CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will be detailed background of the study, problem statement, objective of the study
research question, scope of the study, significance of the study, definition of key terms and
eventually conceptual framework.

1.1 Background of the study

Food aid has become a major obstacle facing Nepal government agricultural production Nepal
farms are mostly family farming or subsistence farming. Which is an important part of the
country's economy; there has been a decline in the production of small farms in the country, as
well as a decline in the number of agricultural workers, which has boosted the country's
unemployment rate. Farmers have become increasingly reliant on food aid. In recent years, the
government has realized that food aid is a problem that needs to be addressed, and that it needs a
policy to encourage smallholder farmers. Food aid transfers that, through different mechanisms,
induce various disincentive effects degrade the fundamental components of subsistence farming
and reproduce the need for more aid in the aid receiving populations. Subsistence or near-
subsistence farmers grow diverse food grains mostly for their own-consumption. ‘Dependency’
together with its ‘disincentive’ effects on recipient populations. In the context of farming based
livelihoods, the disincentive effects are related to food aid impacts such as reduced labor supply
on local farms, and depressed production of local grain, particularly the same grain that is being
transferred. (World Development, 2019).
In Nigeria Subsistence agriculture employs about two-thirds of the total labor force in Nigeria
and provides a livelihood for the majority of the rural population – which may account for nearly
three-quarters of the resource-challenged population of the country (AfDB, 2011). However, the
contribution of the agricultural sector to economic growth and sustained rural development
remains to be fully unexploited; small-scalenigeria farmers who depend on farming for their
livelihoods. they are incapable of managing natural disasters such as climate change and political
crises, which eventually forced them to enter IDP camps. And become food aid dependents.
Food aid has caused farmers to become lazy and unwilling to work on their farms, which has
severely damaged the country's small-scale farmers' production. And most Nigeria subsistence
farmers became food aid dependent. (JAFSCD, 2012).
Ethiopia is one of the least-developed countries in the world; predominantly an agrarian
economy with about 85% of the population living in rural areas. Subsistence agriculture is the
mainstay of the Ethiopian economy accounting for about 42% in 2003 of the A.U. In recent
years, the Ethiopian government has been working to encourage small-scale farmers who play an
important role in the country's economy. The government has declared food aid in the country a
major obstacle to long-term agricultural production, as well as discouraging farm workers. The
government is working to ensure that farmers become self-sufficient instead of relying on food
aid.( eyela Ulfta Gelan2006).
Somalia small farmers who produce most of their basic food items such as maize, sorghum are
frustrated by natural disasters in the country and political instability, which has led them to
become dependent on food aid. there has been a sharp decline in agricultural production in
Somalia in recent years due to the crisis in the country and people relying on foreign aid.
in Somalia traditional cropping systems where crops are grown primarily for subsistence,
farmers produce a broad range of crops and varieties not only to meet their subsistence needs,
but also to avoid the risk of total crop failure that can result from the many existing biotic and a
biotic stresses. It is estimated that 90% of the rain-fed area in Somalia is planted to sorghum, the
remaining 10% being divided between cowpeas and maize.

1.2 Problem statement

Smallholder farmers produce much of the world’s food; they face major challenges in profitable
market engagement. Due to their physical, economic, social, and political marginalization, most
smallholders pursue low productivity, subsistence-oriented livelihoods that support meager and
unhealthy diets. Millions of them are therefore chronically food insecure and vulnerable to
shocks. (WFP, 2019).

Most agriculture in Somalia is subsistence and is important for the livelihoods of many families
who depend on their production. Over the last 30 years subsistence farmers faced many
challenges including food aid, which has encouraged smallholder families to enter the camps and
become subsistence farmers relied on food aid. This is detrimental to the country's economic
development and the emergence of a society out of poverty and self-sufficiency.
Although many studies related to the problem under investigation have been conducted in many
parts of the world, however, there is a gap in the study area. Therefore, this study is intended to
bridge this gap and find out the impact of food aid on subsistence farming in Mogadishu,
Somalia.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1.3.1 General objectives

The main objective of the study is to investigate the impact of food aid on subsistence farming in
Mogadishu, Somalia.
1.3.2 Specific objectives

1) To investigate the impact of reliance/dependency food aid on subsistence farming in

Mogadishu, Somalia.

