TYPE Systematic Review

PUBLISHED 24 October 2024

DOI 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

Land size and efficiency in

OPEN ACCESS agriculture: the case of Ethiopian
smallholder farmers. A
EDITED BY
Cosmas Parwada,
Midlands State University, Zimbabwe

REVIEWED BY
Lovemore Musemwa,
meta-analysis
Bindura University of Science Education,
Zimbabwe
Shadreck Matindike,
Yohannes Girma Asefa * and Abera Ayalew Muluken
Midlands State University, Zimbabwe Department of Agricultural Economics, Injibara University, Injibara, Ethiopia
*CORRESPONDENCE
Yohannes Girma Asefa
girmayohannes86@gmail.com Even if smallholder farmers have a large share in the Ethiopian economy, they
RECEIVED 11June 2024 operate below their potential. Land use is fundamental in determining the efficiency
ACCEPTED 26 September 2024 of farmers. However, the effect of land size on efficiency is still a controversial
PUBLISHED 24 October 2024
issue in the country. This review was designed to determine the effect of land
CITATION size on farmers’ efficiency. The random-effects model showed that the farmers
Girma Asefa Y and Ayalew Muluken A (2024)
Land size and efficiency in agriculture: the
with smaller land sizes (≤0.5 ha) were more efficient by 21% than the farmers with
case of Ethiopian smallholder farmers. A larger land sizes. Moreover, the results of meta-regression analysis showed that
meta-analysis. resource endowment, labor quality, information contact, and total income were
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8:1447186.
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186
the important moderators of the presence of heterogeneity in the effect size
among the studies. It was deduced that farmers are efficient with smaller land
COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken. sizes since they have resources to manage their farms appropriately. Therefore,
This is an open-access article distributed improving farmers’ production skills, providing input subsidies, and upgrading
under the terms of the Creative Commons development agents’ skills are crucial to boost farmers’ efficiency in the country.
Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is
permitted, provided the original author(s) and KEYWORDS
the copyright owner(s) are credited and that
the original publication in this journal is cited, effect model, efficiency, land size, smallholders, meta-analysis, crop, Ethiopia
in accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction
is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
1 Introduction
Although Ethiopia is diversifying its economic base, agriculture still accounts for more
than three-quarters of employment, 36 percent of production, and more than one-third of
total exports. The significant role of agriculture in the economy underscores its importance as
a key factor in economic growth and poverty reduction (Birhanu et al., 2020; Diriba, 2020;
Essa et al., 2012; Fisseha et al., 2022; Sime et al., 2022). Agricultural productivity has increased
rapidly over the past decade, largely due to the intensification of modern seed usage, increased
use of fertilizers, and improved farming techniques (FAO, 2023).
Agriculture, being one of the most water-intensive human activities, faces major challenges
such as water resource shortages, unbalanced freshwater distribution, and discrepancies
between supply and demand (Ingrao et al., 2023). With the rapid expansion of population and
increase in food consumption, the shortage of agricultural resources, including farmland,
water, and labor, has become increasingly severe (Miao et al., 2023).
In Ethiopia, productivity improvements over the past few years have been limited to key
crops, with inadequate investments and insufficient advancements across various subsectors.
In addition, yield growth remains inadequate to meet both domestic food security needs and
industrial demands, while underdeveloped markets continue to hinder farmers from realizing
returns on their input investments (FAO, 2023). Moreover, the agricultural sector faces
significant constraints related to land use and administration systems, limited access to high-
quality inputs and financing, inefficient market systems, and inadequate research and
extension services (Gidey et al., 2021; Mengistu et al., 2024; Milkessa et al., 2019; Musa et al.,
2015; Regasa et al., 2019).

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 01 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

