Despite the various economic reforms that have been implemented in Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa, average household income has been low. Some of the reforms have been on boosting farming productivity, non-farm employment and encouraging market participation of households and gender mainstreaming. Nevertheless, over 70% of Nigerians live below US$1 per day. Many studies have been done on factors like education and age that affect household income but have not looked at the interactive effect of the variables. This paper, therefore, analysed the response of household income to gender, market participation, occupation and the effect of these variables in interactive forms on household income. The study used the 2010 Nigeria General Household Survey comprising 5,000 households out of which 4, 845 households were used for analysis upon data cleaning. The variables of interest included household per capita expenditure and demographics. Analysis of covariance with Tobit regression was applied. The results showed that household head income level have a diminishing return relationship with age but reduced with increase in household size. Income of the household heads that are male, participate in market and of non-farming occupation is higher by N16,273.03, N35,685.17 and N91,019.48 than their opposite categories respectively. Male–farming have mean income lower by N23,284.91 than the female-non farming household heads. There is need to promote gender mainstreaming in favour of female on household income. Non-farming occupation and market participation of farming households should be promoted to boost household income in Nigeria.
| Published in | Mathematics Letters (Volume 5, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11 |
| Page(s) | 1-7 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Income, Household Head, Market Participation, Gender, Socioeconomic Factors, Nigeria
| [1] | B. E. Aigbokhan (2000). Poverty, growth and in-equality in Nigeria: a case study. African Economic Research Consortium, Nairobi, AERC Research paper 102. Pp. 143. |
| [2] | National Bureau of Statistics (2012). The Nigeria poverty profile 2010 report. NBS press briefing on Nigeria poverty profile 2010 report. reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources /b410. Accessed 3 March 2012. |
| [3] | J. C. Anyanwu and H. E. Oaikhenam (1995). Modern macroeconomics: Theory and application in Nigeria. 1st edition. Onitsha, Nigeria. Joanee Educational Publishers Ltd. Pp 50-75. ISBN: 978-2784-16-8. |
| [4] | J. K. Olayemi (2004). Principles of microeconomics: for applied economic analysis. 1st Edition. Ibadan, Nigeria. SICO Publishers. ISBN 978-006-432-X. |
| [5] | R. G. Lipsey and K. A. Chrystal (2005). Economics. 10th Edition. New York. Oxford University Press Inc. Pp 117-248. |
| [6] | H. Gravelle and R. Rees (2004). Microeconomics. 3rd Edition. Harlow Essex, England. Pearson Education Limited. Prentice Hall Financial Times. Pp 4-5. ISBN 0 582404878. |
| [7] | E. V. Bowden (1986). Economics: the science of common sense. 1st Edition. Cincinnati, Ohio. South-Western Publishing Co. Pp 82-627. ISBN: 0-538-08980-6. |
| [8] | A. J. Adegeye and J. S. Ditto (1985). Essentials of agricultural economics. 1st Edition. Ibadan, Nigeria. Impact Publishers Nig. Ltd. Pp 16-17. ISBN 978-2386-00-6. |
| [9] | British Council Nigeria (2012). Improving the lives of girls and women in Nigeria: Issues Policies Action. Gender in Nigeria report 2012, 2nd edition. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/Gender-Nigeria 2012.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2012. |
| [10] | O. O. Herz (1989) Rural urban migration in Africa. Journal of Farm Economics Vol. 9.1. |
| [11] | E. B. I. Ononiwu (2002). Newsletter to Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria. The Dimensions of Poverty in Nigeria (spatial sectoral, Gender et al). Vol. 23.4 pg 17, Published by Central Bank of Nigeria. |
| [12] | L. Buckland and J. Haleegoah (1996). Gender analysis in agricultural production. IITA Research Guide 58. Training Programme, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). Ibadan, Nigeria. 24 p. |
| [13] | United State Agency for International Development (2006). Pro-poor growth, gender, and markets: Creating opportunities and measuring results. http://www.wemanresources.info/documents/Page3_GenderMainstreaming/3_3_Markets/GenderMarkets_USAID2006.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2013. |
| [14] | D. Boughton, D. Mather, C. B. Barrett, R. Benfica, D. Abdula, D. Tschirley and B. Cunguara (2007). Market Participation by Rural Households in a Low-Income Country: An Asset-Based Approach Applied to Mozambique. Faith and Economics Vol. 50: 64-101. |
| [15] | S. T. Bahta and S. Bauer (2007). Analysis of the determinants of market participation within the South African small-scale livestock sector. Tropentag paper Witzenhausen. |
| [16] | M. Mathenge, F. Place, J. Olwande and D. Mithoefer (2010). Participation in agricultural markets among the poor and marginalized: analysis of factors influencing participation and impacts on income and poverty in Kenya. Study report, Jul. www.tegemeo.org/. Accessed 15 July 2013. |
