The effects of agricultural output market access interventions on agricultural, socio-economic, food security, and nutrition outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Campbell Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1002/cl2.1411
Pierre Marion, Etienne Lwamba, Andrea Floridi, Suvarna Pande, Megha Bhattacharyya, Sarah Young, Paul Fenton Villar, Shannon Shisler
{"title":"The effects of agricultural output market access interventions on agricultural, socio-economic, food security, and nutrition outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review","authors":"Pierre Marion,&nbsp;Etienne Lwamba,&nbsp;Andrea Floridi,&nbsp;Suvarna Pande,&nbsp;Megha Bhattacharyya,&nbsp;Sarah Young,&nbsp;Paul Fenton Villar,&nbsp;Shannon Shisler","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>An estimated two billion people do not have sufficient access to nutritious food, and nearly half are dependent on small-scale and subsistence farming. Projections show that the global population is not on track to reach the Sustainable Development Goals. With this in mind, development actors are increasingly seeking to better integrate rural farmers into agricultural markets. This synthesis of the literature can help to inform policy decisions to improve outcomes for smallholder farmers in low- and middle-income countries, and to enable the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals. This work is the most comprehensive and up-to-date review synthesizing evidence from 262 interventions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The purpose of this systematic review is to appraise and synthesize evidence of the effects of five types of interventions facilitating farmers' access to output markets in low- and middle-income countries. We examine how these effects vary across contexts and subgroups. We also identify evidence on program costs and evidence gaps in the literature.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The search of included studies was based on nine major databases/search engines and 25 institutional websites, using a set of English search terms. We also conducted forward and backward citation tracking of literature, published a public call for papers, and contacted key experts.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>We included studies on the effects of five types of <i>output market access interventions</i>, focusing on participants residing in low- and middle-income countries: (1) <i>Farm-to-market transport infrastructure interventions</i>; (2) <i>Access to output market information interventions</i>; (3) <i>New marketplaces or alternative marketing opportunities interventions</i>; (4) <i>Contract farming interventions</i>; (5) <i>Improved storage infrastructure and technologies interventions</i>. We included published and unpublished studies from 2000 onwards, with experimental and quasi-experimental study designs focusing on relevant outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>We screened 52,366 studies, identifying a total of 439 papers representing 289 unique studies on the effects of 262 interventions in 53 countries. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by two independent reviewers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>All five types of <i>output market access interventions</i> resulted in small-to-moderate positive effects on almost all measures of market participation, agricultural production, and welfare outcomes. These improvements occurred through a reduction in transaction costs, adoption of improved practices, greater farm investment, access to higher prices for farmers, greater volume sold, and increased farm income. Effects vary by intervention type. However, the body of evidence is comprised of a large share of included studies with a high risk of bias. Few studies have information on the cost of interventions, and there are gaps in the available evidence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p><i>Output market access interventions</i> are effective in reducing transaction costs and addressing market failures, thereby leading to higher income levels. Evidence of effects on food security and nutrition is sparse and has not provided conclusive findings. We also found that multi-component interventions are not necessarily more effective than single component interventions. The specific needs and dynamics of each context should inform the choice of the intervention and approach. Investments in additional research with low risk of selection bias and confounding effects will improve the evidence base, especially for outcomes that constitute gaps in the literature. For example, the effects on <i>quality</i> of agricultural products and <i>group participation</i> are under-researched, and we did not find any included studies focusing on North Africa or the Middle East. Collecting and reporting information on interventions' cost-effectiveness will help decision-makers to prioritize limited resources.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1411","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

An estimated two billion people do not have sufficient access to nutritious food, and nearly half are dependent on small-scale and subsistence farming. Projections show that the global population is not on track to reach the Sustainable Development Goals. With this in mind, development actors are increasingly seeking to better integrate rural farmers into agricultural markets. This synthesis of the literature can help to inform policy decisions to improve outcomes for smallholder farmers in low- and middle-income countries, and to enable the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals. This work is the most comprehensive and up-to-date review synthesizing evidence from 262 interventions.

Objectives

The purpose of this systematic review is to appraise and synthesize evidence of the effects of five types of interventions facilitating farmers' access to output markets in low- and middle-income countries. We examine how these effects vary across contexts and subgroups. We also identify evidence on program costs and evidence gaps in the literature.

Search Methods

The search of included studies was based on nine major databases/search engines and 25 institutional websites, using a set of English search terms. We also conducted forward and backward citation tracking of literature, published a public call for papers, and contacted key experts.

Selection Criteria

We included studies on the effects of five types of output market access interventions, focusing on participants residing in low- and middle-income countries: (1) Farm-to-market transport infrastructure interventions; (2) Access to output market information interventions; (3) New marketplaces or alternative marketing opportunities interventions; (4) Contract farming interventions; (5) Improved storage infrastructure and technologies interventions. We included published and unpublished studies from 2000 onwards, with experimental and quasi-experimental study designs focusing on relevant outcomes.

