WOLLO UNIVERSTY

COLLAGE OF BUSSINESS AND ECONOIMCS

DEPARTEMENT OF ECONOMICS
TITILE: ECONOMIC EFFICENCY OF WHEAT PRODUCTION BY
SMALLHOLDER FARMAERS: IN DESSIE SURIA WORDA
JAMMA DISTINCIT

RESEARCHE PROPOSAL
PREPARD BY ID NO
1, Hiwot Desalegn........................................3097/12
2, Zeritu Gashaw..........................................4043/12
3, Misa Metku...............................................3414/12
4, Hayat Mohammod....................................3074 /12
5, Serkalem Tesfay.......................................3601/12

Submitted to Mr .
December2015 E.C
WOLLO, ETHIOPIA

I
 ACRONMYS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AE Allocative Efficiency
COLS Corrected Ordinary Least Squares
CSA Central Statistical Agency
DEA Data Envelopment Analysis
EE Economic Efficiency
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GDP Gross Domestic Product
Ha Hectare
Kg Kilogram
LR Likelihood Ratio
ME Man Equivalent
MLE Maximum Likelihood Estimation
NPS Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Sulphur
OLS Ordinal Least Square
QT Quintal
TE Technical Efficiency
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WFP World Food Programme

II
 ABSTRACT
Ethiopia, increasing population pressure and low levels of agricultural productivity have
aggravated the food insecurity situation by widening the gap between demand for and
supply of food. Increasing productivity and efficiency in crop production could be taken
an important step towards attaining food security. The objective of this study will to
estimates the levels of technical, allocative and economic efficiencies of smallholder
wheat producers; and to identify factors affecting efficiency of smallholder farmers in
wheat production in Jamma district, Ethiopia.

III
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all we will like to great thanks give to almighty our God he will help us in every
aspects of our life. Next we will like to express our heart felt gratitude to our advisor
(instructor) Abrham M for his unreserved advice and invaluable comments through the
whole process until the paper are finalized. Thirdly we will like to thanks Business and
Economics College of WOLLO UNIVERSITY for giving us this opportunity to prepare a
research proposal on Economics. And we will also like to thanks the staff members of
South Wollo Zone Agricultural Office for their excellent collaboration.

IV
 TABELE CONTENT

CONTENT PAGE
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................i

KEY WORDS..................................................................................................i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................................................ii

CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................6
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................6
1.1 Background of the study .........................................................................................6

1.2 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................7

1.3 Objective of the study...................................................................................................8

1.3.1 General objective....................................................................................................8

1.3.2 The Specific Objectives..........................................................................................8

1.4 Significance of the Study.............................................................................................8

1.5 Scope of the Study.......................................................................................................9

CHAPTER TWO............................................................................ 10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................... 10
2.1 Definition of Efficency...............................................................................................10

2.2 Types of Efficency......................................................................................................10

2.2.1 Technical Efficency (AE)......................................................................................19

V
 2.2.2 Allocative Efficency (AE)......................................................................................20

2.2.3 Economic Efficiency (EE)…………………………………………………..…20

2. 3 Concepts of Productivity and Efficiency………….………………………...…20

CHAPTER THREE........................................................................ 28
3. RESEARCH METHOD AND METHODOLOGY..................................28
3.1 The Research Design..................................................................................................28

3.2. Type of Data and Sources..........................................................................................28

3.3 Method of Data Collection.........................................................................................28

3.4 The Sampling Technique............................................................................................29

3.5 Sample Size................................................................................................................29

3.6 Method of Data Analysis and Presentation................................................................29

3.7 Time Schedule............................................................................................................30

3.8 Budget Schedule.........................................................................................................31