To improve the efficient use of agricultural resources, Ethiopia has systematic analysis, which is concrete and uses statistical methods.
formulated relevant policies such as digitizing agriculture (PDC, Based on these gaps, this review aimed to unveil the effect of land size
2020). Furthermore, to advance sectoral reforms, the specific problems on the efficiency (from a technical point of view) of farmers
that are prioritized under each of the main constraints need to in Ethiopia.
be addressed. It is crucial to increase market-oriented agricultural This review is divided into four sections: introduction,
production and productivity, agricultural value addition, and access methodology, results and discussion, and conclusion and
to domestic and international markets (Ali et al., 2022; Beyan et al., recommendations. A detailed report of the findings is provided in
2013; Birara et al., 2023). These steps are essential for agriculture to each section of the manuscript.
effectively contribute to the structural transformation of the economy.
In line with the homegrown economic reform agenda, the use of new
and emerging technologies to modernize Ethiopia’s agricultural sector 2 Methodologies
is paramount for optimal utilization and progress (Gidey et al., 2021;
Tigabu et al., 2022; Tolesa, 2022; Tsegaye et al., 2022; Wudineh and 2.1 Scope of the review
Endrias, 2016; Zewdie et al., 2021; Gadisa and Addisu, 2022; Gavaghan
et al., 2000). Only studies conducted in Ethiopia were considered in this
The question of how to produce more food with limited review. Ethiopia is partitioned into 12 regions. As the country is
agricultural resources and how to develop sustainable agriculture is mainly based on agriculture, it is possible to obtain a large number of
currently one of the most important global issues (Eskeziaw et al., articles on the issue under consideration. In connection with targeted
2021; Getachew et al., 2018; Gidey et al., 2023; Hayatu, 2020; Hika and studies, this review paper focuses on agricultural-related articles in
Afsaw, 2019; Hosaena and Holden, 2014; Kebebew et al., 2021; Kifle general and on crop production-related articles in particular.
et al., 2020).
Land, an essential but scarce resource, has the potential to
determine agricultural productivity and efficiency. Since this meta- 2.2 Review design
analysis focuses on smallholders, it is better to address the question of
how different levels of land size affect the relationship with efficiency 2.2.1 Article selection process
change (Beneberu et al., 2018). Based on the findings of various Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-
researchers, not all smallholder farmers have a similar level of Analyses (PRISMA) were used to select articles for the review. The
efficiency due to different systematic and idiosyncratic factors. PRISMA checklist includes a four-phase flow diagram that
Different studies have reported controversial findings on the incorporates the stages of article identification, screening, eligibility,
relationship between farm size and efficiency from a technical point and inclusion. A literature search was conducted from 1 March 2024
of view. One finding indicated that there was a negative relationship to 25 May 2024.
between the two variables. This was because small farms mostly rely
on family labor and hence have advantages in labor supervision 2.2.2 Article browsing
(Milkessa et al., 2019; Adugna et al., 2023; Adugna et al., 2017; Agerie Articles were browsed using the following keywords: efficiency
et al., 2019; Tolesa et al., 2019, Tekleyohannes et al., 2024; Kusse et al., “OR” technical efficiency “AND” crop production “OR” agricultural
2021; Alemayehu, 2021; Eskeziaw et al., 2021). Another finding production “AND” farmers “AND” Ethiopia. Databases such as Google
indicated that there was a positive relationship between the two, and Scholar, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, and AGRIS were used in
this was due to smallholders’ utilization of low-quality inputs. Larger this study.
farms can gain large returns at a low cost (Tadesse et al., 2017; Anbes,
2020; Anteneh and Asrat, 2020; Belete, 2020; Beshir, 2017; Teka et al., 2.2.3 Article inclusion and exclusion criteria
2021; Dagmawi, 2021; Hagos, 2021). Furthermore, another finding The final relevant articles required for the meta-analysis were
indicated a U-shaped relationship between farm size and efficiency identified following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria,
(Dias and Gustavo, 2020). This pattern means that at first, efficiency as shown in Table 1.
decreases as land size increases, then remains constant at a minimum,
and finally increases with the size of land. Therefore, based on these
facts, the researcher can propose a concrete solution through 2.3 Statistical analysis
in-depth analysis.
2.3.1 Model used
STATA version 14 software was used for the analysis. Models were
1.1 Justifications for the review selected based on heterogeneity among the studies. A random-effects
model was used for high heterogeneity, while a fixed-effects model
This review was designed to bridge the conceptual and was used for low heterogeneity. In this review, the random-effects
methodological gaps that exist in the issue under consideration. model was applied because of the occurrence of high heterogeneity
Regarding the conceptual gap, there are inconsistent findings on the among studies. The standard mean difference (SMD) was used as the
effects of land size on efficiency. Some findings are positive, whereas effect size measurement.
others have reported a negative effect. Therefore, this review was A random-effects meta-analysis model assumes that the observed
designed to clarify or resolve these inconsistencies. Moreover, the final estimates of the treatment effect can vary across studies because of real
gap reviewed was the methodological gap. Previous studies were more differences in the treatment effect in each study, as well as sampling
oriented toward a narrative type of review, while this study focused on variability (chance). Thus, even if all studies had an infinitely large

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 02 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

TABLE 1 Article inclusion and exclusion criteria. Q − df

T2 = (3)
Article inclusion criteria Article exclusion criteria C

• Articles written in the • Review articles

where,
English language • Books
• Published articles • Abstract-only papers
∑ Wi2
• Cross-sectional studies • Panel data studies C=
∑ Wi − (4)
• Studies done in Ethiopia • Duplicated articles
Wi
• Studies done from 2010 G.C. to • Book chapters
2024 G.C. • Studies done outside of Ethiopia
The tau-squared value can never be less than zero because the
actual variance of the true effects cannot be less than 0. Moreover, as
sample size, the observed study effects would still vary because of real the tau-squared value approaches zero, it confirms the absence of
differences in treatment effects. Such heterogeneity in treatment heterogeneity among the studies.
effects is caused by differences in study populations (such as the If heterogeneity is detected, two solutions are recommended:
number of inputs used, income, labor quality, and contact with subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. The use of either
information), interventions received (differences in land size method is determined by the type of the moderator. To solve for
holdings), study design, and measurement of the outcome. heterogeneity, a moderator(s) should be selected. These moderators
The random-effects model can be written as shown on are responsible for the presence of heterogeneity. Based on the review
Equation (1): of the articles, common factors were selected.
In this review, there was high heterogeneity among the studies,
( )
yi = b0 + si + ei , si ∼ N 0,τ2 , ei ∼ N ( 0,vi ) (1) following which meta-regression was chosen because there was more
than one continuous moderator. The meta-regression is estimated as
shown on Equation (5):
where,
yi is the effect size measured in standard mean difference. 
θ k = θ + β xk + ε k + ς k (5)
b0 is the constant term.
si is a study-specific deviation from the overall mean for the 𝑖th
study; it is normally distributed with the between-study variance, where,

