Small Farmers and Market Economy: A Case Study of Dagomba in Northern Ghana

Full text

Journal of Food Security, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 4, 134-147
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/jfs/5/4/4
©Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/jfs-5-4-4
Small Farmers and Market Economy: A Case Study of
Dagomba in Northern Ghana
Katsushige Nakasone1,*, Murari Suvedi2
1Faculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
2College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA
*Corresponding author: katsu10@nodai.ac.jp
Abstract Ghana is characterized by obvious economic disparities between northern and southern Ghana. In this
paper, we analyze these disparities and economic growth by examining the current farming structure with reference
to land use patterns and farming practices and linkages with the market economy. Using data collected through
household surveys from 2004 to 2015 in the Dagomba area, gathered from five compounds of 12 to 14 farmers each,
the study concludes that the position of agriculture as a source of income in rural areas has declined rapidly,
indicating a potential de-agrarianization in rural Ghana. Nonetheless, in northern Ghana, which is resource-poor,
agriculture is still seen as an important income source. Because of the unfavorable position of agriculture in the
Ghanaian context, outmigration is occurring from rural to urban areas, especially by male family members, resulting
in significant change in household composition (more elderly household heads). Changes in family composition and
decreased farm sizes have an important implication for food security and livelihoods of Ghanaian families. All these
adversities suggest the need to craft farming systems that encourage increased food production through the
introduction of new production technology and crop diversification.
Keywords: Northern Ghana, farming system, food security, longitudinal study
Cite This Article: Katsushige Nakasone, and Murari Suvedi, “Small Farmers and Market Economy: A Case Study
of Dagomba in Northern Ghana.” Journal of Food Security, vol. 5, no. 4 (2017): 134-147. doi: 10.12691/jfs-5-4-4.
1. Introduction
The economy of the Republic of Ghana was sluggish
during the 1970s but moved toward improvement since
Jerry Rawlings’ government in the 1981s. The Rawlings
government aimed to positively restore the economy and
accepted the structural adjustment policy (SAP) recommended
by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) to promote economic liberalization. Agriculture is
the main sector of Ghana’s economy; it contributes about
23% to the national gross domestic product (GDP). The
government raised cocoa producers’ price to motivate
farmers to increase production and secure revenue by
reducing production costs. From the mid-1980s to the late
1990s, cocoa production increased, and farmers gained
economic benefits, particularly in the southern part of
Ghana [1]. The production environment in the northern
part of Ghana is not suitable for cultivating export crops
such as cocoa. Livelihoods there mainly depend on
subsistence production [2]. Therefore, farmers in northern
Ghana remain economically disadvantaged because of
increased prices of daily necessities and low labor wages.
These conditions resulted in poor agricultural growth and
poor agricultural performance, which are also associated
with a shrinking government budget [1]. Currently, in the
southern part of Ghana, crops cultivation for export and
domestic sales is carried out by utilizing the high potential
of agricultural production. On the other hand, in northern
Ghana, food crops are mainly grown for self-consumption
because of the poor cultivation conditions. Such dual
production structures show an obvious economic disparity
between northern and southern Ghana [2]. However,
Nakasone [3] indicates that Ghanian society is changing in
the northern part mainly because the market economy has
advanced in this region and farmers are participating in it.
Farmers who have earned their livelihoods by cultivating
crops for self-consumption now need cash to purchase
daily necessities. The number of immigrant farmers and
non-agricultural activities have increased to increase
income [4], and this has greatly affected the agricultural
scale reduction of farmers and the aging of farmers in the
northern part of Ghana. In this paper, we will analyze the
economic growth and disparity between the northern and
the southern parts of Ghana. We will further explore the
current farming structure with reference to land use
patterns and farming practices. Finally, we will examine
the transformation of farming practices as a result of
market economy penetration in the northern part of Ghana.
2. Economic Growth and the Agriculture
Sector
The economic structure of Ghana still depends on the
export of primary products formed in the colonial period
during the 1950s. These primary products consist of
agricultural products and mineral resources, which are
very unstable contributors to the national economy. The

Journal of Food Security 135
export of gold and cocoa from 2005 to 2010 accounted for
more than 65%. In 2011, oil appeared as an export product,
and the total export accounted for 65% to 75% [5].
Because the fluctuation of the international market prices
of these products is intense, trade income and the whole
national economy in Ghana remain unstable.
As a percentage of the GDP in Ghana, the agriculture
sector fell from 30% to less than 25% from 2006 to 2015,
while the industry sector increased from 20% to over 25%
during the same period. It reached 28.4% in 2012. The
service sector contributed about 50% in 2007, and it is
increasing (Figure 1). The increase in the industry sector is
related to the fact that oil mining has become commercial
and the construction sector remained stable. However, if
we observe the ratio by sector from 2006 to 2010, crops in
the agriculture sector were the largest, accounting for over
20% of GDP. After 2011, the value shows a decreasing
trend of crops in the agriculture sector to 17.3% in 2015,
next to the subdivision of the trade, hotels and restaurants
service sector. Besides cocoa, the agricultural sector is
also important for securing food because most of the
people use agricultural products for home consumption.
Moreover, about 42% of the total population engaged in
agriculture, and about 49% of the rural population
primarily depended on this sector for their livelihood in
2010 [9,10]. Though both of these values are below 50%,
the largest proportion of the working population is in
agriculture; the service sector is the second largest, at 30%.
Therefore, because nearly half of the total population lives
in rural areas and over 40% of the workers are engaged in
the agricultural sector, it is clear that the agricultural
sector is one of the most important sectors in Ghana.
Ghana started implementing the Economic Recovery
Program (ERP) and reforming the national economy after
introducing SAP in 1983. The ERP aimed to improve
foreign exchange policy and fiscal policy, and agricultural
policy for farmers to receive legitimate interests. After
1984, an average economic growth rate of about 5% has
been recorded for more than ten years. Considering only
the value of this economic growth rate, one could
conclude that the national economy was performing at a
high level. However, repayment of a large debt was
squeezing the domestic economy. Therefore, it was not
possible to improve the economic structure, which
depended on exports of primary products that had been in
existence since before independence [3].
John Kufuor, who won the presidential election in 2001,
decided to apply the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries (HIPC) Initiative to improve the external debt
problem that placed a heavy burden on the national
finances. In 2004, the completion point of the Enhanced
HIPC Initiative was reached, and it was decided to cancel
debt totaling about $3.5 billion [11]. The foreign policy of
Ghana was to make a big change by the new government,
but the domestic economic growth strategy continued in
the direction of economic liberalization and the utilization
of the private sector promoted by the former government.
The concrete policy plan was created as the Ghana
Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS), and a comprehensive
development strategy was presented as a medium-term
target. The GPRS I (2003) set targets focusing on
promoting economic development and reducing poverty.
In the GPRS II (2005), it was judged that the economy of
Ghana was shifting from the stage of “restoration and
reconstruction” to “accelerated growth”, and along with
promoting further economic growth, the plan set the goal
of joining the middle-income countries by 2015 [12,13].
After the implementation of the growth strategy by
GPRS, Ghana’s economic growth rate increased
dramatically -- by 14.1% in 2011, but only 3.9% during
2015 (Figure 2). However, Ghana has continued to have a
positive long-term GDP growth rate since the mid-1980s,
and the state economy has remained relatively stable. The
agriculture sector recorded negative growth in 2007 but
recovered to show more than 7% growth in 2008 and 2009.
The growth rate from 2011 to 2015 varied from 0.9% to
5.7%. Crops accounting for a large proportion of the GDP
among agricultural sectors maintained relatively stable
growth rates except in 2007 and 2012. Although the
growth rate value is variable -- ranging from 2% to 10.2%
-- it is expected that the agricultural sector will continue to
maintain positive growth. Also, the industrial sector
showed a growth rate of more than 40% in 2011, due to
the factory construction and capital investment related to
the oil industry and oil becoming a new export product in
Ghana during 2010-2011.
Figure 1. Percentage of GDP per sector in Ghana, 2006-2015 (Source: GSS, 2011, 2013, 2016.)

