean level of
Off-farm 0.0005410 0.0015594 0.35 0.729 commercialization by 0.8 percent. Educated producers
income more attained on the training and understand faster those
Note: *** Significant at 1%, ** Significant at 5% and * complex farming decisions and more effective in their
Significant at 10% processing of technical knowledge. Furthermore, such
farmers adopt improved technologies faster because they
The estimated parameters on the Tobit model presented understand the benefit associated with the technology,
in Table 4 only indicate the direction of the effects that the hence increasing the production and so that they can
variables have on CHI levels. The results were subjected produces more surpluses for market. Thus more years of
to post estimation test using marginal effect analysis in schooling of the household head would lead to higher
order to estimate the trivial change from each factor that participation in the market. The result is in conformity with
influences commercialization. the findings of Tadele et al. (2017) and Aman et al. (2014)
that states education increases the ability of farmers to get
The marginal effect analysis and analyze relevant market information which would
improve the managerial ability of the farmers in terms of
Quantification of the marginal effects of these variables is better formulation and execution of farm plans, and
important in order to estimate the change that will occur acquiring better information to improve their marketing
with respect to a change in one unit of that variable. performance.

Table 5. The marginal effects of change in Possession of Livestock: Number of livestock owned in
explanatory variables (HCI) TLU was found to positively and significantly affect
Variables dy/dx commercialization at 1% significant level. A unit change in
the number of oxen owned by households would increase
∂ E (y|x) ∂ E (y*|x)
the probability of a farmer to participate in the market by
Age of HHH -0.2937 -0.2760
4.2 percent the mean level of commercialization by 4
Production of Potato 0.0556 0.0523
percent. Results revealed that livestock holding size,
Tropical Livestock Unit 0.0423 0.0398 which is a proxy for measuring wealth status of household
(TLU)
head, enables farmers to overcome liquidity constraints to
Family Size in the HH -0.0405 -0.0380 purchase and apply inputs and implement correct farm
Distance to the nearest -0.0396 -0.0372 management practices on time and increases the ability to
market produce more as compared to non-holders. This result has
Education level of HHH 0.0093 0.0087 been supported by the finding of Tadele et al. (2017) and
Membership to 0.0375 0.0353 Aman et al. (2014) who found livestock can positively
cooperatives contribute to crop production by providing natural fertilizer,
Land tenure status -0.0240 -0.0226 oxen used for traction power and source of cash to finance
Market price of potato 0.0084 0.0079 purchased inputs such as seed and fertilizer.
Credit service 0.0038 0.0036
Off-farm income 0.0005 0.0005 Family Size: Household size measured in Adult-
Equivalent (AE) affects level of participation in marketing
Potato Production: Value of total farm outputs (potato) negatively and significantly at 10% significant level. A unit
produced had a positive and significant effect on change in the number of family size would decrease the
commercialization at 5% significant level. A unit change in probability of a farmer to participate in the market by 4
the production of potato would increase the probability of percent and the mean level of market participation by 3.8
a farmer to participate in the market by 5.6 percent and the percent. Results revealed that households with more
mean level of commercialization by 5.2 percent. Results members and higher dependency will consume more of
revealed that as the level of potato production increased, the product. The negative impact of household size
the amount of marketable surplus supplied to market is indicated that the higher the family size, the lower will be
also increased. This is because when a farmer produces the amount of grain marketed. The result is consistent with
surplus of grain over food consumption, to reduce the that of Aman et al. (2014) and Benjamin et al. (2014) who
postharvest losses or perishability they are obligated to
DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’ COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of ETHIOPIA