2) To determine the impact of food aid on subsistence farming production in Mogadishu,

Somalia.

3) To identify the impact of labor disincentive caused by the food aid on subsistence farming in
Mogadishu, Somalia.

1.4 REASEARCH QUESTIONS

1) What is the impact of reliance/dependency food aid on subsistence farming in Mogadishu,

Somalia?

2) What is the impact of food aid on subsistence farming production in Mogadishu, Somalia?

3) What is the impact of labor disincentive caused by the food aid on subsistence farming in
Mogadishu, Somalia?

1.5 Scope of the study

Geographical scope of this study is to investigate the impact of food aid on subsistence farming

in Mogadishu, Somalia. Time scope of this research is food aid impact on subsistence farming

Mogadishu, Somalia under taken from April up to June 15 2022

1.6 Significance of the study

The study will be useful for institutions both public and private because it makes them aware of
the existing issues and also proper ways to come up with long lasting solutions for the researched
problems.

The study will also be benefited by the local community because it creates conscious awareness
of the severity of a particular problem and also the urgency of the need for a solution.

This study will be useful for future researchers because it will act as a source of information and
also a guideline for them to follow in the subsequent studies related to same problem under
investigation.

1.7 Operational definitions of key terms

Defining Food Aid. In discussing food aid, policy experts use a large body of specialized
Terminology. Unfortunately, in many instances, terms are loosely defined or not Defined at all
and confusion results. We therefore introduce this discussion of foodAid by establishing a
common vocabulary to be used throughout. Let us start with a Definition of food aid; at first
glance this seems an easy task, but as recently as 2003 At a meeting in Berlin even food aid
experts struggled to agree on a definition for food Aid. The definition that resulted from the
meeting (but will by no means the result of A consensus) will the following. The definition of
food aid should not just be focused on its source of funding, or by specific Transactions, such as
‘items donated from external donors to recipient’, but should include Consideration of a) all
related international and domestic actions and programs, and b) the Role of non-food resources
brought to bear jointly with food to address key elements of Hunger problems. As such, food aid
can be understood as all food supported interventions Aimed at improving the food security of
poor people in the short and long term, whether Funded via international, national public and
(sic) private resources. Barrett and Maxwell define Food aid as, “the international sourcing of
concessional resources in the form of, or For the provision of food.” This definition limits food
aid to international assistance in The form of food or that results in the procurement of food, but
does not qualify food Aid as assistance that affects food security. (Sarah Lowder and Terri
Raney, 2005).

Definition of Subsistence agriculture of considerable size in relation to the total agricultural

sector. It is difficult to provide a widely accepted definition of the term subsistence agriculture
since it has been used “synonymously with such other concepts as traditional, small scale,
peasant, low income, resource poor, low-input or low technology farming” (Brüntrup and
Heidhues, 2002). A wide range of views of what constitutes subsistence agriculture is presented
in Wharton (1970). Arguably the simplest definition of subsistence is that of Mosher (1970) who
defines subsistence farmers as those who sell less than 50% of their production. This measures
subsistence from a production point of view. Alternatively subsistence may be defined with
regard to consumption, e.g. “farming in which crop production, livestock rearing and other
activities are conducted mainly for personal consumption” (Todaro, 1995). Although the former
definition is more convenient with regard to building quantitative models, due to the relative ease
of obtaining the relevant data (Beckmann and Pavel, 2000; Mishev et al., 2002), the latter is
more appropriate for measuring the significance of subsistence in the overall agricultural
economy (Tho Seeth et al., 1998; Caskie, 2000; Kostov and Lingard, 2002). (Philip Kostov and
John Lingard, 20155)
Food aid reliance many of the potentially negative effects of food aid are commonly lumped
under the catch-all label “dependency”. Such effects can occur at the household, community Do
communities alter their collective behavior in the presence of external assistance such as food
aid? Lentz, Barrett and Hoddinott (2005) refer to this type of community-wide moral hazard as
“opportunism”, defined as behavior that makes full use of external services in unexpected ways
but which does not necessarily result in long-term adverse consequences. Somali refugees during
1979–1989, found that opportunistic behavior will particularly prevalent in programmers that
treated refugees as helpless victims and which, consequently, made no demands on them.
Dependency is said to occur when interventions aimed at meeting current needs reduce the
capacity of recipients to meet their own needs in the future. This can happen when the provision
of assistance creates disincentives for self-reliant behavior (e.g., growing a crop or getting a job,
maintaining community assets or enacting appropriate policy reforms). (THE STATE OF FOOD
AND AGRICULTURE, 2006)