REFERENCE..................................................................................32

VI
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Agriculture is a center driver of Ethiopian economy. Economic growth of the country is

highly linked to the success of the agricultural sector. It accounts for about 36.3% of the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), provides employment opportunities to more than 73% of
total population that is directly or indirectly engaged in agriculture, generates about 70%
of the foreign exchange earnings of the country and 70% raw materials for the industries
in the country (UNDP, 2018). Even though it is contributing a lot to the Ethiopian
economy, the agricultural sector is explained by low productivity, caused by a
combination of natural calamities,demographic factors, socio-economic factors; lack of
knowledge on the efficient utilization of available; and limited resources (especially land
and capital); poor and backward technologies and limited use of modern agricultural
technologies (WFP, 2012). Moreover, the sector is dominated by smallholder farmers
that are characterized by subsistence production with low input use and low productivity,
and dependency on traditional farming and rainfall. The smallholder farmers, who are
providing the major share of the agricultural output in the country,commonly employ less
modern production technologies and limited external inputs (World Bank, 2007).
Therefore, being agriculture dependent country with a food deficit gap, increasing crop
production and productivity is not a matter of choice rather a must to attain food self
sufficiency.

Agricultural productivity can be increased through diffusion of improved technologies

and/or by improving the productive ability of farmers. In other words, through
introduction of modern technologies and/or by improving the efficiency of inputs such as
labor and management at the existing level of technology, it is possible to boost
agricultural output. However, these two are not mutually exclusive, because the
introduction of modern technology could not bring the expected shift of production
frontier, if the existing level of efficiency is low. This implies that the need for the

7
amalgamation of modern technologies with improved level of efficiency (Kinde,2005). In
countries like Ethiopia (having capital constraint), it is worthwhile to benefit from
increasing productivity through improving resource use efficiency.

In sub-Saharan Africa, Ethiopia is the second largest producer of wheat, following South
Africa. Wheat is one of the major staple and strategic food security crop in Ethiopia. It is
the second most consumed cereal crop in Ethiopia next to maize. It has multipurpose uses
in making various human foods, such as bread, biscuits, cakes, sandwich, etc. Besides,
wheat straw is commonly used as a roof thatching material and as a feed for animals
(Omer, 2015).

Wheat is cultivated in the highlands of Ethiopia, mainly in Oromia, Amhara, Southern

Nations Nationalities and Peoples' Region (SNNPR) and Tigray regions. It is
predominantly grown by smallholder farmers under rain-fed conditions.CSA (2017)
report shows that, wheat is cultivated on over 1.69 million hectares of land, with an
annual production of 4.5 million tons with a yield of 26.75 qt/ha, contributing about
15.63%of the total cereal production.

In Amhara region, the total area covered by wheat was 898,455.57 hectare produced by
2.21 million smallholders; the total production was 26.64 million quintals; and average
productivity was 29.65qt/ha(CSA,2017).

Therefore, this study will intended to estimate levels of efficiency and to identify
factors affecting efficiency levels of smallholder wheat producers in the study area.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The production of wheat in the country is very insufficient to meet the increasing demand
for food for the ever-increasing population, forcing the country to import 30 to 50% of
the annual wheat grain required (Jemal et al., 2016). This is may be due to that ninety-

8
eight percent of this crop is produced by resource-poor farmers. So, to meet the domestic
needs of the country, increasing production and productivity of the wheat crop is needed
and it may be achieved through improved crop management, particularly use of high
yielding and disease resistant varieties coupled with improving the existing level of
farmers efficiency.

Efficient production is the basis for achieving overall food security and poverty reduction
objectives particularly in major food crops producing potential areas of the country
(Tolesa et al.,2014). However, farmers are discouraged to produce more because of
inefficient agricultural systems and differences in efficiency of production (Kifle et al.,
2017). When there is inefficiency; attempts to introduce new technology may not result in
the expected impact since the existing knowledge is not efficiently utilized.
The presence of inefficiency not only limits the gains from the existing resources, it also
hinders the benefits that could arise from the use of improved inputs. Hence,
improvement in the level of efficiency will increase productivity by enabling farmers to
produce the maximum possible output from a given level of inputs with the existing level
of technology (Geta et al., 2013; Mesay et al., 2013; Sisay et al., 2015).

Most of the empirical studies in Ethiopia show that there was a variation in the level
efficiency of smallholder farmers in wheat production (Fikadu and Bezabih, 2008; Mesay
et al.,2013; Solomon, 2012; Awol, 2014; Tolesa et al., 2014; Kaleb and Negatu, 2016;
Hassen, 2016; Getahun and Geta, 2016). According to the results of these studies the
main sources of variation was; farm size, livestock holding, land fragmentation,
education, participation in off/non-farm activities, access to credit, family size, extension
contacts and poor infrastructures, among the others. However, those factors are not
equally important and similar in all places at all times. A critical factor in one place at a
certain time may not necessarily be a significant factor in other places even in the same
place after some time.