often referred to as 𝜏2, and the others are the same as above. Unlike the θ k is the observed effect size of the studies;
common-effect model, a random-effects model assumes that different θ is the constant term.
studies have different means. Note that the weights for this model are β xk is the coefficient for the moderators.
1/(τ2 + vi) 1/(𝜏2+𝑣𝑖). ε k is the sampling variance of the observed outcomes or effect
ei is the error term. size estimates (i.e., standardized mean differences).
ς k indicates that even the true effect size of the study was only
2.3.2 Heterogeneity diagnostic sampled from an overarching distribution of effect sizes. This means
Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q and tau-squared that between-study heterogeneity existed in our data, which was
tests adjusted for degrees of freedom. The significance of Cochran’s captured by the heterogeneity variance 𝜏2.
q-value indicated the presence of heterogeneity among studies. The
classical measure of heterogeneity is Cochran’s Q, which is calculated 2.3.3 Post-estimation tests
as the weighted sum of the squared differences between individual A post-estimation test was performed to ensure the validity of the
study effects and the pooled effect across studies, with the weights included studies. Two diagnostic tests were performed. The first was
being those used in the pooling method. Q is distributed as a a statistical test using Begg’s test. If the test showed insignificance, it
chi-squared statistic with k (the number of studies) minus 1 degree confirmed that there was no small study effect, and appropriate studies
of freedom. were incorporated into the analysis. The other post-estimation test
Q has too much power as a test of heterogeneity if the number of used a funnel plot, which is a graphical representation of the
studies is large (Higgins et al., 2003). Q is referred to as a test of symmetrical distribution of the studies on the mean effect. If the
homogeneity in Stata and is computed as shown on Equation (2). distribution is symmetric, it indicates that appropriate studies were
included in the meta-analysis.
k
2
=Q ∑Wi (Yi − M ) (2)
i =1
2.4 Description of variables used for the
where, Wi is the study weight (1/Vi), Yi is the study effect size, M meta-analysis
is the summary effect, and k is the number of studies.
The other measure of heterogeneity used in this study was The important variables used for conducting the meta-analysis are
tau-squared as shown on Equations (3, 4). Tau-squared is defined as described in the tables. Table 2 shows the outcome variable, technical
the variance of the true effect sizes. The tau-squared value was efficiency, and the intervention variable, land size. Technical efficiency
estimated by calculating T2. To do this, we begin with (Q – df) and is a continuous variable measured using a score ranging from zero to
divide this quantity by C. one. In this review, efficiency studies that used only the stochastic

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 03 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

TABLE 2 Variables included in the cumulative effect estimation.

Outcome variable Technical Type Measurement Hypothesized effect

efficiency
Continuous Score
Intervention variable

Land size Categorical • Control group if land size ≤0.5 ha –

• Treated group if land size >0.5 ha

frontier approach rather than data envelopment analysis were selected articles were excluded due to duplication, leaving 205 articles. Among
to maintain methodological similarity. The intervention variable is a these articles, approximately 100 were excluded because they were
dummy variable and is measured as zero if the land size is less than or conducted outside Ethiopia, i.e., in other countries.
equal to 0.5 ha and as one if it is more than 0.5 ha. A land size of less Moreover, 60 additional articles were excluded because they were
than 0.5 ha was considered small, while a land size larger than 0.5 was book chapters, abstract-only papers, review articles, or non-study
considered a larger landholding, according to Genet (2012). This articles. Finally, 45 articles were identified and used in the meta-
classification is used in the context of discussing land scarcity and analysis. The overall article identification process is illustrated using
farmers’ land acquisition in Ethiopia and the member countries of the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 1.
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).
Table 3 lists the variables used in the meta-regression analysis. The
dependent variable is the effect size, which is a continuous variable 3.2 Studies distribution by regions
measured by the standard mean difference. The moderators or
predictors that have a hypothesized effect on the dependent variable When we analyzed the studies based on area coverage, we found
are factor endowment, labor quality, information contact, and total that various technical efficiency-focused studies were conducted in
income. In this review, the variables that commonly affected the different parts of Ethiopia. The distribution of these studies across
dependent variable in all identified studies were considered as regions has implications for the future agricultural policy agenda of
the predictors. the country. The names of the study areas and the regions in which the
Factor endowment refers to the continuous variables measured by studies were conducted are presented in the table.
the number of factors or inputs (such as urea, DAP, seed, labor, land,
herbicide, and pesticide) used by farmers in producing crops. This was
hypothesized to have a positive effect on the dependent variable. 3.3 Efficiency-related studies across
Labor quality is a continuous variable measured in quintals per regions
hour or man-days. This indicates the amount of crop production
produced by a household per hour. Skillful farmers have the potential Based on the table results, approximately 17 (37.79%) studies were
to accomplish multiple farm activities within a short period. conducted in the Oromia region, 13 (28.89%) in the Amhara region,
Regardless of the type of crop, this is an indicator of performance in two (4.44%) in the Southern region, 2 (4.44%) in the Tigray region, 4
the field, meaning that the larger the index, the more qualified the (8.89%) in the Afar region, 2 (4.44%) in the Benishangul-Gumuz
farmer is. This can make them effective and efficient. This is expected region, 2 (4.44%) in the Central Ethiopia region, and 3 (6.67%) in the
to have a positive effect on the dependent variable. Information Southwest region.
contact is a continuous variable measured by the frequency of contact Regions with a high number of studies, such as the Oromia and
made by farmers per annum with extension professionals. This was Amhara regions, indicate that a larger number of studies were
hypothesized to have a positive effect on the dependent variable. undertaken in these regions, suggesting that these regions are more
Finally, total income is a continuous variable measured in birr. closely aligned with agricultural science and technologies than the
This signifies the total amount of birr acquired by farmers through other regions. Within these regions, the availability of infrastructure,
on-farm and off-farm activities. The income earned from working on educated manpower, and the focus and commitment to change the
the farm, along with other alternative income sources, is essential for sectors are high, which have made them leaders in the production of
gaining access to improved production factors. This is expected to crops in the country.
have a positive effect on the dependent variable. Furthermore, fewer studies were conducted in the other cited
regions in the table, indicating that these regions have a low focus on
agricultural research and technology transfer issues. Therefore, they
3 Results and discussion have low potential for crop production. These regions tend to focus
more on the production of oil crops, cotton, vegetables, and livestock
3.1 Articles identified because of their comparative advantage.

