Subsistence or small-scale farming remains the primary source of livelihood for households in rural areas. Numerous factors inhibit farmers’ access and participation in markets—farmers being too far from markets, or not being connected with market actors, among others. Since the early 2000s, development actors have increasingly focused on integrating rural farmers into agricultural markets as a poverty reduction strategy. Market access can lead to agricultural productivity, income and food security, ultimately enhancing the economic performance and prosperity of rural households. However, there has been a lack of a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the effects of such interventions. 3ie’s latest systematic review—focusing on the scope, quality, and learning of the evidence of the effects of market interventions—addresses this gap and provides insights to support more effective donor spending and more relevant research programs.
Study approach – 3ie’s largest systematic review
We screened 52,366 studies published between January 2000 and November 2023 and ultimately included 439 papers. These comprised 289 unique impact evaluation studies representing 262 interventions in 53 low- and middle-income countries, making this the largest systematic review ever led by 3ie. We searched for rigorous evidence in nine major databases/search engines and 25 institutional websites and included studies from academic databases and grey literature sources with experimental and quasi-experimental study designs. Methodological details are available in the published protocol.
Key findings
A. Market access interventions improve not only market access and participation, but also agricultural and socioeconomic outcomes for farmers.
These interventions reduced the costs of reaching markets and were effective in facilitating access to markets, thereby leading to higher income levels. They also increased the likelihood of farmers adopting improved practices and investing in their own farms. Farmers also gained access to higher prices, sold greater quantities of their harvest, and increased their income.
Table 1: Included interventions and key findings Farm-to-market transport infrastructure interventions improve infrastructure used to deliver agricultural produce to domestic and international markets, such as roads and bridges.
Access to output market information interventions provides information about market conditions, price inputs, and prices of produce to be sold.
New marketplaces or alternative marketing opportunities interventions establish market platforms that offer novel avenues for the exchange of goods and services or lessen the expenses related to finding such opportunities.
Contract farming interventions are forward-looking and vertical market arrangements (linked to volume, value, quality, and price, in advance of or at the time of planting) where traders/buyers may provide inputs, credit, and/or extension services to farmers as a part of an agreement to purchase farmers’ agricultural produce.
Improved storage infrastructure and technologies interventions establish, enhance, and utilize physical facilities and systems to efficiently store, protect, and manage agricultural products and commodities in terms of their quality and quantity.
All interventions
|
B. Significant research gaps exist creating the need for further research.
The effectiveness evidence on food security and nutrition outcomes is not very clear. The evidence on the effects of access interventions on these outcomes, especially nutrition, is thinner and more sparsely distributed across contexts compared to the other outcomes considered in this systematic review. The causal pathway between market access interventions and improvements is more complex than for other outcomes, meaning that local social and intra-household dynamics may play a greater role and should be further understood.
Despite the relatively large body of evidence, we find the following gaps:
- No studies focus on countries in North Africa or the Middle East.
- Some outcomes such as food security, nutrition, quality of agricultural production, transaction costs, group participation or non-farm outcomes would benefit from a prioritization for future research.
- Limited studies that include cost data.
- Long-term effects and whether these interventions lead to the structural transformation of the local economy (i.e., labor is permanently reallocated to more productive non-agricultural sectors) also remain under-explored.
C. The risk of biased results is high in a small majority of included studies meaning that these results may not perfectly reflect the effects of interventions.
These biases and gaps in the evidence mean that the absence of positive effects on some outcomes reported in this systematic review does not indicate that the interventions were ineffective. Studies often did not report sufficient information and did not confidently establish a relevant counterfactual to consider that the risk of bias was low.
Takeaways
Suggestions for future research include registering a pre-analysis plan, describing in a transparent way the assignment mechanism, establishing a relevant counterfactual (using either random assignment or quasi-experimental methods), and collecting data from all participants and the counterfactual group at baseline.
Market access interventions can be an effective way to integrate poor and remote farmers and contribute to rural development and poverty reduction in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). Technical and physical accessibility of these interventions is essential. Limited cost data means that policymakers and practitioners lack crucial insights into the value-for-money of these interventions across different contexts.
Read more in the systematic review published here and the related brief here.