Labor disincentive, Perhaps the most pervasive criticism of food aid is that it may discourage
people from working on their own farms or other employment, thus increasing their dependence
on external assistance. Economic theory suggests that food aid transfers may have a negative
effect on labor supply, because such transfers are a form of income. As incomes rise, people tend
to work less simply because even hard-working people prefer more leisure. (THE STATE OF
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, 2006)

Food aid subsistence farming production much has been written about the possible disincentive
effects of food aid on recipient countries’ agriculture sectors since Schultz’s (1960) widely
influential analysis of the issue. There are several ways that food aid can undermine agricultural
economies (Maxwell and Singer, 1979; Maxwell, 1991). , food aid can affect household and
national production if it reduces or destabilizes domestic their production and food aid
discourage local production. (THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, 2006)

1.8 Conceptual framework

Food aid

Subsistence
farming

 Reliance/Depen
dency of food  Subsistence
aid Production

 Labor disincentive
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction

This chapter presented different literatures related to the impact of food aid on subsistence
farming. These literatures have been retrieved from various books, journals, articles and studies
related to the same problem at hand.

2.1 Reline on food aid and subsistence farming

An attitude and belief that a group cannot solve its own problems without outside help’ – as
characterized by community development specialists who contrast dependency with the need to
empower communities. HPG, (2005). In many emergency contexts aid agencies are reluctant to
provide food and other aid for extended periods of time because of fears that this may create
dependency. This seems to be largely based on assumptions rather than evidence that people can
quickly become dependent on food aid. The risk of creating dependency is often used as a
justification, however, for a wide range of programming decisions. These include moving from
free food distributions to the subsistence farmers schemes and more generally shifting from relief
provisioning to more developmental approaches which explicitly aim at some form of
sustainability. However, fear of creating dependency risks assistance not being provided or being
cut off when it continues to be genuinely needed. In the absence of alternative options to access
food and remaining risks to food security and nutrition, it is questionable whether dependency
should still be seen in negative terms. (HPG, 2005)

The unintended consequences of food aid are commonly lumped under the catch-all label
“dependency”. Lentz et al. (2005) usefully explain that an individual, household, or community
exhibits dependency when it cannot meet its immediate basic needs without external assistance.1
Dependency thus defined is not necessarily an undesirable outcome. For households that cannot
support themselves, such as those without able bodied adults, dependence on external assistance
is very likely to be welfare enhancing when the alternative is destitution or worse. (Christopher
B. Barrett, 2006).

Dependency is said to occur when interventions aimed at meeting current needs reduce the
capacity of recipients to meet their own needs in the future. This can happen when the provision
of assistance creates disincentives for self reliance behavior (e.g., growing a crop or getting a
job, maintaining community assets or enacting appropriate policy reforms). It is important to
recall from the discussion of insurance effects that food aid can alter people’s behaviour only if
they are reasonably sure that it will be available to them when they need it. Recent empirical
studies suggest that most households in vulnerable countries neither understand who is targeted
for food aid nor how the quantity of aid per household is determined, so can’t food aid provide
reliable insurance against crises (Bennett, 2001; Harvey and Lind, 2005). Furthermore, several
studies find that the quantity of food aid received by households is usually too small to
encourage their reliance on it (Barrett and Maxwell, 2005; little, 2005; Lentz and Barrett, 2005).
Little (2005) argues that the small amounts and the irregular timing of deliveries discourage
Ethiopians from relying on food aid. As a result, they do not adjust their behaviour in the
expectation of receiving food aid. (Fao.org, 2006)

