Comments on Paper 19983

[Hilary C. Hazele]

1) when explaining the gap noted in the emphirical literature, you mentioned a paper by Kan et.al which you said has a shortfall in explaining what your paper explored, the explanation is not very clear. it could be enhanced.
2) In illustrating that quantity produced is a subject of labour and capital, you might want to explicitly put it that the paper labour is not just family size, in the equation specification
3) Farmers in areas where there are no grocery shops nearby may have higher motivation to engage in retail selling as the returns to that business would be higher. You might want to show that the study is alive to this probability by indicating that locality of the farmer may have an influence on decision to engage in NFE or not, maybe by introducing HHLOC in the equations 9-11.
4)The recommendations could be enhanced to be more actionable. For instance you could provide a policy impression of the cmplementarity as was shown in the results. That NFE and Farming are complementary, what does it mean in policy terms. for example, there could be policies you are aware of being implemented in parallel targeting at the two which might need to be rethought through to maximise impact. There could be policies being implemented to promote agriculture that do not take into account the NFE aspect of farmers or the diversification programs for instance, how do they speak to NFEs in various localities.

[paulnkegbe]

Thanks, Hilary.