Volume 1, Issue 2, August 2016, Page: 39-48
Agricultural Mechanization: Assessment of Mechanization Impact Experiences on the Rural Population and the Implications for Ethiopian Smallholders
Dagninet Amare, Bahir Dar Agricultural Mechanization and Food Science Research Center, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
Wolelaw Endalew, Bahir Dar Agricultural Mechanization and Food Science Research Center, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
Received: Jul. 11, 2016;       Accepted: Jul. 21, 2016;       Published: Aug. 12, 2016
DOI: 10.11648/j.eas.20160102.15      View  7450      Downloads  278
Ethiopia is currently at its GTP II program implementation years. In these years, the country is expected to undergo transformation of its economy. The rural Ethiopia is expected to transform itself in many ways including but not limited to demography, farm power, intensification, employment reduction, diversification of livelihoods and most importantly increased productivity. In this aspect, the contribution of appropriate agricultural mechanization cannot be relegated given the research and actual evidences from within and other developing countries. Hence, utilization of appropriate agricultural mechanization is expected to enhance the transformation of rural Ethiopia and lead to a middle income country by 2025. Therefore, this review of literature was undertaken to bring to light the various opportunities of appropriate agricultural mechanization as an input for transformation. It tries to link the different effects of mechanization under a developing economy. Mechanization once implemented with great ambition and ultimate failure has resulted in unfitness to the Ethiopian condition. In addition to land holding and other institutional issues, demography resulted in the idea and conclusion by most Ethiopians that mechanization will not work in Ethiopia at all. The great deviation in assuming the contribution of mechanization to the development process as a whole is intensified by the poor perception of people about it. Most people declare mechanization only refers to tractor and combine harvester. However, mechanization includes the different small and medium agricultural implements used in the production, processing and transporting of agricultural produces. Generally Indian experience shows that mechanization has a positive overall effect on the development of rural areas. With certain opportunity costs especially little displacement of human labor, mechanization having a response coefficient of 0.45 bears an important part of the agricultural production system. However, owing to the land conditions of Ethiopian smallholder what is most important is selective use of mechanization technologies that could increase the technical efficiency of the smallholder through increasing the labor and land productivity. So from the review it is possible to conclude that mechanization of agriculture bears undisputed truth for improving food security, creating employment opportunities, increasing productivity, reducing loss and promoting economic gender empowerment while maintaining environmental degradation to lower levels.
Developing Economy, Empowerment, Employment, Environment, Mechanization, Productivity, Rural Ethiopia, Transformation
To cite this article
Dagninet Amare, Wolelaw Endalew, Agricultural Mechanization: Assessment of Mechanization Impact Experiences on the Rural Population and the Implications for Ethiopian Smallholders, Engineering and Applied Sciences. Vol. 1, No. 2, 2016, pp. 39-48. doi: 10.11648/j.eas.20160102.15
Copyright © 2016 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Rebeka Amha, 2006. Impact Assessment of Rainwater Harvesting ponds: the case of Alaba woreda, Ethiopia. MSC thesis submitted to Addis Ababa University.
Samuel Gebreselassie, 2006. Intensification of Smallholder Agriculture in Ethiopia: Options and Scenarios.pdf accessed at www.futureagricultures.org/publications/agricultureethiopia/file
Bagheri, N. and Moazzen, S. A. (2009). Optimum strategy for agricultural mechanization development in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Technology, 5(2): 235-237.
Rijk, A. G. 1989. Agricultural Mechanization Policy and Strategy. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
Ganesh Sah. Role of Farm Mechanization in Poverty Alleviation. Agricultural Implement Research Center. Ranighat, Birgunj, Parsa, India.
Geoffrey C. Mrema et al. 2008. Agricultural mechanization in sub-Saharan Africa: time for a new look. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Singh J., Scope, Progress and Constraints of Farm Mechanization in India. Department of Economics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
Verma, S., 2016. Impact of Agricultural Mechanization on Production, Productivity, Cropping Intensity, Income Generation and Employment of Labor. Punjab Agricultural University. Ludhiana, India. Accessed at citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=
Melesse Temesgen. 2000. Animal-drawn implements for improved cultivation in Ethiopia: participatory development and testing. In Kaumbutho P G, Pearson R A and Simalenga T E (eds), 2000. Empowering Farmers with Animal Traction. Proceedings of the workshop of the Rao and Singh, 1964. Tractorization in Kanjhawala Block in Delhi Territory.
GIPE. 1967 Study on Tractor Cultivation in Shahd Taluka, Dhulia District, Maharashtra. Report by Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Poona, india.