Many researchers, in different sectors, have done many performance evaluation studies in
Ethiopia. However, the majority of farm efficiency studies are limited to technical

9
efficiency (Fekadu and Bezabih, 2008; Mesay et al., 2013; Hassen, 2016; Kaleb and
Negatu, 2016;Assefa,2016; Getahun and Geta, 2016). But, focusing only on technical
efficiency (TE) understates the benefits that could be derived by producers from
improvements in overall performance. Unlike technical efficiency, this studies will
conducted on economic efficiency (EE) of wheat are limited (Solomon,2012; Awol,
2014).

1.3. Research Questions

This study will attempt to answer the following key research questions.
1. What are the levels of technical, allocative and economic efficiencies of smallholder
wheat producers in the study area?
2. What are the factors that affect technical, allocative and economic efficiencies of
smallholder wheat producers in the study area?

1.4. Objective of the study

1.4.1. General objective

The general objective of this study will to assess economic efficiency of smallholder
wheat producers in Jamma district, of South Wollo zone.

1.4.2. Specific objectives

1. To measure the levels of technical, allocative and economic efficiencies of smallholder

wheat producers in the study area; and

2. To identify factors that affect technical, allocative and economic efficiencies of

smallholder wheat producers in the study area.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The study will provide information about the economic efficiency of smallholder farmers
in wheat production in Jamma district, Ethiopia . The result of the study will enables us
to know the significant factors that determine smallholder farmers’ economic efficiency
of wheat production in the study area.

10
The findings of the study will help the concerned body of the study area to be aware of
the economic efficiency of smallholder farmers in the study area. Since the determinants
of economic efficiency of wheat production of smallholder farmers in Jamma district
were investigated, the above-mentioned bodies can easily identify the potentially
effective intervention areas which can play a crucial role in their success.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study will focus on assessing economic efficiency of smallholder farmers in wheat
production by using data from one district and identifying factors that affect efficiency of
smallholder farmers. It was conducted using a cross-sectional data which only reflects
circumstances in a given year and may be affected by the specific climate of the year as
agriculture in the country is dependent on weather condition

1.7. Limitation of the study

The study will face some challenges. Farmers in the study area do not keep records they
might face recalling problems of the past events and most probably they may give wrong
information during the survey time. The study is limited to three kebeles , out of total
weyina dega kebeles, 70 respondents due to limited resources, such as finance and time.
Farmers in the study area produce different tips of crops, this study focused only on
wheat but other crops were not included. Moreover, the results of cross sectional data did
not show the change over time that was important for a follow up development strategy.
1.7 organization of the paper
The study is organized by five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction section
which contains back ground of the organization, background of the study, statement of
the problems, and objective of the study, significance of the study, scope and limitation.
The second chapter is literature review it contains the theoretical aspect of economic
efficiency and chapter three contains the methodology part. The data presentation and
analysis part is included in the fourth chapter and finally the fifth chapter contains
recommendation and conclusion part on budget implementation and control system.

CHAPTER TWO

11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Definitions of Efficiency

Efficiency is a term importantly used in production economics, is defined as the degree to
which a production process reflects “best practice”, either in physical sense(“technicaleffi
ciency”) or in an economic sense (“allocative efficiency”).
The first theories and empirical findings on efficiency of a production
unit appeared in1957, with the Solow(macroeconomic approach) and Farrell
(microeconomic approach)studies.In particular, Farrell (1957)following the works of Deb
reu and Koopmans, 1951involves new insights into two important 
issues: how to define efficiency and productivity and how to calculate
 the benchmark technology and efficiency measures. He Farrell(1957) 
proposed that the Efficiency of a firm consisted of three components: technical,
allocative and economic efficiencies.