| [17] | N. Chilundika (2011). Market participation of bean smallholder farmers in Zambia: a gender based approach. A Research Report presented to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Education of the University of Zambia Bachelor’s Degree Project Unpublished. http://valuechains.k-state.edu/Natasha%20Chilundika.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2013. |
| [18] | B. S. Gani and A. I. Adeoti (2011). Analysis of market participation and rural poverty among farmers in northern part of Taraba State, Nigeria. Journal of Economics, 2 (1): 23-36. |
| [19] | Md. S. Azam, K. S. Imai, and R. Gaiha (2012). Agricultural supply response and smallholders market participation – the case of Campodia. Research Institute of Economics and Business Administration. Discussion paper No. DP2012-09. www.rieb.kobe- u.ac.jp/academic/ra/dp/English/DP2012-09.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2013. |
| [20] | A. O. Onoja, B. B. Usoroh, D. T. Adieme, and N. J. Deedam (2012). Determinants of market participation in Nigerian small-scale fishery sector: evidence from Niger Delta Region. The Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 9, Iss. 1: Pp. 69-84. |
| [21] | T. Reardon and C. P. Timmer (2005). Transformation of markets for agricultural output in developing countries since 1950: how has thinking changed? Chapter 13 in R. E. Evenson, P. Pingali, and T. P. Schultz (editors). (2005). Volume 3 Handbook of Agricultural Economics: Agricultural Development: Farmers, Farm Production and Farm Markets. Jul. siteresources.worldbank.org/...1150389437293/Reardon_Timmer. Accessed 24 July 2013. |
| [22] | J. M. Omiti, D. J. Otieno, T. O. Nyanamba and E. McCullough (2009). Factors influencing the intensity of market participation by smallholder farmers: A case study of rural and peri-urban areas of Kenya. The African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (AfJARE) Vol. 3. No. 1. Mar. |
| [23] | J. Aikaeli (2010). Determinants of rural Income in Tanzania: An empirical approach. Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA). Research report 10/4. http://www.repoa.or.tz/documents/rr10_4.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2013. October 9-11. www.tropentag.de/2007/abstracts/full/422.pd. Accessed 25 July 2013. |
| [24] | R. V. Hill and M. Vigneri (2011). Mainstreaming gender sensitivity in cash crop market supply chains. Agricultural Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. ESA Working Paper No. 11-08 Mar. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am313e/am313e00.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2013. |
| [25] | M. A. Whisman and G. H. McClelland (2005). Designing, testing, and interpreting interactions and moderator effects in family research. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 19.1: 111–120. www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/kline/734/whisman.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2012. |
| [26] | T. Brambor, W. R. Clark and M. Golder (2005). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 13: 120 doi: 10.1093/pan/mpi014. Political Analysis Advance Access published May 18. http://www.fsu.edu. Accessed 30 January 2012. |
| [27] | R. J. Friedrich (1982). In defence of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 26.4: 797-833. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110973. Accessed 13 January 2012. |
| [28] | L. Hargens (2006). Interpreting product-variable models of interaction effects. Working Paper no. 67. Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences. University of Washington, Seattle. Nov 8. Revised Feb 2008. www.csss.washington.edu/Papers. Accessed 30 January 2012. |
| [29] | D. N. Gujarati and D. C. Porter (2009). Basic econometrics. 5th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. Pp 277-290, 574-576. ISBN: 978-007-127625-2. |
| [30] | B. F. Braumoeller (2004). Hypothesis testing and multiplicative interaction terms. Harvard University, Department of Government, Littauer Center, North Yard Cambridge. www.cc.rochester.edu/ college/psc/ clarke/405/Braumoeller.pdf. Accessed 31 January 2012. |
| [31] | World Bank (2013). Living Standards Measurement Survey - Integrated Survey on Agriculture. Development Research, World Bank, Wasington D. C. http://go.worldbank.org/EVYKSFZJ50. Accessed 5 August 2013. |
| [32] | J. F. McDonald and R. A. Moffitt (1980). The uses of Tobit analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 62: 318-321. |
| [33] | B. T. Omonona, O. A. Oni and A. O. Uwagboe (2006). Adoption of improved cassava varieties and its welfare impact on rural farming households in Edo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Food Information, Vol. 7.1: 39–55. The Haworth Information Press. ISSN: 1049-6505. |
| [34] | National Bureau of Statistics (2005). Poverty profile in Nigeria. NBS. Abuja, Nigeria. Pp 1-98. Retrieved Aug. 27, 2007 from www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/ nlss/2006/survey0 /output Information/prereport.pdf. |