UPAU. 1969. Impact of Farm Mechanization on Labor Use of Developing Agriculture under New Technology in Rudrapur District. Report by G. B. Pant Univ. of Agril. & Tech. Pantnagar, Nainital.
Kahlon, A. S. 1978. Use of Tractors & Agricultural Employment. Proceedings of Symposium on Farm Mechanization Problems and Prospects. ISAE North Chapter and ISAT PAU, Ludhiana pp 18-33.
Johl, S. S. 1970. Mechanization, Labor Use and Productivity in Indian Agriculture. Economics and Sociology, Occasional Paper No.23. Ohio State University, USA.
AERC, 1970. Economics of Tractor Cultivation-A Case Study in Karnal District, Haryana. Agro - Economic Research Centre, New Delhi.
Aggarwal, Bina.1983. Mechanization in Indian Agriculture. An Analytical Study based on Punjab. Monograph in Economics No. 6 Delhi School of Economics
Patil, A. S. & Sirohi, A. S. 1987. Implications of Tractorization on Employment, Productivity and Income in an Irrigated Area of Ahmednagar District, India, AMA 18 (3): 36-40.
Aggarwal, P. C. and Misra, M. S., 1973. The combine harvester and its impact on labor: A Study in Ludhiana. Indian J. Industrial Relations 9(2).
Mishra, P. and Sundram. (1975). Some aspects of the economics of harvest combines in Punjab. Economic & Political Weekly. 10(39).
Cleave, J. H. 1974. African farmers: labor use in the development of smallholder agriculture. Praeger, New York.
Baig, M. A. 1978. The Tractor in India: A significant instrument for future development. Proceedings of the Symposium on Farm Mechanization; Problems and Prospects ISAE. North Chapter and ISAE, PAU, Ludhiana pp. 57-66.
NCAER (National Council of Applied Economic Research), 1980. Implication of Tractorization for Farm Employment, Productivity and Income. National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
NCAER (National Council of Applied Economic Research), 1974. Agricultural Sector assessment a strategy for development of agriculture in Botswana. Ministry of Agriculture, Government Printer Gaborone Botswana.
Balishter, Gupta, V. K. and Singh, R. 1991. Impact of mechanization on employment and farm productivity. Productivity. 32(3): 484-489.
Shimelis Admassu. Post- harvest Sector Challenges and Opportunities in Ethiopia. Food Technologist, Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ferris S. and Wheatley C., 2001. FAO/GFAR Global Initiative on Post-harvest Technology, Phase 1; Report on the Regional Workshop for Africa Held at Entebbe, Uganda 17-19 September 2001.
Blackden, M. and Bhanu C., 1999. Gender, Growth, and Poverty Reduction: Special Programme of Assistance to Africa. 1989 Status Report on Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. Technical Paper, No. 428. World Bank, Poverty Reduction and Social Development, African Region, Washington, D. C. March 1999.
Subbarao, K. and Ezemenari, K., 1995. Transition, Poverty and Social Assistance in Mongolia. ESP Discussion Paper 55. World Bank, Washington, D. C. 1995.
Zuckerman, E., 2001. Engendering PRSPs: Why it reduces poverty and the Rwanda case: WIDER Debt Relief Conference, Helsinki, August 18.
Miriam Jato, 2004. Gender-Responsive Programming for Poverty Reduction: Technical Paper. UNFPA CST, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Accessed at ww.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/ pub-pdf/ gender-responsive.pdf.
Gezahegn Aynalem, 2006. Technical Efficiency in Maize Production: A Case of Smallholder Farmers in Mecha District, Ethiopia. A Thesis Submitted To The School Of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University.
Gelaw Fekadu, 2004. Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Wheat Production: A Study in Machakel Woreda, Ethiopia. A Thesis Submitted To the School Of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University.
Gebregziabher Gebrehaweria, Namara Regassa E. and Holden Stein, 2012. Technical Efficiency of Irrigated and Rain-Fed Smallholder Agriculture in Tigray, Ethiopia: A Comparative Stochastic Frontier Production Function Analysis. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 51(3): 203-226.
Grolleaud, M., 2001. Post-harvest losses: Discovering the full story overview of the phenomenon of losses during the post-harvest system. Rome, FAO.
Gabre-Madhin, E. and H aggblade, S. 2004. Successes in African agriculture: results of an Expert survey. World Development, 32(5): 745–766.
Geoffrey Mrema, Doyle Baker and David Kahan, 2008. Agricultural mechanization in sub-Saharan Africa: time for a new look. Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper 22, FAO.
Asian Productivity Organization (APO), 1983. Farm Mechanization in Asia, APO, Tokyo.
Browse journals by subject