Many of the potentially negative effects of food aid are commonly lumped under the catch-all
label “dependency”. Such effects can occur at the household, community Do communities alter
their collective behavior in the presence of external assistance such as food aid? Some studies
suggest that they do. For example, Group URD (2005) reports that in Afghanistan some
communities stopped maintenance on public goods in anticipation of food aid payments for the
same projects. Lentz, Barrett and Hoddinott (2005) refer to this type of community-wide moral
hazard as “opportunism”, defined as behavior that makes full use of external services in
unexpected ways but which does not necessarily result in long-term adverse consequences.
Participatory decision-making appears to alleviate this problem. Kibreab (1993), in an
ethnography of Somali refugees during 1979–1989, found that opportunistic behaviour will
particularly prevalent in programmers that treated refugees as helpless victims and which,
consequently, made no demands on them.(the state of food and agriculture, 2006)

2.2 food and subsistence farming production

Much has been written about the possible disincentive effects of food aid on recipient countries’
agriculture sectors since Schultz’s (1960) widely influential analysis of the issue. There are
several ways that food aid can undermine subsistence agricultural (Maxwell and Singer, 1979;
Maxwell, 1991). In addition to (but building on) the labour disincentive effects discussed above,
food aid can affect household and national production if it reduces or destabilizes domestic food
prices. Greater price volatility raises the uncertainty faced by producers, local traders and other
market intermediaries and may P. Harvey and J. Lind1 The focus of humanitarian action should
be saving lives and alleviating suffering in situations where people’s lives and livelihoods are
under acute threat and local capacities to cope with crisis are being overwhelmed. In such
situations, being able to depend on receiving assistance should be seen as a good thing. The
focus should not be on avoiding dependence but on providing sufficiently reliable and
transparent assistance so that those who most need it understand what they are entitled to, and
can rely on it as part of their own efforts to survive and recover from crisis. In situations of
chronic food insecurity, where relief is required on a regular basis, agencies need to be
concerned about the effects of that relief, and find ways in which assistance can strengthen
livelihoods, as well as providing immediate relief. But rations should never be cut or relief
withheld without solid evidence that the needs that prompted relief in the first place have been
met. Dependency frequently represents a way of blaming relief as one of the most visible
symptoms of crisis, rather than the cause. Tackling dependency involves tackling root causes,
whether this is resolving conflicts, addressing underlying poverty or tackling corrupt or
predatory governance. It also may discourage local production. And, since the poor often are
concentrated in rural areas, food aid in fact may disproportionately hurt the poor. But this is often
not the responsibility of humanitarian actors. The problem lies not with relief and its failings, but
with the lack of other forms of international engagement with crises. 1 Overseas Development
Institute, London. BOX 8 Dependency and humanitarian relief the state of food and agriculture
2006 38 discourage investment in local market institutions. Finally, the availability of food aid, if
it persists, may undermine the policy environment for agriculture by masking the need for policy
reform. (Fao.org, 2006)

The possible negative economic impacts of relief. The argument runs that prolonged relief
assistance can undermine local economies, and that large amounts of food aid can damage local
agricultural production. This in turn leads to a continuing need for relief assistance, creating a
vicious cycle and trapping people into chronic dependency. This dependency trap argument is
closely linked to a larger debate about the impact of food aid and its potential disincentive
effects. The problem with this debate is that, despite a large literature, the evidence for or against
disincentive effects remains inconclusive.