| [35] | E. C. Norton, H. Wang and C. Ai (2004). Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal, Vol. 4.2: 154-167. www.ageconsearch.umn.edu. Accessed 12 August 2012. |
APA Style
Oluwole Ibikunle Ogunyemi, Babajide Ayodeji Lawal. (2019). Gender, Market Participation and Household Income Differential in Nigeria: Analysis of Covariance Approach. Mathematics Letters, 5(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11
ACS Style
Oluwole Ibikunle Ogunyemi; Babajide Ayodeji Lawal. Gender, Market Participation and Household Income Differential in Nigeria: Analysis of Covariance Approach. Math. Lett. 2019, 5(1), 1-7. doi: 10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11
AMA Style
Oluwole Ibikunle Ogunyemi, Babajide Ayodeji Lawal. Gender, Market Participation and Household Income Differential in Nigeria: Analysis of Covariance Approach. Math Lett. 2019;5(1):1-7. doi: 10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11,
author = {Oluwole Ibikunle Ogunyemi and Babajide Ayodeji Lawal},
title = {Gender, Market Participation and Household Income Differential in Nigeria: Analysis of Covariance Approach},
journal = {Mathematics Letters},
volume = {5},
number = {1},
pages = {1-7},
doi = {10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ml.20190501.11},
abstract = {Despite the various economic reforms that have been implemented in Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa, average household income has been low. Some of the reforms have been on boosting farming productivity, non-farm employment and encouraging market participation of households and gender mainstreaming. Nevertheless, over 70% of Nigerians live below US$1 per day. Many studies have been done on factors like education and age that affect household income but have not looked at the interactive effect of the variables. This paper, therefore, analysed the response of household income to gender, market participation, occupation and the effect of these variables in interactive forms on household income. The study used the 2010 Nigeria General Household Survey comprising 5,000 households out of which 4, 845 households were used for analysis upon data cleaning. The variables of interest included household per capita expenditure and demographics. Analysis of covariance with Tobit regression was applied. The results showed that household head income level have a diminishing return relationship with age but reduced with increase in household size. Income of the household heads that are male, participate in market and of non-farming occupation is higher by N16,273.03, N35,685.17 and N91,019.48 than their opposite categories respectively. Male–farming have mean income lower by N23,284.91 than the female-non farming household heads. There is need to promote gender mainstreaming in favour of female on household income. Non-farming occupation and market participation of farming households should be promoted to boost household income in Nigeria.},
year = {2019}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Gender, Market Participation and Household Income Differential in Nigeria: Analysis of Covariance Approach AU - Oluwole Ibikunle Ogunyemi AU - Babajide Ayodeji Lawal Y1 - 2019/06/12 PY - 2019 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11 T2 - Mathematics Letters JF - Mathematics Letters JO - Mathematics Letters SP - 1 EP - 7 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-5056 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ml.20190501.11 AB - Despite the various economic reforms that have been implemented in Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa, average household income has been low. Some of the reforms have been on boosting farming productivity, non-farm employment and encouraging market participation of households and gender mainstreaming. Nevertheless, over 70% of Nigerians live below US$1 per day. Many studies have been done on factors like education and age that affect household income but have not looked at the interactive effect of the variables. This paper, therefore, analysed the response of household income to gender, market participation, occupation and the effect of these variables in interactive forms on household income. The study used the 2010 Nigeria General Household Survey comprising 5,000 households out of which 4, 845 households were used for analysis upon data cleaning. The variables of interest included household per capita expenditure and demographics. Analysis of covariance with Tobit regression was applied. The results showed that household head income level have a diminishing return relationship with age but reduced with increase in household size. Income of the household heads that are male, participate in market and of non-farming occupation is higher by N16,273.03, N35,685.17 and N91,019.48 than their opposite categories respectively. Male–farming have mean income lower by N23,284.91 than the female-non farming household heads. There is need to promote gender mainstreaming in favour of female on household income. Non-farming occupation and market participation of farming households should be promoted to boost household income in Nigeria. VL - 5 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: