Sharecropping Contract Experience in Delta State, Nigeria

December 2015

ScienceDirect

Vol. 22 No. 4 62-68

Journal of Northeast Agricultural University (English Edition)

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Sharecropping Contract Experience in Delta State, Nigeria Albert Ukaro Ofuoku Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Delta State University, Asaba Campus PMB 95074, Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria

Abstract: Sharecropping has been an age long practice from ancient times. Some scholars saw the practice as being exploitative of the tenants, yet it is still being practiced. The reasons behind it continual practice need to be unveiled. This study was therefore conducted to examine the sharecropping contract experience in Delta State, Nigeria. The landlords decided to practice sharecropping as a result of emigration of their household members, farm size and cost of labours, some of them gave age and their primary occupation as factors for their decisions to opt for sharecropping arrangement. The yields were shared on the basis of 60% for the landlord to 40% for the tenant. The landlords provided all the equipment and inputs, while the tenant's carried out all the farm operations. They faced the constraints of stress, but were able to cope with them, because of hospitals and health centres nearby. The result of the test of hypothesis confirmed the reasons given for deciding on sharecropping arrangement. It was concluded that sharecropping was not exploitative. It was recommended that the practice of sharecropping should be encouraged and not diversified into other sources of livelihood should do so. Key words: sharecropping, contract, Nigeria CLC number: F303.4

Document code: A

Article ID: 1006-8104(2015)-04-0062-07

Roman Empire (61-112 CE). Amanor and Diderutuah

Introduction

(2001) traced its history in Ghana to the 17th century.

Sharecropping contract is an agricultural arrangement

in the study area and other parts of Nigeria when this

between a landlord and a tenant. In this case, the

study was conducted. Sharecropping has long been

tenant pays a fraction of the crop yield to the landlord

criticized by some economists inspired by Karl Marx.

as rentage. This rentage gives the tenant the right to

These economists include Stightz (1974), Robertson

land given by the landlord. Sharecropping is different

(1980), and Pearce (1983), who considered it as an

from wage contract in which the landlord pays the

exploitative contract through which landlords and land

tenant a wage and keeps the entire crop yield. It is also

holding household exploit tenants who are landless

at variance with the fixed rent contact, whereby the

individuals and households. Though the Marxist

tenant pays the landlord an agreed amount of money as

criticism of sharecropping may be true to the situation

rent, but the tenant has the entire crop yield to himself.

in some periods of history and in some parts of the

The landlord owns the plot of land, he supplies all the

world as pointed out by Reid (1973), it has not been

inputs and implements used in the farm.

able to fathom or explain the sustained existence of

　Byres (1983) traced the history of sharecropping to

sharecropping contracts that both parties voluntarily

ancient Greece (594-593 BCE), ancient China (722-

enter into various parts of the world as observed

481 BCE), ancient India (fourth century BCE), and the

by Bellemare (2006) and in Pakistan by Jacob and

Received 8 May 2015 Albert Ukaro Ofuoku, E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

However, literature has not been found on its history

·63·

Albert Ukaro Ofuoku. Sharecropping Contract Experience in Delta State, Nigeria

Mamsuri (2006), and in other nations by other scholars.

that are an important part of the social system, which

　However, sharecropping contract is suspected to be

is what will repeat itself in case of the sharecropping

prompted in these contemporary times by rural-urban

contract farmers. This may also results to society that

migration of young adults which has given rise to farm

may no longer be viable agriculturally.

labour scarcity in the rural areas. Most farmers are not

　It is expected that a tenant farmer in the contract

financially buoyant enough to hire labour (Ofuoku,

arrangement should be able to gradually acquire his or

2015). This may cause them to resort to sharecropping

her own plot(s) of farm land and become a landlord. It

contracting with landless farmers. Ofuoku et al. (2014)

is, therefore, worthwhile to undertake a study to have

also found that most farmers were not able to pay

knowledge of the experiences of the parties involved

for high cost of labours. This prompts them to seek

in such contracts. This study is also expected to give

alternative means of continuing with their farming

rise to other studies, aid policy formulation and guide

business which is their major source of livelihood.

agricultural extension agents in their interactions with

　From the aforementioned information, the tenants

their clientele.

in the contract are landless farmers. These landless farmers may be indigenes or migrant farmers. 　 A comprehension of sharecropping contract in