136 Journal of Food Security
Figure 2. Growth ratio of GDP per sector, 2007-2015 (Source: GSS, 2011, 2013, 2016.)
3. Domestic Regional Economic Disparity
Since the 1980s, Ghana has maintained relatively stable
growth while applying two different policies, SAP and the
Enhanced HIPC Initiative. An economic liberalization
policy in Ghana has also been advanced in the agriculture
sector, together with mining as a major export sector.
However, gold and cacao are traditionally exported
products in Ghana that are mainly produced in the
southern part of Ghana. Oil is a new and emerging export
product produced along the coastal area in the southern
part of Ghana. Meanwhile, agriculture is the only core
sector in the northern part of Ghana, which does not have
any mineral resources. The northern part of Ghana is in
the savanna belt, and agriculture in that region is primarily
rain-fed. Food crop production from this region is used
mainly for domestic consumption. The lack of mineral
resources and adverse climatic conditions for agriculture
in northern Ghana mean that the region has long been
devoid of strategies for economic growth. In recent years,
the long-standing policy difference between the northern
and southern parts has been recognized as one of the
reasons for increasing economic disparities in Ghana
[3,10,14].
Figure 3 shows the income per capita by region in 1999,
2006, and 2013. This data came from a large survey of
domestic households conducted by the Ghana government.
Targeted households were located in the greater Accra
region and the Ashanti region in the south, where there are
mineral resources and high agricultural production
potential and, consequently, higher incomes. On the other
hand, the incomes of the Northern, Upper West, and
Upper East regions, which are called “the three northern
regions”, are very low and far below the average per
capita national income. (The location of each regions is
shown in Figure 6.)
Figure 3. Per capita income by region in various years (Unit: US dollars) (Source: GSS, 2000, 2009, 2014b. [15,16,17]) (*US$1.00 = 2779.10 Cedi in
1999, US$1.00 = 9179.80 Cedi in 2006, US$1.00 = 0.66 GH Cedi in 2013: these exchange rates by Bank of Ghana [each year average], **Calculation
of GDP by New System of National Accounts: SNA from 2010)

Journal of Food Security 137
Table 1 presents the income situation in urban and rural
areas of Ghana in 1999, 2006, and 2013. The total
household income and per capita income are higher in
urban areas than in the rural areas. However, other urban
areas had higher incomes than Accra in 2013. This fact is
thought to be due to the rapid growth of Accra’s
population, high unemployment rate, and increased
population of low-income people. In rural areas,
household income and income per capita in the coastal
area in 1999 were smaller than in the forest area. But
income per capita in the coastal area was the highest of all
of rural areas in 2006. This phenomenon appeared to be
due to the fact that vegetable production for urban areas
and fruit production for export were increasing in rural
communities of coastal areas. In the savanna area, both
income per capita and household income are the lowest
among urban and rural areas in the country.
Figure 4 shows the pattern of changes in household
income sources in rural areas during 1999, 2006, and 2013.
In the coastal area, employment wage income had
increased and the agricultural income proportion sharply
decreased in 2013.
In the forest area, agricultural income accounted for
more than 50% during 1999, which drastically declined to
15% in 2013. Wage employment increased from 15.6% to
43% in the same period. In the savanna area, which had
the lowest income of all rural areas, more than 70% of
income sources were agricultural income in 1999 and
2006. In this area, employment wage and other incomes
rapidly increased in 2013, and the proportion of
agricultural income declined to less than half that of 1999
and 2006. This change in the income sources in the
savanna area is thought to be related to an increase in the
number of farmers moving toward non-agricultural
activities. This indicates that the liberalization of the
economy has spread to rural areas. However, agricultural
income in the savanna area accounted for 28% even in
2013, indicating that the income from agriculture may
occupy an important position there compared with other
rural areas. Overall, the changes in the proportions of
income sources show that dependence on income from
agriculture decreased in all areas from 2006 to 2013.
Therefore, in rural areas of Ghana it is necessary to
consider the agricultural structure and its problems with a
view to the possibility that simple de-agrarianization is
going to shift livelihood away from agriculture and toward
non-agricultural activities expected to have high income
[18].
Table 1. Change of income in urban and rural areas (1999, 2006, and 2013)
Household income
Income per capita
Percentage of GNI
（US dollars*）
（US dollars*）
（％）
1999
2006
2013**
1999
2006
2013**
1999
2006
2013
Urban
Accra
1,259
2,762
11,236
350
1,015
3,698
16.2
22.6
17.7
Other urban areas 856 1,992 15,000 214 714 5,063 27.4 32.6 51.4
Total for urban
972
2,248
13,814
249
814
4,633
43.7
55.2
69.2
Rural
Coastal
581
1,461
7,492
142
525
2,430
11.0
10.1
4.1
Forest
847
1,495
7,988
188
464
2,519
31.7
23.3
18.6
Savanna
641
1,170
6,663
26
278
1,416
13.6
11.4
8.1
Total for rural
726
1,390
7,529
169
420
2,180
56.3
44.8
30.8
(Source: GSS, 2000, 2009, 2014b, [15,16,17]) (*US$1.00 = 2779.10 Cedi in 1999; US$1.00 = 9179.80 Cedi in 2006; US$1.00 = 0.66 GH Cedi in 2013;
these exchange rates by Bank of Ghana [each year average], **Calculation of GDP by New System of National Accounts (SNA) from 2010.)
Figure 4. Changes in income sources in rural areas in 1999, 2006, and 2013 (Source: GSS, 2000, 2009, 2014b, [15,16,17])