found households with large family sizes need to feed their
family first and take the remaining small amount to the
market.
Age of the household heads: Age of household heads
which was measured in years was negatively and
significantly affects level of household’s potato
commercialization at 1% significance level. A unit change
in the age of HHHs in an increase order would decrease
the probability of a farmer to participate in the market by
29.4 percent the mean level of commercialization by 27.6
percent. Younger farm household heads participated more
in output markets than the older farmers. This is because
younger peoples are comparatively more educated than
the older farmers, had more contacts with extension agent
and avoid pre and post-harvest losses and are more
business-minded to participate in selling than their older
counterparts. The finding was consistent with Abafita et al.
(2016) and Mabiratu Dangia et al. (2019).
Distance of the market: The time taken in minutes of
walking time to the nearest market had negatively and
significantly affected the amount of potato sold in the
market at 5% significant level. A unit change in the
distance of the nearest market would decrease the
probability of a farmer to participate in the market by 4
percent the mean level of commercialization by 3.7
percent. This is because households living to the nearest
market will have adequate price information and the
benefit of marketing. The finding also shows that
promotion of better access to infrastructure and
institutional services may significantly contribute to
promoting market participation and hence
commercialization of smallholders. The finding was
consistent with Aman et al. (2014) and N.M. Agwu et al.
(2012) who found out that households that live far away
from markets have low market orientation thus less
commercialization.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Ethiopian highlands are densely populated and home
to millions of smallholder farmers. Over I.3 million highland
farmers could grow Potatoes in Ethiopia. Despite potato
played an important role in local food systems and for food
security, the production and marketing constraints made
the supply not to meet the demand. The area under potato
production was about 70,131 hectares and more than
943,233 tones were produced in 2016 during the main
cropping season. In Ethiopia per capita consumption was
10.3 kg per person which is very low as compared to world
per capita consumption.
In the production period, 98.5 percent of the potato
producer participated in the markets and 69% of the total
harvest of potato was marketed. The average level of
household commercialization in the study area was found
to be 61%, which is significantly above the national
DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’ COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of ETHIOPIA
J. Agric. Econs. Rural. Dev. 848
commercialization average. Among the farmer-specific
characteristics, higher levels of potato production,
educated household heads and household heads that
possess large number of livestock (TLU) were a positive
and significant effect on commercialization. However,
household heads with highest family size, old aged
household heads and distant market from farm were a
negative and significance effect on commercialization. The
study concludes that smallholder farmers have a great
potential for commercialization that can be developed in
the study area.
The farming population is growing older because young
people increasingly chose city life. Therefore, the study
suggested the need for policies to encourage the
participation younger generation to engage in agriculture
sector and the development of market facilities in the area.
Nowadays the consumer demand is shifting from fresh
tubers to processed products; the study also recommends
the policy to encourage farmers to sell processed products
than fresh tubers.
REFERENCES
Abafita, J., Atkinson, J. and Kim, C.-S. (2016). Smallholder
Commercialization in Ethiopia: Market Orientation and
Participation. International Food Research Journal
23(4): 1797-1807
Aman T. Adam B. and Lemma Z. (2014). Determinants of
smallholder commercialization of horticultural crops in
Gemechis District, West Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia.
African Journal of Agricultural Research. 310-319.
Amemiya T. (1981). Qualitative Response Models: A
Survey. Journal of Economic Literature 19: 1483-1536.
Bellemare M. F.and Barrett, C. B. (2006). An ordered tobit
model of market participation: evidence from Kenya and
Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88
(2): 324–337.
Benjamin A., Yaw Bonsu, O., Seini, W. (2014). Market
Participation of Smallholder Maize Farmers in the Upper
West Region of Ghana. African Journal of Agricultural
Research, 9(31): 2427-2435.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency) (2005-2016). Agricultural