Objectives

Delta State context is necessary for the fact that

The major objective of this study was to unveil

many farming household members have emigrated

the experiences of sharecropping contract farmers.

to urban settlements in search of education and

Specifically, it sought to:

white collar jobs, leaving the aged or aging arable

　Ⅰ. Identify the reasons behind landlord's option for

crop farming household (HH) heads to carry on with

sharecropping contract.

farming business and Delta State government is

　Ⅱ. Examine the terms of the contract.

encouraging people to look beyond oil and go into

　Ⅲ. Ascertain the outcome of the contract.

agricultural production. Pari passu geometric increases

　Ⅳ. Identify the constraints faced in the contract.

in population and economic growth and development are propelling a direct positive relational increasing demand for arable crops products. Major dynamics

Methodology

in arable farming systems will be enhanced. These

This study was carried out in Delta State of Nigeria.

changes may be tagged as food crop revolution.

This state is situated between Longitudes 5' 00 and

Sharecropping contract implies that more arable crop

6' 45 East of the Greenwich Meridian and Latitudes

farms will be managed by farmers who are not the

5' 00 and 6' 30 North of the Equator. It has a total land

owners, and the way labour will be organized in Delta

mass of 17 440 square kilometers and is constituted

State, arable crop farming system will be progressively

by 25 local government areas with an estimated

dictated by sharecropping contracts.

population of about 4 million people (Delta State

　Just as Moritz et al. (2011) opined in the case of

Government, 2003). It is shared into three agricultural

pastoral societies in Africa, it may have significant

zones by Delta State Agricultural Development

results for arable cropping societies in Africa. Just

Programme (DTADP). These zones are Delta North,

like Bonfiglioli (1985) as cited by Moritz et al. (2011)

Central and South Agricultural Zones.

suggested, for instance, that WoDaaBe society could

　 Arable crops, such as cassava, maize, yam and

no longer be replicated socially as a result of the fact

potato, are mostly cultivated by the farmers. Most

that impoverished pastoralists who worked as hired

arable crop farmers derive their livelihoods from

herders could not participate in livestock exchanges

farming while some take farming as extra source of http: //publish.neau.edu.cn

·64·

Vol. 22　No.4　2015

Journal of Northeast Agricultural University (English Edition)

livelihoods.

　The hypothesis was tested with the use of logistic

　Data for the study was collected using structured

regression. This model was applied, since the depen-

interview scheduled and narratives from stakeholders

dent variable was dichotomous (Yes or No). The

involved in the sharecropping contract. The stake-

binary response in this study was whether the landlord

holders were the landlords (arable crop farmers who

farmers were still engaged in sharecropping contract

owned the farm land) and the landless farmers. The

farming or not as used by. The logistic model was

landlords were chosen from among arable crop farmers

implicitly captured, thus:

who were registered with DTADP. 　All the farmers who were identified by DTADP

In

pi = 1|p

i+∑

j×ji+

extension supervisors were purposively selected from

　The empirical model defining decision in favour of

the farmers' register. The sharecropping contract

sharecropping contract by the ith landlord farmer was

farmers working with the selected landlord farmers

explicitly specified:

were all also purposively chosen for the study. This led ping contract farmers (landless farmers), giving us a

pi = 1|p 　Where,

total of 379 respondents (Table 1). The selections and

　 Y=Decision in favour of sharecropping contract

collection of information were done between February,

(dummy)

2014 and March, 2015.

　0=Constant term

to selection of 291 landlord farmers and 88 sharecrop-

In

0

,

X1,

1

X2,

2

3

X3,

4

X4,

5

X5

　X1=Age (years) 　X2=Cost of labour (income per annum)

Table 1　Selection of respondent Agricultural zone

　X3=Rural-urban migration of household member No. of respondent

Delta North Landlord farmer

112

Contract farmer

28

Delta Central Landlord farmer

126

Contract farmer

42

Delta South Landlord farmer

53

Contract farmer

18

Total

(dummy) 　X4=Farm size (ha) 　X5=Primary occupation (dummy) 　Ԑ=Error term 　The decision in favour of sharecropping contract was regressed against the reasons given by the landlord farmer for his decision.