138 Journal of Food Security
4. Farming System in Northern Ghana
4.1. Agriculture Overview in Dagomba Area
Dagomba is the largest ethnic group in the northern part
of Ghana. Among the Dagomba, farming is the primary
occupation, with compound fields and bush fields.
Compound fields lie in the vicinity of the compound, and
productivity is high because of the soil, which often
contains organic matter from livestock excreta and
residues from the home. Since the 1990s, however, the
size of compound fields per compound has been
decreasing because of increased population [19]. Bush
fields can be classified into “upland,” where cereals, roots
and tubers are grown, and “lowland,” where rice is
cultivated. Bush fields may be situated close to the
compound or several kilometers away. The crops
cultivated in bush fields are mostly used for domestic
consumption by farmers and their families. The most
commonly grown crops are roots and tubers, cereals,
legumes, and vegetables. The root and tubers -- mainly
yam and cassava-- are the important crops, but cultivation
of yam is more labor-intensive than cassava. Cassava is
gaining in popularity in the region because it incurs low
cultivation cost, is easy to harvest and transport as a dry
chip, and requires less labor input than yam [20]. Major
cereals grown in the region are maize, millet, sorghum,
and rice. Maize and sorghum, especially, used to be
intercropped with legumes such as groundnut, but in
recent years, intercropping has given way to growing
cereals as mono-crops. Production of sorghum and millet
has decreased because of their low productivity. Rice is a
common crop that is cultivated in lowland fields mainly
by young farmers. Additionally, various types of beans are
cultivated, such as groundnut, cowpea, pigeon pea,
bambara nut, and soybean, though groundnut is the
primary one. Vegetables such as okra and red pepper are
cultivated, but production of these crops is limited because
they are used for home consumption [21].
The basic cropping system in this area is bush rotational
fallow [22,23,24]. Bush rotational fallow is a cropping
system that uses land by rotation of cultivation and fallow.
Crop rotations of bush fields are determined by the
condition of soil nutrients. Traditionally, crops were
cultivated in certain fields for 4 to 5 years and were left
fallow for 1 to 5 years. The crop cultivated at the
beginning of the cycle was yam, followed by cereals and
legumes intermixing or intercropping for 2 to 3 years, and
in the fourth year cereals or legumes were cultivated as a
mono-crop. The last crop of crop rotation was cassava
because it has capacity to absorb soil nutrients even in
poor soils. After that, land is kept fallow to rebuild soil
nutrients. In recent years, however, the reduction of soil
nutrients has been recognized as a major problem because
land use is intensifying as field size decreases and
population increases in this area [19].
Agricultural equipment in this area consists of
conventional farming tools that depend on human power,
such as hoe, cutlass (machete), knife, sickle, and stick.
The hoe is a primary tool for plowing. Some farmers use
tractors and bullocks for growing cereals using the ridge
cultivation method. Sowing and weeding are done mainly
by stick and hoe. Harvesting is done by hand or by using a
knife, sickle, hoe, or cutlass. Men share labor for
cultivating and weeding. Some farmers shorten the time
needed for various tasks by using communal labor or
hiring labor. Male farmers mainly harvest roots and tubers;
males and females jointly harvest cereals and legumes
[21,25].
4.2. Land Tenure System and Compound
Farming
According to Oppong [26], in Dagomba areas, a
compound (called Yili) is the basis of life. The Dagomba
are a paternal group, and each compound is basically
composed of a family of one lineage. The household head
(HHH) -- called Yili Yidana -- manages all of the life in
general, including the economic activity of the compound.
In the land tenure system among the Dagomba, the land
is divided from the head chief of the Dagomba (called
Ya-Na) to the chief of each village. The village chief then
allocates land to each compound in the village. The HHH
in each compound redistributes the land to family
members [21,26,27].
Basically, the HHH makes decisions on food security in
the compound, but farming management of the compound
is shared by HHHs and family members who have divided
land from him. The selection of the crops to be cultivated
is basically decided by individual farmers. The HHH
(or eldest farmer) decides the amount of in-house
consumption of harvested crops and stores that in a
warehouse of the compound. The use of non-consumption
crops by family members produced by each farmer is
entrusted to the individual farmers, who manage the cash
earned through crop sales. Therefore, their production
activities have two objects: to provide a stable supply of
food to family members in compound, and to produce
crops to sell to earn income. Accordingly, in the Dagomba
compounds, a multilayered farming structure exists
(Figure 5), which consists of the two subjective aspects
of community and individual, and two objectives of
self-sufficiency and sales [2,21].
4.3. Material of Survey
The data for this study were obtained from annual field
surveys conducted in the Dagomba region from 2005 to
2015. In the Tolon-Kumbung district of the northern
region, the survey was conducted in two villages, Tingoli
(hereafter noted as T) -- a small village -- and Gbullung
(hereafter noted as G) -- a medium-scale village (Figure 6).
The village T is located about 20 km west of Tamale,
the capital city of the northern region, and about 8 km
from the main road connecting Tamale and Tolon (capital
of the Tolon-Kumbung district). In this village, where
more than 1,600 people live in about 100 compounds,
there are few non-agricultural activities, and most of the
adults are engaged in farming. Electricity can be used for
light, but firewood and charcoal are used for cooking. The
water for daily use is drawn from the ponds and rivers
nearby the village. The village holds no regular market, so
to buy seasonings and daily necessities for life, village
people have to go to the nearest town, Tamale. There is
also one public primary school in the village; nearly half
of the children living in this village attend every day.

Journal of Food Security 139
Figure 5. Relationship between agricultural production role and farming purpose in each farmer of compound. (Source: Nakasone, 2013b.) (Note: 〇
and △ indicate the strength of agricultural production and the direction of farming purpose for each farmer of the compound. Household heads have a
high degree of importance to the food security for the compound; other farmers have a high degree of importance to the crop sales.)
Figure 6. Map of the survey area. (Source: GSS, 2000.)
The village G has more than 4,000 people living in over
250 compounds. This village is about 10 km away from
the main road connecting Tamale to Tolon, and about 25
km from Tamale. Though electricity became available in
village G a few years ago, many households still uses
kerosene lamps for light. Fuel for cooking is firewood and
charcoal. Some people use wells for water, but many
people use the water of the pond nearby the village. There
are few non-agricultural activities in village G, and most
people are engaged in farming. This village has a clinic.
There are also sundries shops and sewing shops. Most
people buy seasonings and daily necessities in this village,
but many people go to the market in Tamale over the
course of a day. This village has a public primary school,
an Islamic school, a junior high school and a senior high
school; about half of the children in the village go to
school every day.
In the survey, we conducted interviews in each of the
five compounds of village T and village G at four levels:
compound level, farmers’ level, field level, and crop level.
In addition, the compounds to be surveyed were selected
by SARI (Savanna Agricultural Research Institute), Ghana,
the cooperating organization of this survey, and opinion
leaders of each village, and interviews were conducted
with all the farmers living in each compound.
In the compound-level survey, we interviewed the HHH
about family composition, situation of living and
livelihoods, land management, and inheritance system. In