2.2 Types of Efficiency

2.2.1 Technical Efficiency (TE):

According to the work of Farrell (1957), technical efficiency isdefined as the achievemen
t of the maximum potential output from given amounts of inputsunder a given technology
, taking into account physical production relationships. Following N’Gbo (1991) et Atkin
son et Cornwell (1994) studies, we can consider that a production unitis effective technic
ally if, from the inputs it possesses, it produces the maximum of possibleoutputs or if, to 
produce an outputs given quantity, it uses the smallest possible quantities of outputs.

2.2.2 Allocative Efficiency (AE):

12
Allocative efficiency refers to the ability to choose optimuminput levels for given factor p
rices. In other words, the allocative efficiency shows whether theuse of different proporti
ons of production factors guarantees the attainment of maximum production with a partic
ular market price (Farrell 1957). Allocative inefficiency arises whenfactors of production 
are used in proportion that does not minimize the cost of producing a
given level of output

2.2.3 Economic Efficiency (EE):

Economic efficiency combines both the technical and allocativeefficiency. It occurs whe 
a firm chooses resources and enterprises in such a way to attain
economic optimum (Adesina and Djato, 1997). Further many more individuals definedec
onomic efficiency at different time. Koppet al.(1982) defines economic efficiency as thec
apacity of a firm to produce a predetermined quantity of output at minimum cost for a giv
enlevel of technology. Again, BravoUreta and Pinheiro (1997) defined economic efficien
cy asthe capacity of a firm to produce a predetermined quantity of output at least cost for 
given thelevel of technology and is made up of allocative and technical efficiency.

2. 3 Concepts of productivity and efficiency

The efficiency of a farmer is its ability to produce the greatest amount of output possible
from a fixed amount of inputs. Another way of putting this is to say that an efficient
farmer is one that given a state of technical know-how, can produce a given quantity of
goods by using the least quantity of inputs possible (Kopp, 1981). Productive efficiency
consists of technical and allocative efficiency. Technical efficiency is derived from the
production function which reflects the ability of the firm to maximize output for a given
set of resource inputs.

According to Koopmans (1951) a producer is technically efficient if, and only if, it is
impossible to produce more output without producing less of some other output or using
more of some input. Technical efficiency of a producer is a comparison between
observed and optimal values of its outputs and inputs. It refers to the ability to avoid

13
wastage either by producing as much output as technology and input usage allow or by
using as little input as required by technology and output production. Technical efficiency
has, therefore, both aninput conserving and output promoting argument.

It is assumed that technical efficiency lies between zero and one, if TE = 1 implies that
the firm is producing on its production frontier and is said to be technically efficient. 1–
TE is therefore the largest proportional reduction in input that can be achieved in the
production of the output. Alternatively, it can be interpreted as the largest percentage cost
saving that can be achieved by moving the firm towards the frontier isoquant through
radial rescaling of all inputs (Chavas & Aliber, 1993).

This would be represented by the firms operating more closely to the existing frontier. It
is thus evident that productivity growth may be achieved through either technological
progress or efficiency improvement, and that the policies required to address these two
issues are likely to be quite different. Production technology is commonly modelled by
means of production function, which in the scalar out put case specifies the maximum
output obtainable from an input vector. The degree to which the actual output of a
production unit approaches sits maximum is the technical efficiency of production.
Productivity is the quantity of a given output of a firm per unit of input. Technical
efficiency (that part of efficiency which explains the physical performance of a firm)
measures the relative ability of a firm to get the maximum possible output at given input
or set of inputs. Technically efficient firms are those firms that are operating on the
production frontier that represents the maximum output attainable from each input level
(Coelli, 1995).

The concept of efficiency is considered with the relative performance of processes used
in transforming given inputs in to output. Farrell (1957) identified at least two types of
efficiency. These are technical and allocative efficiencies.

According to (Farrell & Fieldhouse, 1962), allocative efficiency is related to the ability of
a farmer to choose its input in a cost minimizing way. It involves the selection of an input
mix that allocates factors to their highest valued uses and thus introduces the opportunity
cost of factor inputs to the measurement of productive efficiency. AE reflects the ability
of the firm to use the inputs in optimal proportions given their respective prices and the

14
production technology. It is assumed that, 0 < AE < 1. Following the same line of
reasoning, 1 – AE measures the maximal proportion of cost the technical efficient firm
can save by behaving ina cost minimizing way.