Results Reasons for decision in favour of sharecropp-

Landlord

291

ing arrangement

Contractor

88

The most important reason (Table 2) given by the landlord farmers for deciding on sharecropping was rural-urban migration of members of their

　The data collected was analyzed with the use of

households (86.60%). Farm size (69.07%), cost

descriptive statistics, such as frequency counts and

of farm labours (66.67%), primary occupation of

percentages for objectivesⅠ, Ⅱand Ⅲ and Ⅳ were

landlords and minimally the age of the landlord

met with means derived from 4-point Likert type

farmers (36.08%) were other reasons that infor-

scale of strongly agree=4, agree=2 and strongly

med their decision to opt for sharecropping arrange-

disagree=1.

ment.

E-mail: [email protected]

·65·

Albert Ukaro Ofuoku. Sharecropping Contract Experience in Delta State, Nigeria

helping to lighten their financial burdens, but Ofuoku Table 2　Reasons for sharecropping arrangement as given by landlords (n=291)

(2015) found that for more remittances were made from rural households to rural-urban migrants than from rural-urban migrants to farming households.

Reason

No.

Percentage (%)

　There were also some landlords who took arable

Age

105

36.08

crop farming as extra source of income. These ones

Cost of the labour

194

66.67

had their primary occupations elsewhere and were

Farm size

201

69.07

always absent. The only alternative left to them was

Primary occupation

127

43.64

Rural-urban migration of household member

252

86.60

sharecropping arrangement. 　Some of them were ageing and so could no longer work the way they use to do. As a result, they resorted to sharecropping, especially in the presence of emigration of their household members who found

　 Rural-urban migration of arable crop farming

it was difficult to make both ends meet in the urban

households' members implied depletion of the house-

settlements.

holds' farm labours. Farming household in this con-

　Rural-urban migration, age, farm size and primary

text had no option than to hire labours to make up

occupation informed hiring of labours, but the cost of

for the labours lost to rural-urban migration (Ofuoku,

labours was not affordance to the landlords, therefore,

2015).

they had no option than to decide in favour of share-

　 Tuan et al. (2000), Ekong (2003), and Adewale

cropping, especially for food security, income/extra

(2005) found that there was farm labour shrinkage

income and security of their heritage (land).

prompted by the emigration of able-bodied young men from rural to urban areas. There were multiple

Terms of contract

responses. These caused farming household heads

Results in Table 3 indicated that landlords and

(farmers) to seek for labours outside.

sharecropping contractors shared the crop yields at

　 With the shrinked household labour force, the

60/40 in favour of the landlord (mean=3.32) as part of

farmer was no longer able to cover the area they used

the contract terms. The landlord provided the planting

to farm in his farming activities. Meanwhile, farming

materials (seeds) (mean=3.41), implement and tools

operations were time-bound. In such situation the

(mean=3.59), fertilizers (chemical or organic) (mean=

farmers had no choice than to employ hired labours

3.58) and agrochemicals (mean=3.58), such as

so that the farm size could be adequately or totally

herbicides and pesticides.

cultivated. Cost of farm labours tended to be high

　The tenants/contractors carried out field preparation

since farm labours had become scarce as a result of

(mean=4.0), sowing (mean=3.64), fertilizer applica-

rural-urban migration. Most farmers were not being

tion (mean=3.54), agrochemicals application (mean=

able to afford the cost farm labours in this scenario.

3.46), and harvesting (mean=3.58). The landlords and

The option left to the farmers was sharecropping

the tenant farmers separately asserted that they did not

arrangement. It was rational to ask of the remittances

share after sales, but shared the yield harvested and

made to farming household heads by rural-urban

that harvesting was done with both parties present. The

migrant members of the households. Ekong (2003),

terms of contract, from the afore-mentioned could not

Dustman and Mestres (2010) suggested that most

be said to be exploitative. One might be tempted to

migrants remitted money regularly to their families

ask, why cut-off mean=2.50 (>2.50=term of con-

for farming purpose and rural development, thereby

tract, <2.50=not term of contract). http: //publish.neau.edu.cn

·66·

Journal of Northeast Agricultural University (English Edition)

Vol. 22　No.4　2015

their landlords and their households. This meant that Table 3　Terns of contract (n=379)

sharecropping was not exploitative and social mobility was a possibility. Moritz et al. (2011) suggested that

Term

Total score

Mean

50/50

484

1.28

60/40

1 258

3.32

tion and social mobility.