140 Journal of Food Security
the farmer-level survey, we asked all farmers of the
compound about size of land use, sales and consumption
of crops, crop inputs and yields, livestock possession, and
decision making. In the field-level survey, all the farmers
were asked about cultivation methods, sources of labor,
and work schedule for each field. For the crop-level survey,
all the farmers were asked about specific cultivation techniques
and working hours for each crop, as well as yields and
sales volumes. The analysis was based on total numbers,
average, frequency, percentage, and trend analysis.
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Changes in Family Size and Number of
Farmers in the Surveyed Compound
Changes in the size of families, the number of farmers,
and the proportion of farmers per family in the surveyed
compound of village T and village G are presented in
Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.
In both villages, the size of families in each compound
increases or decreases every year, but the average size of
families in the surveyed compound in each village clearly
shows a decreasing trend.
In village T, the average family size in compounds
decreased from 18.6 to 13.4 during the survey period, but
the size of families residing in one compound is relatively
large (Table 2). As observed in village T, the sizes of
families increased and decreased repeatedly in the
compounds of T_1, T_2, T_3, and T_4. This change is
greatly influenced by the decision to form a branch family
by the HHH -- the HHH’s brothers or sons become
independent and start living with their wives and children.
Separating to form branch families is a major factor in the
decrease in the size of families of these four compounds.
On the other hand, in compounds such as T_5, with few
fluctuations in the size of families, no separation of branch
families was done during the survey period.
In the village G, the average size of families per
compound decreased from 16.2 to 10.8, and the size of the
family residing in one compound is smaller than the
average value of the village T (Table 3). In the compounds
G_2 and G_4, the size of families increased and
drastically decreased. The change in the size of families
was due to the fact that the families exited for migrant
work and moved to other villages for farming (relocation
of rural village), not to form branch families. The large
decrease in the size of families of the compound G_3 was
due to the HHH leaving the current compound to inherit
the role of new HHH for the original compound, and the
wife and young child also accompanied him. In other
compounds in the village G, family size did not fluctuate
so much as in G_1 and G_5.
Table 2. Change in family size and percentage of farmers at each compound in village T
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
T_1 Number of families/compound 17 16 15 15 21 21 18 18 17 15 15 15
Percent of farm/family/compound
41.2
43.8
53.3
40.0
33.3
38.1
27.8
27.8
29.4
20.0
26.7
33.3
T_2
Number of families/compound
20
22
23
18
18
16
17
15
13
11
11
11
Percent of farm/family/compound 45.0 36.4 34.8 33.3 44.4 50.0 35.3 46.7 46.2 45.5 36.4 45.5
T_3 Number of families/compound 17 17 20 11 11 11 11 11 8 8 7 10
Percent of farm/family/compound
41.2
58.8
40.0
54.5
54.5
45.5
54.5
54.5
50.0
37.5
57.1
40.0
T_4
Number of families/compound
24
24
24
18
19
23
24
21
20
20
16
16
Percent of farm/family/compound 41.7 41.7 41.7 38.9 36.8 26.1 20.8 23.8 20.0 20.0 18.8 18.8
T_5 Number of families/compound 15 17 13 15 14 17 17 15 15 14 14 15
Percent of farm/family/compound 26.7 41.2 46.2 33.3 42.9 29.4 29.4 33.3 26.7 21.4 21.4 20.0
T_ave.
Number of families/compound
18.6
19.2
19.0
15.4
16.6
17.6
17.4
16.0
14.6
13.6
12.6
13.4
Percent of farm/family/compound 39.1 44.4 43.2 40.0 42.4 37.8 33.6 37.2 34.4 28.9 32.1 31.5
(Source: Survey data, 2005-2016.).
Table 3. Change in family size and percentage of farmers at each compound in village G
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
G_1
Number of families/compound
11
12
10
10
10
12
12
13
14
14
10
11
Percent of farm/family/compound
36.4
41.7
50.0
40.0
20.0
25.0
25.0
30.8
21.4
21.4
20.0
18.2
G_2 Number of families/compound 19 19 21 21 22 17 17 16 15 15 14 15
Percent of farm/family/compound 31.6 36.8 38.1 33.3 31.8 35.3 29.4 25.0 20.0 33.3 21.4 20.0
G_3
Number of families/compound
25
22
18
13
16
10
11
10
11
13
11
8
Percent of farm/family/compound
24.0
22.7
27.8
38.5
37.5
50.0
36.4
50.0
45.5
30.8
36.4
50.0
G_4 Number of families/compound 15 14 10 10 11 14 14 8 9 9 9 9
Percent of farm/family/compound 46.7 28.6 40.0 30.0 27.3 28.6 28.6 37.5 22.2 33.3 33.3 22.2
G_5
Number of families/compound
11
9
9
9
9
9
10
7
7
11
8
11
Percent of farm/family/compound
45.5
44.4
44.4
55.6
55.6
44.4
40.0
57.1
57.1
36.4
62.5
27.3
G_ave. Number of families/compound 16.2 15.2 13.6 12.6 13.6 12.4 12.8 10.8 11.2 12.4 10.4 10.8
Percent of farm/family/compound 36.8 34.9 40.1 39.5 34.4 36.7 31.9 40.1 33.2 31.0 34.7 27.5
Source: Survey data 2005-2016.

Journal of Food Security 141
In the northern part of Ghana, the size of families of the
compounds showed an overall decreasing trend because of
the reasons already cited plus the migration of men
seeking jobs in urban areas. In village T, where population
size is small and the village is away from the main road,
males generally leave the original compound to form
branch families. Village G, located along the main road,
has relatively good external access because of its larger
population and open regular market, but the village does
not have enough land area for crops, so the relocation
destination of the farmers is more often other rural
villages or urban areas. In other words, men in village T
can stay in the village even if they leave the original
compound, but men who leave their compound in village
G will also leave the village.
Because the HHH determines the land distribution of
each compound, the land ownership situation of individual
farmers varies. In general, the land is allocated to senior
males, and the area given is superior or inferior in relation
to that seniority [14,21]. However, a few of the HHHs of
the compound to be surveyed told us that the land that the
village chief has the right to assign is insufficient (since
the 1990s in village G; after 2005 around village T), so
land is not distributed to a new compound. For this reason,
farmers to be separated retain land from the original
compound as land of the new compound, so the size of
land holding per compound shrinks. The number of
farmers who owned and used the land as a whole is
decreasing in the compounds surveyed in T village and G
village.
The proportion of farmers in each compound family in
the village T (T_2 and T_3) show generally high values –
the proportion is more than 30%. However, T_1, T_4, and
T_5 show less than 30% after 2009 or 2010, and this
proportion is decreasing. Declining farmers’ proportion in
the compound inevitably increases the dependence for
food security on individual farmers. The declining trend in
the percentage of farmers in these compounds is due to the
fact that many senior males are moving out from the
compound.
On the other hand, looking at the proportion of farmers
in the village G compounds, we see cases such as G_3,
which showed less than 30% in 2004 to 2006 but
maintained more than 30% from 2007 to 2015. In G_5,
the compound maintained a value of more than 35% from
2004 to 2014 but showed a value of less than 30% in 2015.
The proportion of farmers in other compounds declined
from 2008 to 2010, and in 2015 some compounds had
farmer proportions below 20%.
The decreases in the proportion of farmers and the sizes
of families in each compound were also greatly involved
in maintaining the livelihood of the compound and farm
management. Changes in the number of farmers in the
compound are smaller than the fluctuation in the size of
families because of the separation of branch families and
men moving to other rural villages and urban areas.
Because adult males from the family generally move out,
the proportion of the number of farmers to the size of the
family of each compound is generally low. This suggests
that the reliance for food security per farmer is increasing
in compound management that has maintained livelihoods
by farming. Therefore, it is becoming difficult to manage
compounds only by farming.
5.2. Change in the Field Size of Compound
Looking at the changes in average field size of the
compound, we see that the field size decreased in both
villages: from 23.28 acres to 9.08 acres in village T, and
from 15.35 acres to 8.05 acres in village G during the
period 2004-2015 (Table 4 and Table 5). Also, the average
field size per farmer decreased from 3.23 acres to 2.39
acres in village T. On the other hand, in village G, the
field size per farmer between 2004 and 2015 did not
change significantly -- from 2.79 acres to 2.89 acres. The
reason for this might be that in village T the total field size
of the compound is smaller than the decrease in the
number of farmers, whereas in village G the decrease in
the number of farmers and the total field size of the
compound show the same decreasing rate.
The change in the field size of the compound and the
change in the average field size per farmer are noticeable
in the compound of village T. At T_2, the field size suddenly
decreased after the household head passed away, and the
field size decreased at the time of implementing the branch
family in T_3 and T_4. There are also times when the field
size largely decreased in T_1 of village T and G_1, G_3,
and G_4 of village G. For example, in G_4, one adult
male left in 2005, and another adult male was temporarily
absent in other years. So the labor force for farming
appeared to be insufficient, and that factor was limiting
the size of field. In this way, not only the division of land
by the branch family but also the labor shortage within the
compound is a major factor in the decrease of field size.
Table 4. Changes in compound field size and average farmer’s field size at each compound in village T
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
T_1
Compound field size
25.10
22.50
24.25
15.00
14.15
14.00
10.75
11.25
11.75
4.38
6.50
9.00
Ave. farmer's field size
3.59
3.21
3.03
2.50
2.02
1.75
2.15
2.25
2.35
1.46
1.63
1.80
T_2
Compound field size
27.25
26.50
16.00
17.50
17.00
27.00
16.00
12.50
19.50
13.50
11.00
9.00
Ave. farmer's field size
3.03
3.31
2.00
2.92
2.13
3.38
2.67
1.79
3.25
2.70
2.75
1.80
T_3
Compound field size
25.30
20.35
21.00
9.35
13.25
13.50
12.00
11.00
11.00
10.00
8.75
9.25
Ave. farmer's field size
3.61
2.04
2.63
1.56
2.21
2.70
2.00
1.83
2.75
3.33
2.19
2.31
T_4
Compound field size
25.25
18.75
21.60
13.10
15.00
15.00
12.50
14.50
13.50
14.00
7.50
8.00
Ave. farmer's field size
2.53
1.88
2.16
1.87
2.14
2.50
2.50
2.90
3.38
3.50
2.50
2.67
T_5
Compound field size
13.50
16.50
15.50
13.50
15.25
12.75
13.25
10.00
9.75
10.00
9.00
10.13
Ave. farmer's field size
3.38
2.36
2.58
2.70
2.54
2.55
2.65
2.00
2.44
3.33
3.00
3.38
T_ave.
Compound field size
23.28
20.92
19.67
13.69
14.93
16.45
12.90
11.85
13.10
10.38
8.55
9.08
Ave. farmer's field size
3.23
2.56
2.48
2.31
2.21
2.58
2.39
2.15
2.83
2.87
2.41
2.39
Source: Survey data, 2005-2016.