Approximately 45 articles were identified based on the Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses article 3.4 Technical efficiency studies across the
selection criteria. In the initial step, 255 articles were identified study area
through database searching and referencing. Databases such as
Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, and AGRIS were Table 4 shows the distribution of the studies conducted in
used to obtain the relevant types and numbers of articles. A total of 50 different parts of Ethiopia. In the Oromia region, technical

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 04 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

TABLE 3 Variables used for meta regression analysis.

Dependent Type Measurement Hypothesized effect

Effect size
variable Continuous Standard mean difference
Moderators

Factor endowment Continuous Number of inputs used for crop production +

Labor quality Continuous The ratio of quantity produced to labor hour +

Information contact Continuous Number of contact made with the agricultural extension agents +

Total income Continuous Off-farm and farm incomes procured by the farmers within a year +

FIGURE 1
PRISMA flow diagram for article identification.

efficiency-focused studies were conducted in 13 different areas, 3.5 Targeted crops

representing the largest number compared to the other regions. In
the Amhara region, the studies were conducted in 11 study areas, Based on the findings shown in Figure 2, the number of studies
making it the second largest after Oromia. In the Southwest region, conducted by crop type is expressed as follows: barley (3), lentil (1),
technical efficiency-focused studies were conducted in only three maize (8), malt barley (1), sorghum (3), teff (3), wheat (6), cassava (1),
areas, making it the third largest after the Oromia and Amhara multiple crops (3), crop and livestock (2), faba bean (1), onion (2),
regions. In these regions, the production potential of crops is better potato (2), rice (2), sesame (1), soya bean (2), sweet potato (1), and
than in the rest of Ethiopia. However, efforts should be made to cover tomato (3). The numbers in the parentheses indicate the number of
other untapped areas and narrow the existing production gaps in studies associated with each crop type. Although there were many
the regions. studies, they were selected based on the objective of this review.
Furthermore, in the Southern region, Afar region, Benishangul- Moreover, the cross-tabulation shown in Table 5 illustrates the
Gumuz region, and Central Ethiopian region, technical efficiency- selected studies targeting crops across regions. The results showed that
related studies were conducted in only two areas. This finding implies a greater number of studies (about 11 studies) were conducted on
that these regions lack sufficient scientific information. In these maize products. Among these studies, eight were conducted in the
regions, farmers conduct their production practices based on Oromia region, two studies were conducted in the Afar region, and
indigenous knowledge, which has been developed over time and has one study was conducted in the Amhara region. This implies that the
not been able to help them boost their crop production potential. regions, in general, and the Oromia region, in particular, have
This, in turn, adversely affects farmers’ production potential. potential for maize production. The next most researched crop

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 05 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

TABLE 4 Number of articles by study areas and regions. (approximately six studies) was wheat. The number of studies across
the regions was distributed in the Oromia region (two studies),
Name of regions Study number Percent
Amhara region (one study), Central Ethiopia region (one study), and
study areas
Southwest region (one study).
Oromia region 17 37.79
The other more researched crops were barley (three studies),
Abune Gendeberet sorghum (three studies), teff (three studies), multiple crops (three
Gudeya Bela studies), and tomato (three studies). These studies were distributed
Arsi
across different regions, such as the Amhara, Oromia, and Tigray
regions. Other crops, such as cassava, sesame, soybean, and sweet
Debre Libanos
potato, were studied in the south, Amhara, Benishangul, and
Welmara southern regions.
Bakotibe

Guji

Gimbichu. Ejere
3.6 Description of quantitative data used in
the meta-analysis
Illu Aba Bora

Girawa 3.6.1 Technical efficiency and sample size

Gardega Jarte Tables 6, 7 present the summary statistics of the data used in the
Central Oromia
meta-analysis. Table 6 compares the mean technical efficiency of two
groups of smallholder farmers. According to the results, 75% of the
Debre Libanos
farmers had a land size of less than or equal to 0.5 ha, with a standard
Amhara region 13 28.89 deviation of 0.153. Moreover, the farmers with an average farm size of
South Wollo more than 0.5 ha had a mean technical efficiency of 69.6%, with a
Gojjam standard deviation of 0.144. The mean sample size used by the
identified studies for the smaller land size holders (≤0.5 ha) was 152,
Fogera Mecha
with a standard deviation of 115.49, whereas the sample size was 142,
Chilga with a standard deviation of 115.89, for the larger land size holders
Mecha And Fogera (>0.5 ha).
Menze, Bosena, Moret

Maykadra, Kafta-Humara
3.6.2 Summary statistics for the moderators
Table 7 shows the explanatory variables or moderators used in the
Meket
meta-regression estimation. The summary statistics showed that, on
North Gondar average, the farmers used approximately five factors in crop
East Shewa And East Gojjam production. These inputs were either predominantly local or
Debre Elias
unimproved. The use of local inputs and the difficulties farmers face
in mixing production factors result in inefficiency.
South region 2 4.44
Labor quality is another variable hypothesized to have an effect
Sodo-zuria on the efficiency of farmers. The farmers had a mean labor quality
Wolaita of 1.531 qt/man-day, which implied that they had low production
Tigray region 2 4.44 skills, meaning they needed many hours to produce more crops. This
was due to the fact that in Ethiopia, farmers employed on the farm
Tigray
have low literacy levels, are far from the extension service, and face
Afar region 4 8.89
serious hindrances related to the unavailability and unaffordability
Central rift valley of inputs, which limit their production potential. Similar finding was
Afar found by Tadesse et al. (2018), Tamirat et al. (2022), Teka et al.
Benishangul-Gumuz region 2 4.44
(2021), Tigabu et al. (2022), Tolesa (2022), Tsegaye et al. (2022), and
Alula et al. (2021).
Pawe
Regarding total income, the results indicated that the farmers
Benshangul had a total income of 215.029 birr per annum. Moreover, information
Central Ethiopia region 2 4.44 contact plays a significant role in updating information about the
Angecha market and production. Farmers can obtain information from
development agents, fellow farmers, and the mass media. The results
Gurage
showed that the farmers had a mean number of information contacts
Southwest region 3 6.67 of 22 per annum, with a standard deviation of 12. The high standard
Keffa, sheka, benchi deviation recorded for this variable indicates that there is a disparity
Keffa in information access among farmers, which is due to infrastructural
problems, information literacy problems, carelessness, and
Gura ferda
awareness problems regarding the importance of scientific
Total 45 100
information.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 06 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

FIGURE 2
Number of studies by crop type.