70/30

637

1.68

　 Most (83%) of the tenants were satisfied with

80/20

0

0.0

the income they made from the sharecropping

Planting materials (seeds)

1 293

3.41

Implements

1 360

3.59

diversify into other source incomes, such as trading

Fertilizers

1 358

3.58

Agrochemical

1 358

3.58

and processing; however, they still wanted to continue

Field preparation

1 516

4.00

to get others to replace them. Many of them had been

Share of crop yield (Landlord/Farmers)

Landlord provided

Tenants carry out

labour relations between landlord and the tenant/ contractor/hired labours was a determinant of exploita-

arrangement. Some (51%) of them had been able to

working with their landlords until they would be able

Planting

1 272

3.36

working for their landlord for between 5-8 years. All

Weeding

1 381

3.64

Fertilizer application

1 341

3.54

of the above information were indicative of the fact

Agrochemicals application

1 313

3.46

Harvesting

1 358

3.58

that sharecropping as carried out in the study area was not exploitative in nature and practice. Constraints faced by sharecropping tenants

　The landlords had a share of 60% of the harvest

and coping with them

and the sharecropping contractor was having 40%.

The most important constraint faced by sharecropping

The 10% difference might be due for the input provi-

tenants was stress. Stress was a frequent occurrence

sions made for the farming activities. The contract

that increased the expenditure (Scoones, 1998) of

farmers showed they were satisfied with the contract

sharecropping tenants' households. Another important

terms. However, these terms of contract here was at

constraint was shocks. More often than not, stresses

variance with the findings of Amanor and Diderutuah

led to shocks which, according to Moritz et al. (2011),

(2001) and Moritz (2011) in Oil Palm and Citrus

were highly devastating. In the course of this study, we

Belts in Ghana and Northern region of Cameroon,

considered how they were able to manage the stress of

respectively. The terms of contract they have these

ill health in their households.

areas were exploitative. The sustained existence of

　We inquired about how they would foot the hospital

sharecropping in Delta State, Nigeria was attributable

bill of the household member that became ill. In most

to the unexploitative nature of the contractual terms.

of the rural settlements, there were health centres that

　During the narratives, the landlord and the farming

were manned by nurses and nurses' aides.

contractors at different time opined that the terms of

　 These health centres were poorly equipped. In

contract were orally drawn. This implied that it was

cases where they were absent, one existed in a village

a "gentleman" agreement they had. Since the proceeds

nearby. They really did not find it difficult to get one

were shared in percentage, the implication was that both

of such health facilities. However, there were hospitals

the landlord and the tenant shared the risk involved.

in big villages that could easily be reached. 　They indicated that they had no challenge coping

Outcome of the contract

with the stress of ill health. All of them asserted that

During the narratives, 95% of the sharecropping

they had no problem of transportation to the hospital

farmers said that they had cordial relationships with

in case any members of their households were ill

E-mail: [email protected]

·67·

Albert Ukaro Ofuoku. Sharecropping Contract Experience in Delta State, Nigeria

and that they were able to procure medicines from the hospitals. They said that paying for medicines was difficult initially, but after sometime (their first

Conclusions and Recommendation

harvest), they were able to pay for medicines in the

This study was carried out in Delta State, Nigeria

hospital. During the lean period they were aided freely

to examine the sharecropping experience of tenant

to purchase medicines by their landlords and the

farmers. Some scholars (economists) viewed it as

landlords' relations. In cases when the tenant was sick

being exploitative yet the practice was continually

and was admitted to bed in the hospital, members of

extant. However, none has been able to unveil the

his household, particularly the wife worked in the farm

reason behind its continual practice. In this study,

in the farming season.