142 Journal of Food Security
Table 5. Changes in compound field size and average farmer’s field size at each compound in village G
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
G_1 Compound field size 15.00 21.00 17.00 16.00 4.00 11.00 8.00 11.00 12.75 11.00 6.00 7.00
Ave. farmer's field size 3.75 4.20 3.40 4.00 2.00 3.67 2.67 2.75 4.25 3.67 3.00 3.50
G_2 Compound field size 14.25 18.00 13.10 15.50 13.00 11.50 11.00 7.25 8.00 9.75 8.50 9.50
Ave. farmer's field size
2.38
2.57
1.64
2.21
1.86
1.92
2.20
1.81
2.67
1.95
2.83
3.17
G_3 Compound field size 18.25 21.25 20.50 14.00 17.00 10.25 11.50 10.50 12.50 7.00 7.00 10.50
Ave. farmer's field size 3.04 4.25 4.10 2.80 2.83 2.05 2.88 2.10 2.50 1.75 1.75 2.63
G_4 Compound field size 18.75 9.00 7.00 4.00 3.00 11.00 7.25 4.25 2.50 4.75 4.30 4.50
Ave. farmer's field size
2.68
2.25
1.75
1.33
1.00
2.75
1.81
1.42
1.25
1.58
1.43
2.25
G_5 Compound field size 10.50 8.75 6.75 10.60 9.50 6.50 8.25 9.50 8.38 9.50 11.00 8.75
Ave. farmer's field size 2.10 2.19 1.69 2.12 1.90 1.63 2.06 2.38 2.09 2.38 2.20 2.92
G_ave. Compound field size 15.35 15.60 12.87 12.02 9.30 10.05 9.20 8.50 8.83 8.40 7.36 8.05
Ave. farmer's field size
2.79
3.09
2.52
2.49
1.92
2.40
2.32
2.09
2.55
2.27
2.24
2.89
Source: Survey data, 2005-2016.
Furthermore, in village G, the average field size per
farmer was more than 2 acres during the survey period
except in 2008, but the average field size per farmer in
village T has been gradually decreasing. That is, in village
T, where the total field size per compound at the
beginning of the survey in 2004 was relatively large, the
field size decreased because of separation of branch
families. As the labor force required for farming decreased,
the field size per farmer also declined. In village G, the
field size of each compound was small since the survey
began in 2005, so there was no field to divide for branch
families, and these families moved out of the village.
Although the farming labor force declined, the field size
per farmer has been maintained. Since it is unlikely that
the field size of each compound will increase in future, it
is necessary to maintain the field size of individual
farmers within the compound while adjusting the size of
families.
5.3. Agricultural Scale Reduction and Aging
of Farmers
Among the rural Dagomba, because of the penetration
of a market economy, the size of families in the compound
decreased, and the size of field per compound also
decreased. The reason for these reductions, particularly
the size of families, varies with the external and internal
conditions of each village. In village T, where the living
environment access is underdeveloped -- away from the
main road -- the size of families decreased with the
formation of branch families, and the field size decreased
as land was divided. In village G, which is nearby the
main road and has good living conditions, the size of
families decreased because of family members moving out
of the village, and the field size decreased because of
labor shortage. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show how the field
size of the compounds and the field size per farmer are
changing in response to changes in the size of families and
the number of farmers in both villages. These figures also
show the transition of the average age of farmers in each
village.
In village T, the total field size per compound has a
strong tendency to shrink (see linear approximation line in
Figure 7). The linear approximation line of the average
family size and the linear approximation line of the
average farmer number also show a decreasing trend. In
the case of village T, most of the families who leave the
compound are branch families. The males heading branch
families are often senior farmers in the original compound.
Therefore, in village T, the linear approximation line of
the average age of farmers in the compounds shows only a
moderate upward trend (Figure 7).
In village G, the total field size per compound
clearlyThe direction of the linear approximation line of the
average family size has also a decreasing trend. However,
the linear approximation line of the average number of
farmers shows a moderate decreasing trend. In village G,
males who leave the compound are often young males
aiming at farming in other villages or migrating tourban
areas for better job opportunities. As a result, the linear
approximation line of the average age of farmers in
compounds of village G shows an accelerated increasing
trend (Figure 8).
Table 6 and Table 7 show the changes in field
utilization by farmers in each compound in village T and
village G during the survey period. The result shows that
the reason for exiting are migration, changing jobs, dual
job, and the end of a temporary stay in the compound. In
the northern part of Ghana, each compound field size
decreased with the decrease in the size of families and the
number of farmers.
In village T, the field size of each farmer is decreasing.
In each compound, the field size of farmers responsible
for food security of families such as HHH or HHH’s
brothers and senior sons is relatively large, and they use
the land every year for farming. In this village, since the
number of farmers to leave by separation of branch
families is many, the field size of the compound as a
whole continues to scale down (23.3 acres in 2004 to 9.1
acres in 2015), and the farming scale is shrinking
(example: T_1, T_2, T_3, T_4; Table 6). On the other
hand, since farmers who leave the original compound by
separating to form a branch family are often senior males,
the average age of farmers in the compound is rising only
moderately, and the aging of the farmers of the
compounds surveyed is not progressing (42.6 years old in
2004 to 46.0 years old in 2015). In village G, since the
young farmers’ field size was originally small, even if
young farmers leave the compound (example: G_2, G_3,
G_4; Table 7), the size reduction of the field per