Sample Survey. Report on Area and Production of Major
Crops; Private Peasant Holdings; Meher Season.
Derek Stewart and Gordon McDougall, (2012). Potato; A
nutritious, tasty but often maligned staple food. Food &
Health Innovation Service. November 2012.
Endrias G. Ayalneh B. Belay K. and Eyasu E. (2013).
Productivity and Efficiency Analysis of Smallholder
Maize Producers in Southern Ethiopia. 15p.
Daniel H. 849
FAO (2008). The global potato economy. International
Year of the Potato Secretariat. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
FAO (2009). Sustainable Potato Production. Guidelines for
Developing Countries. By N. Lutaladio, O. Ortiz, A.
Havercort and D. Caldiz. Rome: FAO (2009), pp. 92,
ISBN978-92-5-106409-2.
Gebreslassie H., Kebede M. and Kiros-Meles A. (2015).
Crop commercialization and smallholder farmers`
livelihood in Tigray region, Ethiopia. Journal of
Development and Agricultural Economics. 314-322.
Gould, B., W. Saup and R. Klemme (1989). Conservation
tillage: the role of farm and operator characteristics and
the perception of soil erosion. Land Economics,
65(2):167-182.
Greene, W.H., (2003). Econometric Analysis, 5th ed.
Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey. 1024p.
Gujarati D.N. (2004). Basic Econometrics. 4th Ed. New
Delhi: Mc-Graw Hill. 1002p.
Gujarati D.N. (2006). Essentials of Econometrics. 3rd ed.:
McGraw-Hill. New York, USA.
Hobbs J.L. (1997). Measuring the Importance of
Transaction Costs in Cattle Marketing. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 79: 1083-1095.
Jaleta M, Gebremedhin B, Hoekstra D. (2009).
Smallholder commercialization: Processes,
determinants and impact. ILRI Discussion Paper No.
18. 2009; pp. 18.
Mabiratu D. Prem Kumar D.and Gersam D. (2019).
Determinants of Maize Commercialization among
Smallholder Farmers: The Case of Nunu Kumba
District, East Wollega Zone, Oromia Regional State,
Western Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Agricultural
Extension, Economics & Sociology. 37(4): 1-8, 2019;
ISSN: 2320-7027.
Maddala, G. S. (2001). Introduction to Econometrics. 3rd
ed. John Willey and Sons Ltd. Econometric Society
Monograph no. 3 Cambridge University Press.
Makhura, M. (2001). Overcoming Transaction Costs
Barriers to Market Participation of Smallholder Cattle
Keepers in the Northern Province of South Africa. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Mcdonald J.F. Moffitt R.A. (1980). The use of Tobit
Analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics.
62(2):318-321.
DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’ COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of ETHIOPIA
Statistics Canada (2010). Survey Methods and Practices,
Minister of Industry. Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0T6. 396p.
N.M. Agwu, C.I. Anyanwu and E.I. Mendie (2012). Socio-
Economic Determinants of Commercialization among
Small Holder Farmers in Abia State, Nigeria. Greener
Journal of Agricultural Sciences. Vol. 2 (8), pp. 392-397,
December 2012.
Pender, J., Ruben, R., Jabbar, M. and Eleni, Gebre-
Medhin, (2004). Policies for Improved Land
Management and Agricultural Land Management and
Agricultural Market Development in the Ethiopian
Highlands. Summary of Papers and Proceedings. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, 2004, IFPRI.
Pender, J., Ehui, S. and Place, F. (2006). Strategies for
Sustainable Land Management in the Eastern African
Highlands, International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Pingali, L.P. and Rosegrant, M.W. (1995). Agricultural
commercialization and diversification: Process and
polices. Food Policy 20(3): 171–185.
Tadele Mamo, Wudineh Getahun, Agajie Tesfaye, Ali
Chebil, Tesfaye Solomon, Aden Aw-Hassan, Tolessa
Debele and Solomon Assefa (2017). Analysis of wheat
commercialization in Ethiopia: The case of SARD-SC
wheat project innovation platform. African Journal of
Agricultural Research. 841-849.
Tadesse B., Bakala F. and W. Mariam L. (2018).
Assessment of postharvest loss along potato value
chain: the case of Sheka Zone, southwest Ethiopia.
Von Braun J., Bouis H. and Kennedy E. (1994).
Conceptual Framework In Agricultural
Commercialization, Economic Development and
Nutrition, Chapter 2, Von Braun and Kennedy (eds), The
Johns Hopkins University Press, London.
Worldometer (2020). Real time world statistics. Available
at http://www.worldometers.info. Accessed September
14, 2020.
 J. Agric. Econs. Rural. Dev. 850

Accepted 24 September 2020

Citation: Daniel Hailu (2020). Determinants of Smallholder Potato Farmers’ Commercialization in Central Highlands of
Ethiopia, Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 6(2): 842-850.

Copyright: © 2020: Daniel H. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are cited.

DETERMINANTS of SMALLHOLDER POTATO FARMERS’ COMMERCIALIZATION in CENTRAL HIGHLANDS of ETHIOPIA