291 landlord farmers and 88 tenants were selected and used. The reasons given by the landlords for

Test of hypothesis

sharecropping included emigration of able bodied

The results of the logistic regression analysis (Table 4)

members of their households to urban areas, farm size

confirmed that some societal and demographic factors

and cost of labours. A few of them did because of age.

related to the landlord influenced his decision in

　The term of contract, though orally drawn, spelt it

favour of sharecropping. It indicated that the socio

out that the yield was shared on the basis of 60% to the

demographic variables explained 90.2 variation in the

farmer and 40% for the tenant; the landlord provided

decision in favour of decision to opt for sharecropping

input, while the tenant carried out all the farm

alternative (dependent variable). Age (X1) of some

operations. There was harmony between landlords and

landlords, cost of labour (X2), rural-urban migration

the tenants.

of landlords HH members (X 3), farm size (X 4) and

　However, they had constraints, such as stress and

primary occupation (X 5) had significant positive

illness, but they were able to cope because health

relationships with decision of the landlord in favour

centres and hospitals were in or close to the village.

of sharecropping arrangement. These results were

The farmers would like to work with their landlords

in consonance with a priori expectation. This was a

and would want to replace themselves. In consideration

confirmation of the factors given by the landlords as

of the aforementioned information, the sharecropping

the reasons behind their decisions in favour of share-

arrangement was not exploitative in the study area. It

cropping contract of their farmlands.

was therefore recommended that: 　Ⅰ. Sharecropping should be encouraged as this

Table 4　Estimation of factors that informed landlords' decision in favour of sharecropping contract

would create social mobility for tenants and not exploitative to them. 　Ⅱ. The tenants that had not diversified into other

Variable

Coefficient

Standard error

Wald statistic (B)

Constant

0.058

1.333

0.046*

X1 (Age)

0.037

0.488

0.012*

X2 (Cost of labour)

0.478

0.713

0.454*

References

X3 (Rural-urban)

0.117

0.673

0.131*

Adewale J G. 2005. Socio-economic factors associated with rural-urban

X4 (Farm size)

0.026

0.125

0.029*

X5 (Primary occupation)

0.117

0.673

0.031*

Migration of HH members

R2=0.902 * Significant (p<0.05).

sources of livelihoods should be encouraged by agricultural extension service to do so.

migration in Nigeria: a case study of Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 17(1): 13-16. Amanor K S, Diderutuah M K. 2001. Share contracts in the Oil Palm and Citrus Belts of Ghana. Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK: 11ed and GRET.

http: //publish.neau.edu.cn

·68·

Journal of Northeast Agricultural University (English Edition)

Bellemare M F. 2006. Three essays on agrarian contracts. Cornell University. Bonfiglioli A M. 1985. Evolution de la propriete animale chez les WoDaaBe du Niger. Journal des Africanistes, 55(1/2): 29-38. Braduri A. 1973. A study in agricultural backwardness under semifeudalism. Economic Journal, 83: 120-137.

Vol. 22　No.4　2015

cultural production and socio-economic variables among arable farming households in Nigeria. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 29(2): 67-80. Pearce R. 1983. Sharecropping: towards a Marxist view. In: Byres J, Tence J. Sharecropping and sharecroppers. Frank Cass, London. pp. 48-52.

Byres T J. 1983. Sharecropping and sharecropping. Frank Cass, London.

Pender J, Fafchamps M. 2006. Land lease markets and agricul-

Dustman C, Mestres J. 2010. Remittances and temporary migration.

tural efficiency in Ethiopia. Journal of African Economics, 15:

Journal of Development Economics, 92(2): 62-70. Ekong E E. 2003. An introduction to rural sociology. Dove Educational Publishers, Uyo, Nigeria. Jaco H G, Masuri G. 2006. Incentives, supervision and sharecropper

251-284. Reid J D. 1973. Sharecropping as an understandable market response: the post-Bellium South. Journal of Economic History, 33: 106-130.

productivity. Development economis research group working paper.

Robertson A F. 1980. Sharecropping. Man, 15: 411-429.

Washington, DC, World Bank.

Scones I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis.

Moritz M, Ritchey K, Kari S. 2011. The social context of herding contracts in the far north region of Cameroon. Journal of Modern African Studies, 49(2): 263-285.

Institute for Development Studies, Brighton. Stiglizt J E. 1974. Incentives and risk-sharing in sharecropping. Review of Economic Studies, 41: 219-255.

Ofuoku A U. 2015. Effect of rural-urban migrants' remittances on arable

Tuan F, Somwaru A, Diao X. 2000. Rural labour migration,

crop production in Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural

characteristics and employment patterns: a study based on China's

Sciences, 60(1): 49-59.

agricultural census. Trade and Macroeconomics Division, Inter-

Ofuoku A U, Idoge D E, Ovwigho B O. 2014. Child labour in agri-

E-mail: [email protected]

national Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.