Journal of Food Security 143
compound is smaller than in village T (15.4 acres in 2004
to 8.1 acres in 2015). However, as a result of young males
leaving, the average age of the farmers in the compound is
rapidly rising (from 36.2 years old in 2004 to 49.6 years
old in 2015), and the aging of farmers is continuing.
Also, farmers leaving to form branch families generally
had a relatively high level of responsibility for food
security (T_1_2 and 4, T_2_5, T_3_2 and 3, T_4_3) and
must be able to control their new compound and manage
to farm. Young males (see age of farmer in Table 6) have
small fields and do not necessarily farm every year.
Because they are not very responsi ble for food security of
their families, they are in a relatively free and fluid
position, so they can stop farming to change jobs (T_2_7,
T_3_4, T_5_5), migrate (T_4_5), and accompany senior
family members (T_1_8, T_3_4). There are few cases
where females farm in a certain field each year because of
fluctuations such as exit due to marriage and temporary
stay during pregnancy. Also, because the field size is
small, there is not much effect on the compound.
Figure 7. Changes in field size, family size, number of farmers, and average age of farmers in village T (Source: Survey data, 2005-2016.)
Figure 8. Changes in field size, family size, number of farmers, and average age of farmers in village G (Source: Survey data, 2005-2016.)

144 Journal of Food Security
Table 6. Changes of field utilization by farmers in each compound of village T
Relation
sex
age
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2010 2011
2012 2013 2014
2015 Note/comments
T_1_1
hhh
M
86
7.00
8.50
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.25
4.50
4.50
3.25
3.50
4.50
T_1_2
son
M
61
3.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Branch family (2005-)
T_1_3
son
M
56
4.75
3.00
1.50
1.50
2.00
1.00
1.50
1.75
1.25
0.50
1.00
1.00
T_1_4
son
M
51
3.50
2.50
3.00
2.00
1.50
2.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
Branch family (2010-)
T_1_5
son
M
41
4.00
4.50
4.50
3.50
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
-
1.50
2.00
T_1_6
son
M
36
1.50
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.50
1.50
2.00
2.50
2.50
0.63
0.50
0.50
T_1_7 son M 23 - - - - 0.15
0.25
- - - - - - Other town for school (2013-)
T_1_8 son M 21 - - - - - 0.25
- - - - - - Change of house with T_1_4 (2010-)
T_1_9 wife F 81 - - 1.00 1.00
1.00
- - - - - - - No land (2009-)
T_1_10
son's wife F 41 1.10 - - - - - - - - - - - Change house with husband (2010-)
T_1_11
son's wife
F
41
-
1.00
1.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Change house with husband (2005-)
T_1_12
daughter
F
39
-
0.50
1.00
-
-
1.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stay for pregnancy (2005_2006, 2009_2010)
T_1_13
son's wife
F
53
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.00
0.50
0.50
-
-
-
Help for husband (2013-)
T_1_14
son's wife
F
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.00
Enter the house by marriage (2014-)
T_2_1
former hhh
M
82
9.00
4.00
1.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Died (2007)
T_2_2
hhh
M
61
4.00
3.50
3.00
4.00
3.00
2.50
5.50
3.00
3.50
2.50
5.00
2.00
New HHH (from 2007)
T_2_3 brother M 56 5.00 10.00
3.00 5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
5.50
3.50
- 3.00
T_2_4 cousin M 46 2.00 3.50 3.00 3.00
4.00
4.00
1.50
3.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Farming is the side work (tractor operator)
T_2_5 cousin M 36 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
- - - - - Branch family (2012-)
T_2_6 cousin M 28 1.25 1.00 0.50 1.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
1.00
1.50
- - - Move to other village for farming (2013-)
T_2_7 nephew M 30 - 1.00 1.00 1.50
1.00
3.00
1.00
- - - - - Move to other town for work (2011-)
T_2_8
nephew
M
26
-
-
-
-
-
4.00
-
1.50
3.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
T_2_9
nephew
M
19
-
-
-
-
-
2.00
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
T_2_10
former hhh's wife
F
81
1.00
1.50
1.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Go back to born house (2007-)
T_2_11
wife
F
56
1.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No land (2005-)
T_2_12
brother's wife
F
46
1.00
-
-
-
0.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pregnancy (2005_2007), no land (2009-)
T_2_13
cousin's wife F 41 - - - - 0.50
- - - - - - - Land only one year (2009)
T_3_1
hhh
M
59
9.00
4.00
5.00
4.50
6.50
6.00
5.50
4.00
7.00
5.50
6.00
5.75
T_3_2 brother M 56 4.50 3.75 2.50 1.25
3.50
3.00
3.00
3.50
- - - - Branch family (2012-)
T_3_3 brother M 53 6.00 5.50 4.00 - - - - - - - - - Branch family (2007-)
T_3_4
brother
M
50
1.50
1.50
3.75
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Move to other town for work (2007-)
T_3_5
son
M
26
-
1.00
1.25
0.60
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.50
1.50
2.00
T_3_6
son
M
21
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.25
0.50
T_3_7
wife
F
56
1.10
1.10
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.00
1.00
1.00
T_3_8
wife
F
51
1.60
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
2.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
-
-
-
Reduction of field nutrients (2013-)
T_3_9
brother's wife
F
47
-
0.50
1.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Change of house with husband (2007-)
T_3_10
brother's wife F 41 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - Change of house with husband (2007-)
T_3_11
brother's wife F 42 1.60 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - No land (2006-)
T_3_12
brother's wife F 48 - - 1.00 1.00
0.50
- 0.50
0.50
- - - - Change of house with husband (2012-)
T_4_1
hhh
M
68
11.50
7.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
7.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
8.00
6.00
6.00
T_4_2
brother
M
56
2.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
2.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other town for work (2012-)
T_4_3
brother
M
51
2.00
1.75
1.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Branch family (2007-)
T_4_4
brother
M
41
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.75
2.00
2.00
2.50
3.00
4.00
-
-
Branch family (2014-)
T_4_5
son
M
46
2.00
2.00
2.00
-
-
-
-
3.00
2.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
Working away from home (2007_2010)
T_4_6
son
M
31
2.00
1.25
1.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Move to other village for farming (2008-)
T_4_7
nephew
M
27
1.50
1.00
2.25
1.50
1.25
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
T_4_8 wife F 51 1.00 1.00 1.10 0.60
1.00
1.00
- - - - - - No land (2010-)
T_4_9 brother's wife F 51 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
- - - - Change of house with husband (2012-)
T_4_10
wife F 46 0.50 0.50 1.25 0.50
1.00
2.50
1.00
- - - - - No land (2012-)
T_5_1
hhh
M
86
5.25
7.00
6.00
5.00
6.00
4.50
5.00
4.00
3.75
Stop farming, sickness (2014-)
T_5_2 son M 56 3.75 2.00 3.00 2.50
3.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.50
4.50
4.50
T_5_3
son
M
51
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
2.13
T_5_4
son
M
46
2.50
2.00
2.50
2.50
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
3.50
T_5_5
son
M
29
-
1.50
1.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other town for work (2011-)
T_5_6
wife
F
63
-
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-
-
-
-
-
No land (2011-)
T_5_7 daughter F 48 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - Stay for pregnancy (2005_2006)
T_5_8 son's wife F 38 - - - - 0.50
- - - - - - - Stay for pregnancy (2008_2009)
(Source: Survey data, 2005-2016.).