TABLE 5 Studies targeting crops by region.

Regions
Central Benishangul-
Crop type Amhara Oromia Tigray Southwest South Afar Total
Ethiopia Gumuz
Barley 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Lentil 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Maize 1 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 11

Malt Barley 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Sorghum 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

Teff 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

Wheat 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 6

Cassava 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Multiple Crop 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

Crop and Livestock 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Faba Bean 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Onion 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Potato 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Rice 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

Sesame 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Soya Bean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Sweet Potato 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Tomato 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3

Total 13 17 2 2 3 2 4 2 45

TABLE 6 Descriptive statistics for the outcome and intervention variable.

TABLE 7 Description of the effect size and moderators.
≤0.5 ha >0.5 ha
Variable Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Std.
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Factor endowment 45 5.378 1.419 3 7
Dev.
Mean technical 0.747 0.153 0.696 0.144 Labor quality 45 1.531 1.949 0.011 9.223

efficiency Total income 45 215029.7 218628.38 10,144 786,549

Sample size 151.467 115.487 144.4 115.897 Information contact 45 22.156 12.019 6 60

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 07 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

3.7 Efficiency difference across land sizes farmers with larger land sizes struggle to allocate the
in Ethiopia recommended amount of factor inputs per hectare of land. This is
due to poor knowledge about the issue, financial constraints, and
A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effect of land size poor follow-up on their farm because of labor shortage. The other
on the technical efficiency of farmers. According to the forest plot in reason is that even if farmers with larger land sizes have good
Figure 3, the farmers were technically more efficient under smaller resource endowments, most of them are engaged in other
land sizes (≤0.5 ha) compared to large land sizes (>0.5 ha). The farmers non-farm activities. Therefore, they do not take care of their farms
with smaller land sizes could improve technical efficiency by 21% as they spend much of their time doing other income-
compared to larger land size holders. The justification for this generating activities.
discrepancy is that smaller landholders rely on farming as their only
means of livelihood, which leads them to take better care of their
farms. These farmers have limited resource endowments, and farm 3.8 Test for heterogeneity
activities are carried out by family members. Therefore, with a smaller
land size, farmers can allocate sufficient amounts of seed, labor, and Output heterogeneity was detected from the results of the
fertilizer per hectare and can also manage overall farm operations well. cumulative meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was detected using a
However, the reasons why farmers are less efficient with larger chi-squared test (p < 0.01). Another option for indicating heterogeneity
land sizes can be understood in two aspects. First, smallholder was the use of Q statistics. The test results presented in Table 8 showed

FIGURE 3
Forest plot showing the cumulative effect of land size on technical efficiency.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 08 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

TABLE 8 Heterogeneity diagnostic test.

95% confidence interval Asymptotic Number of

Method Pooled estimate
Lower Upper Z-value p-value studies
Fixed 0.812 0.783 0.842 −11.297 0.000 45

Random 0.782 0.667 0.915 −3.056 0.002

Test for heterogeneity: Q = 817.167 on 44 degrees of freedom (p = 0.000).

Moment-based estimate of between-study variance = 0.272.

that the data were heterogeneous, with a q-value of 817.167 and TABLE 9 Meta-regression estimation.
significance at the 1% probability level.
Meta-regression Number of obs. = 45
Heterogeneity suggests that the effect is not the same across
REML estimate of the between- Tau2 = 0.1346
studies or there is a variation in outcomes between studies. The
study variance
heterogeneity was due to the variations in the study design, the
variability in the participants, and the interventions used across Proportion of the between-study Adjusted R-squared = 62.42%

the studies. Such methodological diversity indicates that the variance explained

studies may have been affected by varying levels of bias. This Joint test for all covariates Model F(4, 40) = 15.79
means that factors such as the type of sample, sampling With Knapp–Hartung Prob > F = 0.0000
techniques, differences in the processing of interventions, and modification
outcome variables were the causes of the heterogeneity
Std.
observed. _ES Coef. t P>t 5%Conf. [Interval]
Err.

Resource 0.113 0.043 2.640 0.012 0.026 0.199

3.9 Meta-regression estimation endowment

Labor 0.073 0.036 1.990 0.053 −0.001 0.146

Following the identification of heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was quality
performed based on study-level characteristics. The variability among Information 0.009 0.004 1.960 0.057 −0.000 0.017
the studies in this systematic review, also known as heterogeneity, was contact
reduced using four explanatory variables, commonly known as
Total income 0.001 0.000 2.640 0.012 0.000 0.001
moderators in meta-analysis.
_cons −1.169 0.188 −6.210 0.000 −1.549 −0.789
The indication of a reduction in heterogeneity was a decrease in
the tau-squared value from 0.272 to 0.1347. Therefore, it can _ES denotes the effect size.

be confirmed that the variation among the studies was explained using
moderators such as resource endowment, labor quality, information • Total income: This has a positive effect on the dependent variable
contact, and total income, as shown in Table 9. at a probability level of less than 5%. A unit increase in income
The meta-regression results, as presented in Table 9, showed that increases the effect size by 0.1%, ceteris paribus. The reason for
resource endowment, labor quality, information contact, and total this is that the income generated from on-farm and farm
income have a significant effect on the dependent variable. The activities is crucial for purchasing or hiring production factors
interpretation for each moderator is as follows: based on the requirements of the available land size.

