Mexico's gross domestic product (GDP) contracted unprecedentedly as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. While the primary sector has relatively been the most resilient, the agriculture sector lacks sufficiently strong productive dynamism and has high rates of informal work and low wages. Investing more in the sector's productive infrastructure would help accelerate economic recovery while improving people’s well-being. A public investment policy should be developed on the basis of evidence, such as that provided in this study. In 21 prospective scenarios that simulate the allocation of additional public investment in productive infrastructure across subsectors of agriculture, equivalent to 0.25 percent of GDP (around MXN 50 billion) between 2021 and 2023, there is an improvement in total and agrifood GDP, and in the well-being of the Mexican people, as measured by private consumption and rural poverty reduction. However, it is recommended that new investment be focused on certain subsectors and that it be financed through foreign borrowing. According to a ranking of subsectors that receive new investment, the sugar cane subsector ranks first in three of the four variables considered (private consumption, total GDP, agrifood GDP and rural poverty). Cereals, mainly maize, but also others (rice, sorghum, oats, barley and other cereals), and the more export-oriented crops, such as flowers and coffee, also appear at the top of the ranking.
This study highlights how, through a series of scenarios, public investments promoting agricultural productivity in Uganda could drive growth in agrifood production, with favourable impacts on the economy, on well-being and on poverty, especially in rural areas. Using a modelling tool to represent the Ugandan economy, with its multiple sectors and current fiscal constraints, the study ranked the subsectors of Uganda’s agriculture that, through the productivity impact of public investments representing 0.25 percent of GDP (on average, about 373 billion 2017 Uganda shillings) during the years 2023–2025, will generate the greatest socio-economic benefits, maximizing the cost-effectiveness of the public investments. Generally, economic growth and the welfare of households, as measured by their consumption, will be positively impacted, but the impacts will ultimately depend on the sector that receives the investment, which is shown in a ranking. The agricultural sectors targeted for government investment will increase their output (and food prices will thus fall), and this will stimulate growth in non-agricultural sectors, both by increasing final demand for non-agricultural products and by lowering input prices and fostering upstream processing. Lower food prices will have a significant impact since food represents a relatively large proportion of the consumption basket of poorest households. Furthermore, labour income for rural households will increase with productivity growth, and this will reduce rural poverty. The findings of this study provide important information about the priorities of Uganda’s National Development Plan (NDP) III and vision for agriculture, as well as new priorities to be considered for enabling economic recovery with increased well-being post-COVID-19.
This catalogue aims to improve the dissemination and outreach of FAO’s knowledge products and overall publishing programme. By providing information on its key publications in every area of FAO’s work, and catering to a range of audiences, it thereby contributes to all organizational outcomes. From statistical analysis to specialized manuals to children’s books, FAO publications cater to a diverse range of audiences. This catalogue presents a selection of FAO’s main publications, produced in 2021 or earlier, ranging from its global reports and general interest publications to numerous specialized titles. In addition to the major themes of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, it also includes thematic sections on climate change, economic and social development, and food safety and nutrition
Public support mechanisms for agriculture in many cases hinder the transformation towards healthier, more sustainable, equitable, and efficient food systems, thus actively steering us away from meeting the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the Paris Agreement. This report sets out the compelling case for repurposing harmful agricultural producer support to reverse this situation, by optimizing the use of scarce public resources, strengthening economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and ultimately driving a food systems transformation that can support global sustainable development commitments. The report provides policymakers with an updated estimate of past and current agricultural producer support for 88 countries, projected up until 2030. The trends emerging from the analysis are a clear call for action at country, regional and global levels to phase out the most distortive, environmentally and socially harmful support, such as price incentives and coupled subsidies, and redirecting it towards investments in public goods and services for agriculture, such as research and development and infrastructure, as well as decoupled fiscal subsidies. Overall, the analysis highlights that, while removing and/or reducing harmful agricultural support is necessary, repurposing initiatives that include measures to minimize policy trade-offs will be needed to ensure a beneficial outcome overall. The report confirms that, while a few countries have started repurposing and reforming agricultural support, broader, deeper, and faster reforms are needed for food systems transformation. Thus, it provides guidance (in six steps) on how governments can repurpose agricultural producer support – and the reforms this will take.
This year’s report should dispel any lingering doubts that the world is moving backwards in its efforts to end hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms. We are now only eight years away from 2030, but the distance to reach many of the SDG 2 targets is growing wider each year. There are indeed efforts to make progress towards SDG 2, yet they are proving insufficient in the face of a more challenging and uncertain context. The intensification of the major drivers behind recent food insecurity and malnutrition trends (i.e. conflict, climate extremes and economic shocks) combined with the high cost of nutritious foods and growing inequalities will continue to challenge food security and nutrition. This will be the case until agrifood systems are transformed, become more resilient and are delivering lower cost nutritious foods and affordable healthy diets for all, sustainably and inclusively.