Journal of Food Security 145
Table 7. Changes of field utilization by farmers in each compound of village G
Relation
sex
age
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Note/comments
G_1_1
hhh
M
61
10.00
7.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
5.00
6.00
G_1_2
son
M
41
2.00
6.00
3.50
-
-
4.00
2.00
3.00
5.75
3.00
-
-
Working away (2007_2008, 2014_2015)
G_1_3
son
M
36
1.00
3.50
3.75
5.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Move to village for farming (2008-)
G_1_4 son M 36 - 3.50 3.75 5.00 - - - - - - - - Move to village for farming (2008-)
G_1_5 son M 25 - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - Land only one year (2011)
G_1_6 wife F 51 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
G_2_1
former hhh
M
62
7.00
6.00
3.50
5.50
3.50
3.50
5.00
2.50
-
-
-
-
Stop farming (from 2012), Died (2013)
G_2_2
brother
M
51
1.50
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.50
2.50
1.50
4.00
4.00
1.00
2.50
G_2_3
hhh
M
43
2.00
2.50
2.00
-
3.00
3.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
5.50
Farming at another village (2007)
G_2_4 nephew M 41 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 - - - - - - - Move to other town for work (from 2009)
G_2_5 nephew M 36 1.00 2.50 1.50 2.50 1.00 2.50 1.50 1.25 1.00 1.25 5.50 1.50 Land only one year (2009)
G_2_6
grand nephew
M
18
-
-
-
-
-
0.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
G_2_7
former hhh's wife
F
51
0.75
1.00
1.10
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
-
-
1.00
-
-
Stop farming (2011_2012, 2014-)
G_2_8 former hhh's wife
F 46 - 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - Land only one year (2005)
G_2_9 brother's wife F 41 - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - - Land from husband (2006_2008)
G_2_10
wife F 39 - - 0.50 0.50 - - - - - 0.50 Land from husband (2006_2007, 2013)
G_3_1
former hhh
M
81
6.75
6.00
7.00
4.00
5.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Move to born house (from 2009)
G_3_2
hhh
M
61
3.00
3.50
5.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.50
2.50
3.00
2.50
4.00
G_3_3 brother M 51 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.25 4.50 1.00 1.00 2.00
G_3_4 brother M 36 2.00 4.75 2.00 3.00 3.50 2.75 3.00 4.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 3.50
G_3_5 brother M 31 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.50 - - - - - - -
Change house with former HHH (from 2009)
G_3_6
son
M
31
2.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Move to other town for work (from 2005)
G_3_7
son
M
27
-
-
-
-
0.50
2.00
2.50
2.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
-
Died (2015)
G_3_8
son
M
26
-
-
-
-
-
1.00
-
0.25
1.50
-
-
1.00
Help for HHH (2009, 2013_2014)
G_4_1
hhh
M
76
6.00
4.00
3.00
2.50
1.50
4.50
2.75
2.75
1.50
3.50
2.30
2.50
G_4_2 brother M 51 5.00 2.00 1.50 - 1.00 4.50 2.00 - - - - - Branch family (from 2011)
G_4_3
brother
M
41
2.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Change of house and job (from 2005)
G_4_4
son
M
36
1.75
1.50
1.50
0.50
-
1.00
2.00
1.00
-
0.25
1.00
2.00
Temporary absence (2008, 2011)
G_4_5 son M 26 - - - - 0.50 - 0.50 0.50 - - - - Go to school (from 2011)
G_4_6 wife F 51 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - No land (2008, 2010_2011, 2015)
G_4_7 brother's wife F 37 0.50 - - - - - - - - - - - Change of house with husband (from 2005)
G_4_8
sister
F
36
2.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Change of house for marriage (from 2005)
G_5_1 hhh M 59 4.00 3.75 2.50 5.85 4.50 4.50 4.00 4.50 2.25 3.50 3.00 3.25
G_5_2 brother M 46 3.25 2.25 1.75 2.75 2.50 - - - - - 1.00 - Working away from home (2009_2013)
G_5_3 son M 32 1.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 3.00 3.50 4.75 4.75 5.50 4.50
G_5_4 son M 28 - - - 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.38 0.25 1.00 - Help for HHH (2015)
G_5_5
wife
F
56
1.25
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
G_5_6
daughter
F
35
1.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Change of house for marriage (from 2005)
(Source: Survey data, 2005-2016.)
In the case of village G, the field size of each farmer
tended to decrease, but the field size of the HHH is
relatively large in each compound (G_1, G_4, G_5).
However, in some compounds, a new HHH took over the
management of the compound because of the exit or death
of the former HHH, but the field size was not directly
inherited from the former HHH (G_ 2, G_ 3).
In addition, there are cases where farmers who are
relatively responsible for family food security of the
compound leave to go to another village for farming
(G_1_3 and 4), form a branch family for changing
jobs(G_4_3), and relocate to urban areas for changing jobs
(G_2_4, G_3_6). Furthermore, young males of some
compounds in village G temporarily exited the village for
farming in other villages (G_2_3) or migrant work to
urban areas (G-1-2, G-4-4, G-5-2), so the farming labor
force of HHH and senior farmers of each compound was
insufficient. In addition, the females in village G generally
have few fluctuations in field use due to exit or temporary
stay.
The survey shows that the compounds in both villages
have a decreasing trend in the number of farmers and the
field size. However, the factors and scale of reduction are
different in each village. If a family of a compound
temporarily leaves the original compound or exits because
of migration or job change, some other families use that
field. Additionally, if a male farmer from the compound
leaves, the labor force of the compound as a whole will
decrease. So, in each compound, there were not enough
farmers who could expand farming by using the fields of
leaving farmers/families. In village T, because of the
separation of branch families in each compound, the
original field is divided to provide land for those families,
so the average field size shrank. This strongly shows the
tendency to reduce the scale of farming. But the average
age of farmers increased very little, so aging of farmers is