• Resource endowment: This has a positive effect on the dependent Therefore, addressing and solving the aforementioned factors is
variable at a probability level of <5%. A unit increase in key to improving farmers’ efficiency individually and also has the
production input increases the effect size by 11.3%, ceteris potential to reduce efficiency differences among farmers.
paribus. The justification for this is that the use of a greater
number of production factors at the recommended rate is 3.9.1 Post-estimation tests
essential to boost efficiency because efficiency results from an A publication bias test was performed to determine whether
optimal mix of production factors. relevant articles were included in the analysis. Moreover, the
• Labor quality: This has a positive effect on the dependent publication bias test is an indicator of the presence of a small study
variable at a probability level of less than 10%. A unit effect. The results of the publication bias test were presented using a
improvement in the labor quality of farmers increases the effect statistical test called Begg’s test and a graph called a funnel plot.
size by 7.3%, ceteris paribus. The reason for this is that qualified
labor is skillful in managing every activity on the farm and can 3.9.1.1 Option 1: statistical tests
operate with a minimum cost of production. The first step for testing publication bias was to conduct a
• Information contact: This has a positive effect on the dependent statistical test using Begg’s test. As shown in Table 10, the test results
variable at a probability level of less than 10%. A unit increase in for publication bias showed insignificant values, which confirmed that
extension contact increases the technical effect size by 0.9%, there was no publication bias. The insignificance of the test result was
ceteris paribus. It is essential to reduce problems related to mixing denoted by the probability value for publication bias, which was equal
inputs and improve the access and utilization of production to 0.382 and was not significant. This finding implied that relevant
factors appropriately. studies were included in the meta-analysis.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 09 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

3.9.1.2 Option 2: graphical representation Therefore,

The funnel plot shown in Figure 4 also confirmed the absence of
publication bias. The funnel plot was symmetric with respect to the • Improving farmers’ production skills, providing input subsidies,
effect size measured by the standard mean difference (SMD). However, and upgrading development agents’ skills are crucial for boosting
it is important to note that the funnel plot only shows the distribution farmers’ efficiency.
of the studies in relation to the mean. Therefore, a comparable number • Strengthening public–private partnerships is essential because it
of studies were included in the analysis. The presence of studies can support farmers by improving the accessibility and
outside the 95% confidence limit was an indicator of heterogeneity availability of production input and knowledge.
among the studies. • Designing policies to support the digitalization of the sector is
crucial. Precision agricultural applications are important because
they can support site-specific crop production management.
4 Conclusion and recommendations Therefore, they can help lower the cost of production and
optimize efficiency.
In Ethiopia, the majority of farmers are smallholders,
characterized by limited resource endowment, farm activities operated Data availability statement
by family members, poor financial capacity, weak production skills,
and production levels below potential. In the country, farmers have The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will
different efficiencies across different land sizes. Farmers are more be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
efficient when operating on smaller land sizes as compared to larger
land sizes. As smallholders, farmers cannot afford the purchase of the Author contributions
inputs required for their farms. Farming on smaller land sizes allows
them to easily manage their farms and produce at a relatively YG: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding
lower cost. acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration,
Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing
– original draft, Writing – review & editing. AA: Resources, Validation,
TABLE 10 Begg’s test.
Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Adj. Kendall’s score (p-q) = −90.00

Std. dev. of score = 102.23 Funding

Number of studies = 45.00
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for
Pr>/z/ = 0.379
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
/z/ = 0.87 (continuity corrected)

Pr>/z/ = 0.384 (continuity corrected)

Std. Conflict of interest

Efficiency Coef. t P>/t/ 95% Conf. Interval
Err.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
Slope 0.024 0.275 0.09 0.931 −0.530 0.578
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
Bias −1.961 2.222 −0.88 0.382 −6.443 2.521
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits

0
.05
.1
se(SMD)
.15 .2
.25

-2 -1 0 1 2
SMD

FIGURE 4
Funnel plot for the publication bias test.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 10 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

Publisher’s note organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated by the publisher.

