Will the parish development model pillar 1 services interventions promote agricultural production? An ex- ante analysis on groundnut production using the Uganda panel data set.

Abstract

Using the UNPS 2018/19 and UNPS 2019/20 datasets, this study assesses how the proxies of PDM pillar 1 services interventions are likely to affect groundnut production in Uganda. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the distribution and characteristics of respondents. At the multivariable level of analysis, the Random Effects Linear Regression Model was fitted to investigate the likely effects of proxies of the PDM pillar one interventions on groundnuts production in Uganda at a 5% level of significance. The study found that twelve of the seventeen proxies of the PDM pillar one services interventions indeed had a statistically significant (p <0.05) effects on groundnut production in Uganda, ceteris paribus. The PDM pillar one service interventions proxies with statistically significant positive effects included: 1-agriculture extension services, 2-use of agricultural inputs such as: i) quantity of groundnuts seeds sown, ii) organic fertilizer usage, iv) pesticides usage, and v) mechanization (use of tractors and ox-plough), 3-household farmland ownership documentation, 4-access to credits, 5-type of crop stand (pure stand/mono-cropping), 6-quality standard of groundnuts seeds, 7-household members’ participation in community crop harvesting activity, 8-access to markets, 9-erosion control methods, 10-water sources used for farming. Conversely, the PDM pillar one service interventions proxies with statistically significant negative effects included: 2-agricultural inputs, such as inorganic fertilizer usage, 11-commodity storage methods, and 12-transport costs. All the four geographical regions of farmers (such as the Central, Eastern, Northern, and Western regions) negatively affected groundnut production in Uganda. Therefore, the study recommended that: First, all PDM Pillar One interventions with potentially positive effects on groundnut production should be scaled up and strengthened by the Government of Uganda to enhance production. These interventions have demonstrated a capacity to improve production and, therefore, warrant continued investment and expansion to other farming communities. Second, in contrast, interventions with potentially negative effects should be critically reviewed and restructured by the Government of Uganda to address underlying challenges and improve their effectiveness in promoting production and farmer welfare. Subject keywords; Agricultural production, Groundnut production, Parish development model pillar 1, Services interventions,