Technical efficiency and allocative efficiency are then combined to give economic
efficiency, which is referred to as overall efficiency (T. Coelli et al., 2002). It is assumed
that 0 < EE < 1. Therefore EE = 1 implies that it is both technically and allocatively
efficient. Alternatively, [1–EE] measures the proportional reduction in cost that the
producer can achieve by becoming technically and allocatively efficient. The distinction
between technical and allocative efficiency is further explained using two approaches
input-oriented and output oriented approaches.

2.14 Empirical Literature

CHAPTER THREE

3. RESEARCH METHOD AND METHODOLOGY

Description of the study area

The study was carried out in Jamma district. It is located in the northeastern part of
Amhara National Regional State, South Wollo Zone, Ethiopia, lying between 10°23′0″
and 10°27′0″N latitude and between 39°07′0″and 39°24′0″E longitude. The district has an
altitude that ranges from 1600 to 2776 m above sea level. The district is bordered on the
southeast by Qechene River which separates it from North Shewa Zone, on the west by
Kelala, on the north by Legahida, on the northeast by Wore Ilu, on the south by Mida, on
the east by Gera Mider and Keya Gebrieal. The district capital town, Degolo, is about
260 km away from Addis Ababa and 110 km away from the zonal city of South Wollo
Zone, Dessie

15
3.2. Type of Data and Sources
Primary data are those data that are gathered for a specific purpose or for a specific
research project by effort of researchers. Primary data are more accurate and reliable
compared to secondary data.
The main source of the study will both primary and secondary data source. Primary data
will collected through interviewing, while secondary data will collecte from financial
reports and budget document.

3.3 Method of Data Collection

In the data collection process different data collection method will be used in the study,
according to the source of data that will collected to conduct the research. Both primary
and secondary data as well as quantitative and qualitative data were employed for this
study. In the study, cross-sectional household data of 2016–2017 main harvest cropping
season were used. Data for input (such as land, human labor, oxen labor, fertilizer and
seed amount) were used, and output of wheat production was collected from the specified
period of time. Data on input use and outputs were collected in local units and converting
into standard units. In addition, primary data were collected by interviewing the selected
wheat-producing farmers and variables that cause variation in production efficiency like
age, education, household size, extension contact, gender and the like. In addition,
socioeconomic variables such as demographic data, credit access, livestock holding,
wealth indicators and institutional data were collected. On the other hand, data related to
wheat production trend, input supply and extension services were collected to clarify and
support analysis and interpretation of primary data.

3.4 The Sampling Technique And sample size

In order to select sample households, three-stage sampling technique where
combinations of purposive and simple random sampling techniques were used to select
the district and sample household heads. Out of the 20 rural districts in South Wollo
Zone, Jamma district was purposively selected due to long-year experience in wheat
production and extent of wheat production in South Wollo Zone. This information is
obtained from South Wollo Zone Agricultural Office. In the first stage, out of the three

16
agro ecologies of the district, weyina dega was selected purposively due to the major
wheat production part of the district. In the second stage, out of the total weyina dega
kebeles, three kebeles were selected by simple random sampling. In the third stage, 149
sample wheat-producing farmers were selected using simple random sampling technique
from each selected kebeles based on probability proportion to size sampling technique.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis and Presentation

After the relevant data will gather through primary and secondary sources analyzed by
using both qualitative and quantitative data procedure and the data are represented by
using simple

3.7. Time Schedule

NO Activities November December January

1 Selection of title
2 Surveying available
literature
3 Writing of proposal
4 Collection of data
5 Analysis and
interpretation
6 Writing of research
7 Submission and
presentation of final
essay

17
 3.8. Budget Schedule

No Material requirements Unit Unit cost Total cost

1 Pen 5 20birr 100birr
2 Paper 1packs 200birr 200birr
3 Pencil 1 10birr 10birr
4 USB memory[16gb] 1 300birr 300birr
5 Transportation 3 times 150birr 450birr
6 Internet usage 5 times 30birr 100birr
7 Telephone call 10 times 10birr 100birr
8 Printing and bending cost 100birr
8 Miscellaneous expenses 400birr
Total 1760birr