References
Adugna, A., Adeba, G., and Yadeta, B. (2023). Economic efficiency of smallholder Gadisa, M., and Addisu, G. (2022). Technical, allocative, and economic efficiency of
farmers in wheat Producation: in Adiyo District, Kafa zone, southern nations potato producers in Central Oromia, Ethiopia. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 11, 158–165. doi:
nationalities of People’s region, Ethiopia. Acta Sci. Agricult. 7, 31–46. 10.11648/j.ijber.20221103.17
Adugna, J., Shiferaw, F., Adane, T., Victor, M., and Thomas, A. (2017). Assessing the Gavaghan, D., Moore, A., and Mcqay, H. (2000). An evaluation of homogeneity tests
efficiency of sweet potato producers in the southern region of Ethiopia. Exp. Agric. 54, in meta-analysis in pain using simulations of patient data. Pain 85, 415–424. doi:
1–16. doi: 10.1017/S0014479717000199 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00302-4
Agerie, W., Tigabu, K., and Abebe, K. (2019). Analysis of technical efficiency of Genet, A. (2012). Rural land policy, rural transformation and recent trends in large-
potato (Solanum Tuberosum L.) production in Chilga District, Amhara scale rural land acquisitions in Ethiopia. pp. 1–28.
National Regional State, Ethiopia. J. Econ. Struct. 8, 1–18. doi: 10.1186/
Getachew, W., Lemma, Z., and Bosena, T. (2018). Economic efficiency of smallholder
s40008-019-0166-y
farmers in barley production in Meket District, Ethiopia. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 10,
Alemayehu, B. (2021). Economic efficiency of wheat production: the case of 328–338. doi: 10.5897/JDAE2018.0960
Angecha District, southern Ethiopia. Glob. J. Agricult. Econ. Extension Rural
Gidey, K., Dawit, G., and Kidane, T. (2021). Do smallholder farmers ensure resource
Dev. 9, 1–7.
use efficiency in developing countries? Technical efficiency of sesame production in
Ali, O., Amin, M., Michael, B., and Ataklty, H. (2022). Technical efficiency and firm Western Tigrai, Ethiopia. Heliyon 7, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07315
heterogeneity in stochastic frontier models: application to smallholder maize farms in
Gidey, E., Oagile, D., Reuben, S., Eagilwe, S., Amanuel, Z., Said, M., et al. (2023). Land
Ethiopia. J. Prod. Anal. 57, 213–241. doi: 10.1007/s11123-022-00627-2
use and land cover change determinants in Raya Valley, Tigray, northern Ethiopian
Alula, T., Bekele, M., Abrham, B., Ermias, A., John, W., Philip, M., et al. (2021). highlands. Agriculture 13, 1–15. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13020507
Cassava production efficiency in southern Ethiopia: the parametric model analysis.
Hagos, W. (2021). The determinants of technical efficiency of farmers in teff, maize
Front. Sustain. Food Syst 2021, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.758951
and sorghum production: empirical evidence from central zone of Tigray region. Ethiop.
Anbes, T. (2020). Technical efficiency of smallholder agriculture in J. Econ. 22, 1–36.
developing countries: the case of Ethiopia. Economies 8, 1–27. doi: 10.3390/
Hayatu, M. (2020). Efficiency analysis of crop production in Gurage zone: the case of
economies8020034
Abeshige Woreda, SNNPR Ethiopia. Int. J. Environ. Agricult. Biotechnol. 5, 1338–1350.
Anteneh, A., and Asrat, D. (2020). Wheat production and marketing in doi: 10.22161/ijeab.55.21
Ethiopia: review study. Cogent Food Agricult. 6:1778893. doi:
Higgins, J., Thompson, S., Deeks, J., and Altman, D. (2003). Measuring inconsistency
10.1080/23311932.2020.1778893
in meta-analyses. Br. Med. J. 327, 557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Belete, A. (2020). Analysis of technical efficiency in maize production in Guji
Hika, W., and Afsaw, L. (2019). Analysis of productivity and efficiency of maize
zone: stochastic frontier model. Agricult. Food Secur. 9, 1–15. doi: 10.1186/
production in Gardega-Jarte District of Ethiopia. Int. J. Environ. Agricult. Biotechnol. 15,
s40066-020-00270-w
180–193. doi: 10.5829/idosi.wjas.2019.180.193
Beneberu, T., Belaineh, L., Jema, M., and Girma, K. (2018). Farm level efficiency of
Hosaena, H., and Holden, S. (2014). Efficiency and productivity differential effects of
crop production in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Am. J. Rural Dev. 6, 49–58. doi:
land certification program in Ethiopia: Quasi-experimental evidence from Tigray. ESSP
10.12691/ajrd-6-2-4
Working Papers 64. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 1–24.
Beshir, H. (2017). Technical efficiency measurement and their differential in wheat Available at: https://media.africaportal.org/documents/Agricultural_and_rural_
production: the case of smallholder farmers in south Wollo. Int. J. Econ. Bus. Finan. transformation_in_Ethiopia.pdf.
4, 1–16.
Ingrao, C., Strippoli, R., Lagioia, G., and Huisingh, D. (2023). Water scarcity in
Beyan, A., Jema, H., and Endrias, G. (2013). Analysis of farm Households' technical agriculture: an overview of causes, impacts and approaches for reducing the risks.
efficiency in production of smallholder farmers: the case of Girawa District, Ethiopia. J. Heliyon 9, e18507–e18516. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18507
Agricult. Environ. Sci. 13, 1615–1621. doi: 10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2013.13.12.12310
Kebebew, H., Wolteji, B., and Milkessa, W. (2021). Economic efficiency of wheat
Birara, E., Mezgebu, A., Adugnaw, A., and Habtamu, M. (2023). Sources of wheat producers: the case of Debra Libanos District, Oromia, Ethiopia. Turk. J. Agricult. Food
production technical inefficiency among smallholder farmers in northwestern Ethiopia: Sci. Technol. 9, 953–960. doi: 10.24925/turjaf.v9i6.953-960.4244
Beta regression approach. Cogent Econ. Finan. 11, 1–18. doi:
Kifle, D., Getachew, B., and Galmesa, A. (2020). Economic efficiency of smallholder
10.1080/23322039.2023.2208895
farmers in tomato production in BakoTibe District, Oromia region, Ethiopia. J. Agricult.
Birhanu, A., Jema, H., Mohammed, A., and Gebreegziabehr, F. (2020). Technical, Sci. Food Res. 11, 1–8. doi: 10.35248/2593-9173.20.11.273
allocative and economic efficiency of soya bean production: the case of smallholder
Kusse, H., Engida, G., and Agegnehu, W. (2021). Does technical efficiency matter for
farmers in Pawe District, Ethiopia. Ethiopian J. Econ. 29, 43–70.
Ethiopia’s Sorghum producer farmers? A study on its implication for productivity
Dagmawi, A. (2021). Analysis of technical efficiency of smallholder tomato producers improvement. Ethiopian J. Econ. 29, 71–104.
in Asaita district, Afar National Regional State, Ethiopia. PLoS One 16:e0257366. doi:
Mengistu, A., Berihun, D., Jourdain, C., and Yismaw, B. (2024). Productivity and
10.1371/journal.pone.0257366
efficiency heterogeneity among maize smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Cogent Food
Dias, M., and Gustavo, J. (2020). Farm size and land use efficiency in the Brazilian Agricult. 10, 1–12. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2199516/v1
Amazon. Land Use Policy 99, 13–25. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104901
Miao, B., Liu, Y., Fan, Y., Niu, X., Jiang, X., and Tang, Z. (2023). Optimization of
Diriba, G. (2020). Agricultural and rural transformation in Ethiopia: Obstacles, agricultural resource allocation among crops: a portfolio model analysis. Land 12, 1–18.
Triggers and Reform Considerations Policy Working Paper. doi: 10.3390/land12101901
Eskeziaw, M., Mengestu, K., Jemma, H., and Ketema, B. (2021). Production efficiency Milkessa, A., Endrias, G., and Fikadu, M. (2019). Economic efficiency of smallholder
of major crops among smallholder farmers in Central Ethiopia. J. Agribus. Rural Dev. 3, farmers in wheat production: in Abuna Gindeberet District, Oromia National Regional State,
235–245. doi: 10.17306/J.JARD.2021.01391 Ethiopia. Open Access J. Agricult. Res. 22, 65–75. doi: 10.15414/raae.2019.22.01.65-75
Essa, C., Franklin, S., and Gideon, O. (2012). Factor productivity in smallholder Musa, A., Lemma, S., and Endrias, G. (2015). Measuring technical, economic and
Pigeonpea production systems: empirical evidence from northern Tanzania. J. Agricult. allocative efficiency of maize production in subsistence farming: evidence from the
Econ. Dev. 1, 138–144. central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Appl. Stud. Agribusiness Commerce 9, 63–73. doi:
10.19041/APSTRACT/2015/3/9
FAO. (2023). The Global Network of Digital Agriculture Innovation Hubs. Available
at: https://www.fao.org/in-action/global-network-digital-agriculture-innovation-hubs/ PDC (2020). The Pathway to Prosperity Ten Years Perspective Development Plan
countries/ethiopia/en. (2021–2030). Available at: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eth215704.pdf.
Fisseha, Z., Abrham, S., and Dawit, A. (2022). Cereal production practices and Regasa, D., Mesay, Y., and Adam, B. (2019). Analysis of production efficiency,
technical efficiency among farm households in major “Teff” growing mixed farming productivity variances and resource allocation among smallholder farmers of soybean
areas of Ethiopia: a stochastic Meta-frontier approach. Cogent Econ. Finan. 10, 1–33. doi: producers: evidence from BenishangulGumuz region Ethiopia. Int. J. Res. Stud. Agricult.
10.1080/23322039.2021.2012986 Sci. 5, 18–36. doi: 10.20431/2454-6224.0507003