"The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic marks the most significant, singular global disruption since World War II, with health, economic, political, and security implications that will ripple for years to come." -Global Trends 2040 (2021) Global Trends 2040-A More Contested World (2021), released by the US National Intelligence Council, is the latest report in its series of reports starting in 1997 about megatrends and the world's future. This report, strongly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, paints a bleak picture of the future and describes a contested, fragmented and turbulent world. It specifically discusses the four main trends that will shape tomorrow's world: - Demographics-by 2040, 1.4 billion people will be added mostly in Africa and South Asia. - Economics-increased government debt and concentrated economic power will escalate problems for the poor and middleclass. - Climate-a hotter world will increase water, food, and health insecurity. - Technology-the emergence of new technologies could both solve and cause problems for human life. Students of trends, policymakers, entrepreneurs, academics, journalists and anyone eager for a glimpse into the next decades, will find this report, with colored graphs, essential reading.
Working paper on the rural employment effects of dual agricultural development in Mexico - examines post-war rural development, underemployment in rural areas, government agency programmes for poverty- stricken villages, rural public works and the elimination of malnutrition, public investment in the agricultural sector, food production, etc., and evaluates impact on employment creation for permanent and temporary employment. References.
Abstract: August 1995 - By and large, it appears that the goals of agricultural reform are being met in Mexico. But measures such as decoupling income supports and price supports or reorienting research and extension could help farmers who cannot afford access to machinery and purchased inputs and services. López, Nash, and Stanton report the results of a study of Mexican farm households using 1991 survey data and a smaller resurvey of some of the same households in 1993. One study goal was to empirically examine the relationship between assets and the output supply function. Using a production model focusing on capital as a productive input, they found that both the supply level and the responsiveness (elasticities) to changing input and output prices tend to depend on the farmer's net assets and on how productive assets are used. Regression analysis using data from the surveys shows that farmers who use productive assets such as machinery tend to be positively responsive to price changes, while those with no access to such assets are not. Another study goal was to monitor the condition of Mexican farmers in a rapidly changing policy environment. The 1991 survey data suggest that farmers with more limited use of capital inputs (the low-CI group) were more likely to grow principally corn and to grow fewer crops, on average, than the others. They also had more problems getting credit and were less likely to use purchased inputs, such as seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides, or to use a tractor to prepare the soil. They tended to be less well-educated, and their land tended to be of lower quality. Results from the panel data showed conditions generally improving for the average farmer in the sample area between 1991 and 1993, during a period when agricultural reforms were implemented. Cropping patterns were more diversified, the average size of landholdings increased, the average farmer received more credit (in real terms), more farm households earned income from off-farm work, and more farmers used purchased inputs. Asset ownership and educational attainment also improved modestly. The very small low-CI group in this sample fared as well as, or better than, the other groups. True, their level of educational achievement fell, and fewer of them had off-farm income than in 1991. But their use of credit, irrigation, machinery, and purchased inputs increased more than for other groups. The limited data are not proof of a causal link, but the fact that the goals are being met should at least ensure that adverse conditions are not undermining reform. Farmers that lacked access to productive assets did not respond as well to incentives or take advantage of the opportunities presented by reform and may need assistance, particularly to get access to credit markets. There may be a good argument for decoupling income supports from price supports for farmers, since income payments that are independent of the vagaries of production could provide a more stable signal of creditworthiness than price supports do. Possibly reorienting research and extension services more to the needs of low-CI producers could also improve the efficiency with which the sector adjusts to new incentives. Hypotheses and tentative conclusions from this study will be explored further when more data are collected in 1995. This paper - a product of the International Trade Division, International Economics Department--is part of a larger effort in the department to investigate the effects of international trade policy on individual producers. The study was funded by the Bank's Research Support Budget under the research project Rural Poverty and Agriculture in Mexico: An Analysis of Farm Decisions and Supply Responsiveness (RPO 678-23).
This book investigates the role of wealth in achieving sustainable rural economic development. The authors define wealth as all assets net of liabilities that can contribute to well-being, and they provide examples of many forms of capital – physical, financial, human, natural, social, and others. They propose a conceptual framework for rural wealth creation that considers how multiple forms of wealth provide opportunities for rural development, and how development strategies affect the dynamics of wealth. They also provide a new accounting framework for measuring wealth stocks and flows. These conceptual frameworks are employed in case study chapters on measuring rural wealth and on rural wealth creation strategies. Rural Wealth Creation makes numerous contributions to research on sustainable rural development. Important distinctions are drawn to help guide wealth measurement, such as the difference between the wealth located within a region and the wealth owned by residents of a region, and privately owned versus publicly owned wealth. Case study chapters illustrate these distinctions and demonstrate how different forms of wealth can be measured. Several key hypotheses are proposed about the process of rural wealth creation, and these are investigated by case study chapters assessing common rural development strategies, such as promoting rural energy industries and amenity-based development. Based on these case studies, a typology of rural wealth creation strategies is proposed and an approach to mapping the potential of such strategies in different contexts is demonstrated. This book will be relevant to students, researchers, and policy makers looking at rural community development, sustainable economic development, and wealth measurement.
This comprehensive overview of local food systems explores alternative definitions of local food, estimates market size and reach, describes the characteristics of local consumers and producers, and examines early indications of the economic and health impacts of local food systems. Defining ¿local¿ based on marketing arrangements, such as farmers selling directly to consumers at regional farmers¿ markets or to schools, is well recognized. Statistics suggest that local food markets account for a small, but growing, share of U.S. agricultural production. For smaller farms, direct marketing to consumers accounts for a higher percentage of their sales than for larger farms. Charts and tables.