Data Collection and Analysis

We screened 52,366 studies, identifying a total of 439 papers representing 289 unique studies on the effects of 262 interventions in 53 countries. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by two independent reviewers.

Main Results

All five types of output market access interventions resulted in small-to-moderate positive effects on almost all measures of market participation, agricultural production, and welfare outcomes. These improvements occurred through a reduction in transaction costs, adoption of improved practices, greater farm investment, access to higher prices for farmers, greater volume sold, and increased farm income. Effects vary by intervention type. However, the body of evidence is comprised of a large share of included studies with a high risk of bias. Few studies have information on the cost of interventions, and there are gaps in the available evidence.

Authors' Conclusions

Output market access interventions are effective in reducing transaction costs and addressing market failures, thereby leading to higher income levels. Evidence of effects on food security and nutrition is sparse and has not provided conclusive findings. We also found that multi-component interventions are not necessarily more effective than single component interventions. The specific needs and dynamics of each context should inform the choice of the intervention and approach. Investments in additional research with low risk of selection bias and confounding effects will improve the evidence base, especially for outcomes that constitute gaps in the literature. For example, the effects on quality of agricultural products and group participation are under-researched, and we did not find any included studies focusing on North Africa or the Middle East. Collecting and reporting information on interventions' cost-effectiveness will help decision-makers to prioritize limited resources.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
农业产出市场准入干预措施对中低收入国家农业、社会经济、粮食安全和营养成果的影响:系统回顾
背景 据估计,有 20 亿人无法获得足够的营养食品,近一半的人依赖小规模和自给自足的耕作。预测显示,全球人口无法如期实现可持续发展目标。有鉴于此,发展行动者越来越多地寻求让农村农民更好地融入农业市场。本文献综述有助于为决策提供信息,以改善中低收入国家小农的成果,实现可持续发展目标。这项工作是最全面、最新的综述,综合了 262 项干预措施的证据。 目标 本系统性综述旨在评估和综合五类干预措施对中低收入国家农民进入产出市场所产生影响的证据。我们研究了这些效果在不同环境和分组中的差异。我们还确定了项目成本方面的证据以及文献中的证据缺口。 检索方法 使用一套英文检索词,在 9 个主要数据库/搜索引擎和 25 个机构网站上对纳入的研究进行检索。我们还对文献进行了正向和反向引文追踪,发布了公开征稿启事,并联系了主要专家。 选择标准 我们纳入了关于五类产出市场准入干预措施效果的研究,重点关注居住在中低收入国家的参与者:(1) 农场到市场的运输基础设施干预措施;(2) 获取产出市场信息干预措施;(3) 新市场或替代营销机会干预措施;(4) 代耕干预措施;(5) 改善储存基础设施和技术干预措施。我们纳入了 2000 年以来已发表和未发表的研究,这些研究采用实验和准实验研究设计,重点关注相关结果。 数据收集与分析 我们筛选了 52,366 项研究,共确定了 439 篇论文,代表了对 53 个国家 262 项干预措施效果的 289 项独特研究。数据提取和偏倚风险评估由两名独立评审员完成。 主要结果 所有五类产出市场准入干预措施都对几乎所有的市场参与、农业生产和福利结果产生了小到中等程度的积极影响。这些改善是通过降低交易成本、采用改良方法、增加农业投资、农民获得更高的价格、增加销售量和增加农业收入实现的。干预类型不同,效果也不同。然而,大量纳入的研究证据存在较高的偏差风险。很少有研究提供有关干预成本的信息,现有证据中也存在空白。 作者的结论 产出市场准入干预措施可有效降低交易成本,解决市场失灵问题,从而提高收入水平。有关对粮食安全和营养影响的证据很少,也没有提供结论性结论。我们还发现,多成分干预并不一定比单成分干预更有效。在选择干预措施和方法时,应考虑各种情况下的具体需求和动态。对选择偏差和混杂效应风险较低的额外研究进行投资,将改善证据基础,尤其是对文献中存在空白的结果。例如,对农产品质量和群体参与的影响的研究不足,而且我们没有发现任何针对北非或中东地区的研究。收集和报告有关干预措施成本效益的信息将有助于决策者优先考虑有限的资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Critical appraisal of methodological quality and completeness of reporting in Chinese social science systematic reviews with meta-analysis: A systematic review. The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing problematic substance use, mental ill health, and housing instability in people experiencing homelessness in high income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities. PROTOCOL: Non-criminal justice interventions for countering cognitive and behavioural radicalisation amongst children and adolescents: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation. Protocol: The impact of integrated thematic instruction model on primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching: A protocol of systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1