18
REFERENCE
Assefa Ayele. 2016. Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Wheat Production in
Soro District of Hadiya Zone, Southern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis Haramaya
University
Awol Ahmed. 2014. Economic Efficiency of Rain-Fed Wheat Producing Farmer’s
in North Eastern Ethiopia: The Case of Albuko District. MSc Thesis
Presented to the School of Graduate Studies, Haramaya University.
Coelli T.J. 1995. Recent development in frontier modeling and efficiency
measurement. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 39:
pp 219-245.
CSA, 2017. Agricultural Sample Survey 2016/2017 (2009 E.C.): Volume I –
Report on area and production of major crops (Private peasant holdings,
Meher season). Statistical Bulletin, Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Farrell M.J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of Royal
Statistical Society Series A., 120: 253-290.
Fekadu G. and Bezabih E. 2008. Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Wheat
Production: A Study in Machakel Woreda, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of

19
 Agricultural Economics. 7(2).
Geta E., Bogale A., Kassa B., Elias E. 2013. Productivity and efficiency analysis
of smallholder maize producers in Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Human
Ecology. 41(1):67-75.
Getahun W. and Geta E. 2016. Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Wheat
Farmers: The Case of Welmera District, Central Oromia, Ethiopia.
Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics.Vol.8(2), pp.39-51.
Hassen Beshir. 2016. Technical Efficiency Measurement and Their Differential in
Wheat Production: The Case of Smallholder Farmers in South Wollo.
Wollo University, Department of Agricultural Economics, P.O. Box 1145,
Ethiopia. International Journal of Economics, Business and Finance Vol.
4, No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Jemal Y., Mengistu K., Wassu M., Tesfaye L., Kibebew K., Nega A., Kidesena S.,
Nigussie A., (eds.). 2016. Proceeding of the National Workshop on
'Building Resilience and Reducing Vulnerability in Moisture Stress Areas
through Climate Smart Technologies and Innovative Practices', January
15-16, Haramaya University, Ethiopia
Kaleb K. and Negatu W. 2016. Analysis of levels and determinants of technical
efficiency of wheat producing farmers in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. African Journal of
Agricultural Research. Vol. 11(36), Pp.3391-3403.
Kifle D. Moti J., Belaineh L. 2017. Economic efficiency of smallholder farmers in
maize production in Bako Tibe district, Ethiopia. Development Country
StudiesVol.7, No.2.
Kinde T. 2005. Technical efficiency of maize production: A Case of Smallholder
Farmers in Asosa Woreda. M.Sc. thesis presented to school of graduate
studies, Haramaya University.
Koopmans T.C. 1951. 'Analysis of Production as an Efficient Combination of
Activities', Activity analysis of production and allocation 13: 33-37.
Mesay Y., Tesfaye S., Bedada B., Fekadu F., Tolesa A. and Dawit Al. 2013.
Source of technical inefficiency of smallholder wheat farmers in selected

20
 waterlogged areas of Ethiopia: A trans log production function approach.
African Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 8(29).
Omer Gebremedhin. 2015. Bread wheat production in small scale irrigation users
agro-pastoral households in Ethiopia: Case of Afar and Oromia regional
state. International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Extension,
Vol.3(5), pp.144-150.
Sisay D., J. Haji D. Goshu and A.K. Edriss. 2015. Technical, allocative, and
economic efficiency among smallholder maize farmers in Southwestern
Ethiopia. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, Vol. 7(8):
pp 283-292.

Tolesa A., Bezabih E., Jema H., and Belay L. 2014. Smallholder Wheat
Production Efficiency in Selected Agro ecological Zones of Ethiopia: A
Parametric Approach. Journal of Economics and Sustainable
Development. Vol.5, No.3
UNDP (United nations development Programme). 2018. Ethiopia's progress to
warding eradicating poverty. Paper to be presented to the inter-agency group
meeting on the implementation of the third united nations decade
.of the eradication of poverty (2018-2027) Addis Abeba, Ethiopia
World Bank. 2007. Project performance assessment report: Seed system
development project and national fertilizer sector project. Report No.
40124.
WFP (Food and Agricultural Organization and World Food Programme). 2012.
Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to Ethiopia. Special Report of Food
and Agriculture Organization and World Food Programme

21