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 11 frontiersin.org

Girma Asefa and Ayalew Muluken 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447186

Sime, S., Jema, H., Mengestu, K., and Million, S. (2022). Technical, allocative and Tigabu, D., Abebe, D., and Taye, M. (2022). Analysis of technical efficiency of irrigated
economic efficiency of malt barley producers in Arsi zone, Ethiopia. Cogent Food tomato production in North Gondar zone of Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. Springer
Agricult. 8, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2022.2115669 15, 599–620. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-150323/v1
Tadesse, J., Leta, T., Techale, B., and Lemi, B. (2018). Genetic variability, heritability and Tolesa, T. (2022). Determinants of production efficiency of maize-dominated
genetic advance of maize (Zea Mays L.) inbred lines for yield and yield related traits in farmers in Western parts of Ethiopia in Gudeya Bila District: evidence under shifting
southwestern Ethiopia. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 10, 281–289. doi: 10.5897/JPBCS2018.0742 cultivation area. Sci. World J. 2022, 1–6. doi: 10.1155/2022/3355224
Tadesse, Z., Solomon, A., and Fentahun, A. (2017). Analysis of the technical efficiency Tolesa, T., Temesgen, K., and Zekarias, S. (2019). Economic efficiency of smallholder
of Rice production in Fogera District of Ethiopia: a stochastic frontier approach. farmers in maize production in Gudeya Bila District, Oromia National Regional State,
Ethiopian J. Econ. 26, 90–108. Ethiopia: parametric approach. J. Appl. Agricult. Econ. Policy Anal. 2, 1–7. doi: 10.12691/
jaaepa-2-1-1
Tamirat, F., Mekonnen, S., Yared, D., and Ali, M. (2022). Technical efficiency of
irrigated onion and tomato production in the central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Tsegaye, M., Mebratu, A., Amsalu, M., and Nesre, K. (2022). Economic efficiency of
Agric. Sci. 32, 148–162. smallholder farmers in Rice production: the case of Guraferda Woreda, southern nations
nationalities People's region, Ethiopia. Int. J. Agricult. Innov. Res. 8, 151–167.
Teka, E., Osman, R., and Yadeta, B. (2021). Resource use efficiency of smallholder
maize producers’ in Bilo Nopa District, Ilu Ababor zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia: an Wudineh, G., and Endrias, G. (2016). Technical efficiency of smallholder wheat
application of stochastic frontier analysis. Ethiopian J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 13, 94–103. doi: farmers: the case of Welmera District, Central Oromia, Ethiopia. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 8,
10.13140/RG.2.2.10607.56489 39–51. doi: 10.5897/JDAE2015.0660
Tekleyohannes, H., Berhanu, G., and Tewodros, T. (2024). Technical inefficiency of Zewdie, M., Michele, M., Daregot, B., Zemen, A., Jan, N., Enyew, A., et al. (2021).
smallholder wheat production system: empirical study from northern Ethiopia. Agricultural technical efficiency of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia: a stochastic frontier
Ethiopian J. Econ. 27, 151–171. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.343219 approach. Land 10, 1–17. doi: 10.3390/land10030246

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 12 frontiersin.org