146 Journal of Food Security
not progressing. In each compound of village G, the
young males left the village, the number of farmers
decreased, and the labor force was also short, so the field
size of the whole compound decreased.
6. Conclusion and recommendations
In recent years, there have been economic disparities
between the south and the north areas in Ghana. These
economic disparities form a multilayered structure of
south and north, urban and rural by rapidly spreading the
market economy in the country. The economic disparities
appear to be increasing in the rural areas, particularly in
the northern area and the urban side in the southern area.
Also, because of the effects of economic growth, the
position of agriculture as a source of income in rural areas
has declined rapidly. Especially in the past few years,
since the weight of agriculture as an income source
has been rapidly decreasing, even the possibility that
de-agrarianization is progressing can be forecasted.
Nonetheless, the northern part of Ghana does not produce
crops for export and does not have any useful mineral
resources. So income from agriculture has assumed an
important position.
In response to the movement of such social conditions,
farmers in the northern part of Ghana are engaged in
farming while each village and each compound responds
to changes in external or internal conditions. We analyzed
the change of the size of families and number of farmers,
the decreasing field size, and clarified three points on the
impact of the rapid spread of market economy in northern
Ghana.
1) In the northern part of Ghana, the reason for the
decrease in the size of families of compounds was
males moving out of the original compounds to form
branch families or move to other rural villages and
urban areas. In the village where external access is
poor but there is still a certain extent in the field,
farmers stay in the original village in many cases to
form branch families. In villages where the size of the
population has expanded but there is no margin in
thefield, farmers often leave the origin village to move
toother rural villages or urban areas.
2) Since the number of farmers in each compound has
decreased and the proportion of the number of farmers
to the size of families is decreasing, food security
dependence per farmer is increasing. For that reason,
compound management is becoming harder where
farming is the only source of livelihood. As a response,
the size of families is controlled by adult males
moving to form branch families, moving to other rural
villages, and seeking jobs in urban areas.
3) In the northern part of Ghana, the decrease in field size
is intense as the number of farmers decreases in the
compound. In villages with many branch families, the
reduction rate of the field size in the compound is
large and the farming scale is shrinking, but the
average age of farmers is not progressing. In the
originally small-scale farming village where most of
the farmers move out of the village, the reduction rate
of the field size in the compound is small, but the
average age of farmers is increasing because of the
exit of the young males.
In the northern part of Ghana, economic liberalization
has progressed rapidly since the early 2000s, and even
residents of rural villages are needing more cash to obtain
necessities for daily living. So, in each compound, some
families maintain their livelihoods by doing non-
agricultural activities such as migrant work or concurrent
work. Meanwhile, problems such as division of land and
reduced field size due to formation of branch families in
compounds and instability in the farming labor force due
to young males’ exit from the original village have been
shown. And these problems include the possibility of
causing other problems, such us farming scale reduction
or aging of farmers in compound.
As a practical matter, it would be difficult to maintain a
self-sufficient life by producing and consuming the food
crops that have been adopted in this area. In other words,
changes in the internal condition such as the decrease in
the size of families and the number of farmers in the
northern part of Ghana and the reduction in field size are
caused by changes in external conditions – namely, the
need for cash due to the effects of economic liberalization.
Although any changes are dealt with according to the
situation, it is unlikely that HHHs who were entrusted
with the management of compounds abandoned this life
and stopped farming. Also, it is difficult to imagine that
the farmers in northern Ghana’s unstable and harsh
environmental conditions are likely to abandon food crops
production and change to cash crop production for sales.
Nonetheless, the impact of the rapid penetration of the
market economy in the northern part of Ghana is changing
their agriculture and creating new problems of shrinking
farming scale and aging farmers. Even if farmers respond
flexibly to changes in the external environment, the
direction of stable agricultural development in the future is
not clear. Therefore, it is important to grasp the present
farming system in the northern part of Ghana in detail and
to build a development program based on agriculture that
has been adopted in the target area rather than simply
introduce new production technology and to expand
production based on the experience of developed countries.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (JSPS) -- Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (C): Grant Number 26450333.
References
[1] Takane, T. (2002). The Cocoa Farmers of Southern Ghana
-
Incentives, Institutions, and Change in Rural West Africa. Institute
of Developing Economies - Japan External Trade Organization,
Chiba, Japan.
[2] Nakasone, K., & Inaizumi, H. (2007). The Change of Compound
Farming System on Traditional Rural Village in Northern Ghana.
Journal of Rural Community Studies, 105: 41-54.
[3] Nakasone, K. (2013a). Penetration of market economy and the
change of agricultural technology in northern Ghana --A case
study of Dagomba. Journal of Agricultural Science, 58(2): 71-84.

Journal of Food Security 147
[4] Yaro, J. A. (2006). Is deagrarianisation real? A study of livelihood
activities in rural northern Ghana. Journal of Modern African
Studies, 44(1): 125-156.
[5] GSS. (2014a). Digest of International Merchandise Trade
Statistics 2009-2013. Ghana Statistical Service, Accra, Ghana.
[6] GSS. (2011). Revised Gross Domestic Product 2010. Ghana
Statistical Service, Ghana.
[7] GSS. (2013). Provisional Gross Domestic Product 2010. Ghana
Statistical Service, Ghana.
[8] GSS. (2016). Revised 2015 Annual Gross Domestic Product.
Ghana Statistical Service, Accra, Ghana.
[9] ILO HP (2016). ILO Statistics and databases,
http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases (accessed 08
Sept., 2016).
[10] FAO HP (2016). FAOSTAT, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/ -
home (accessed 08 Sept., 2016).
[11] Takane, T. (2007). Structural features of the economy. In Takane
et al. (eds.), Agriculture and Forestry in Ghana, pp.1-3. Japan
Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and
Forestry, Tokyo, Japan.
[12] Republic of Ghana. (2003). Growth and Poverty Reduction
Strategy 2003-2005 -- An Agenda for Growth Prosperity.
Republic of Ghana, Ghana.
[13] Republic of Ghana. (2005). Growth and Poverty Reduction
Strategy (GPRSⅡ) (2006-2009). National Development Planning
Commission, Ghana.
[14] Nakasone, K. (2013b). Study on the diversification of livelihood
activities and change of income acquisition opportunities in rural
area of Northern Ghana. Journal of Rural Community Studies, 117:
36-51.
[15] GSS (Ghana Statistical Service). (2000). Ghana Living Standards
Survey--Report on The Fourth Round (GLSS4). Ghana Statistical
Service, Accra, Ghana.
[16] GSS. (2009). Ghana Living Standards Survey--Report on The
Fifth Round (GLSS5). Ghana Statistical Service, Ghana.
[17] GSS. (2014b). Ghana Living Standards Survey--Round 6 (GLSS6).
Ghana Statistical Service, Ghana.
[18] Bryceson, F. (1997). De-agrarianisation in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Acknowledging the Inevitable. In F. Bryceson, F. and Jamal, V.
(eds.), Farewell to Farm De-agrarianisation and Employment in
Africa, pp. 3-20. African Studies Centre, Ashgate.
[19] Warner, M., Al-Hassan, R., & Kydd, J. (1999). A Review of
Changes to Farming Systems of Northern Ghana (1957-94). In
Roger, B. (ed.), Natural Resource Management in Ghana and Its
Socio-economic Context, pp. 85-113. Overseas Development
Institute, U.K.
[20] Donhauser, F., Baur, H., & Langyintuo, A. (1994). Small Holder
Agriculture in Western Dagbon; A Farming System in Northern
Ghana. Nyankpala Agricultural Research Report No.10.
Nyankpala, Ghana.
[21] Nakasone, K. (2002). Study on the Compound Farming of
Savanna Rural Area in West Africa (Ph. D. paper). Graduate
school of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo,
Japan.
[22] Panin, A. (1988). Hoe and Bullock Farming System in Northern
Ghana. Nyankpala Agricultural Research Report No. 1.
Nyankpala, Ghana.
[23] Schmidt, G., & Frey, E. (1988). Crop rotation Effects in Savannah
Soil. Nyankpala Agricultural Research Report No. 4. Nyankpala,
Ghana.
[24] Runge-Metzger, A., & Diehl, L. (1993). Farm Household Systems
in Northern Ghana; A case study in farming systems oriented
research for the development of improved crop production
systems. Nyankpala Agricultural Research Report No. 9.
Nyankpala, Ghana.
[25] Hesselberg, J., & Yaro, J. A. (2006). An assessment of the extent
and causes of food insecurity in northern Ghana using a livelihood
vulnerability framework. GeoJounal, 67: 41-55.
[26] Oppong, C. (1973). Growing Up in Dagbon, Ghana Publishing
Corporation, Accra-Tema, Ghana.
[27] Yaro, J. A. (2012). Re-inventing traditional land tenure in the era
of land commoditization: some consequences in perurban northern
Ghana. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 94(4):
351-368.