Beyond – and building on – labor disincentive effects, food aid can have the unintended
consequence of discouraging household-level production. If food aid lowers local food prices,
that may decrease the relative payoffs to investing in one’s own production. This type of
disincentive impacts not only food aid recipients – who may enjoy a countervailing simulative
effect due to the increased resources at their disposal – but perhaps especially to non-recipient
producers who live in or sell to areas receiving food aid flows. In theory, a producer is more at
risk of facing food aid-induced disincentives the more unresponsive (i.e., inelastic) demand they
face. These disincentive effects can be short-term in nature, in which case concerns about
negative dependency are minimal. The risk of triggering negative dependency looms largest
when food aid has what producers expect to be a relatively permanent negative effect on product
prices, or when it interrupts regular investment or maintenance cycles that maintain or enhance
local agricultural productivity. The key triggers to study are thus the medium-tolong-term
expected price effects and any disruptions in on-farm activities due to the method and timing of
food distribution. Both of these factors are largely driven by programming variables such as
targeting methods and timing of deliveries. A vast amount of unverified anecdotal evidence
suggests that food aid, in the form of FFW programs, harms local production by encouraging
households to reallocate their labor away from production towards FFW. The econometric or
ethnographic evidence in support of this claim is thin, however, and there are examples where
the opposite seems to occur, as in the case of FFW for on-farm soil and water conservation in
Tigray, northern Ethiopia, crowding in on-farm labor and private investments (Holden, Barrett
and Hagos 2006), or in the case of lean season FFW projects enabling smallholders to purchase
fertilizer and hire labor to increase on-farm labor effort on their own plots in Baringo District of
central Kenya (Bezuneh et al., 1988). FFW programs are often used to counter a perceived
“dependency syndrome” associated with freely distributed food. Yet, evidence suggests that
poorly designed FFW programs may cause more risk of harming local production than free food
distribution does. Ravallion (1991) has argued that setting wages correctly will induce self-
targeting of food insecure households whose time is less valuable than that of richer households.
Barrett and Clay (2003) argue, however, that in structurally weak economies FFW program
design is not as simple as determining the appropriate wage rate. The authors find that in rural
Ethiopia higher-income households had excess labor and thus lower (not higher) value of time,
therefore they allocated this labor to FFW schemes in which poorer households could not afford
to participate due to labor scarcity. Bennett (2001) argues that FFW programs in Cambodia are
an additional, not alternative, source of employment and that the very poor rarely participate due
to labor constraints. Therefore, some targeting in addition to FFW may be necessary to reach the
neediest households. Identifying who should be eligible for FFW, own-production labor
requirements, expected duration of the distribution, structural factors (such as productive assets
available to a household), and local wages can help determine the appropriateness of FFW and
the risks of resulting negative dependency. The claimed labor disincentive effects of food aid
may reflect some misinterpretation of the relation between food aid and low productivity.
Abdulai, Barrett, and Hoddinott (2005) find that a seemingly negative correlation between food
aid and production does not appear to reflect any causal relationship from food aid to diminished
labor inputs or on-farm 8 investments once one controls for targeting-related placement effects
(i.e., the fact that food aid flows in response to adverse shocks).5 Given that they are able to use
repeated longitudinal observations of households, Abdulai, Barrett and Hoddinott (2005) are able
to directly refute claims of negative dependency among Ethiopian farmers in their sample.
Further, recent research in Kenya suggests that producers choose their crops based on
longtermprice trends, not on short-term fluctuations. Therefore, production changes may be more
likely to occur in areas with recurrent crises with a long-term, steady stream of food aid rather
than one-off events such as emergency response (Christopher B. Barrett, 2006)

2.3 Labor disincentive and subsistence farming

Food aid is that it may discourage people from working on their own farms or other employment,
thus increasing their dependence on external assistance. Economic theory suggests that food aid
transfers may have a negative effect on labour supply, because such transfers are a form of
income. As incomes rise, people tend to work less simply because even hard-working people
prefer more leisure to less (Kanbur, Keen and Tuomala, 1994). Any income transfer – whether in
the form of food or not – discourages recipients from working, everything else being constant.
The question is how severe is this effect. The empirical evidence shows that labour supply
becomes more responsive to changes in income as people get wealthier. In other words, wealthy
people are more likely than poor people to work less in response to an income transfer. Food aid
programmes that include wealthier beneficiaries magnifythelabour disincentive effect by
providing benefits to those who are most able and willing to turn transfers into leisure instead of
into increased food consumption

Perhaps the most pervasive – and we believe, misguided – claim is that food aid somehow makes
people lazy, that food aid unintentionally discourages people from working. It is certainly true
that microeconomic theory suggests that because transfers increase recipients’ welfare, they
generate income effects that will tend to reduce labor supply simply because even hard-working
people prefer more leisure to less.4 The economic reality that any transfer – whether in the form
of food or not – discourages recipients from working, everything else held constant, undermines
much popular support for transfers, as heated debates over the past decade about domestic
welfare programs in Europe and North America have vividly demonstrated. The empirical
evidence also shows, however, that labor supply becomes more responsive to changes in income
as people grow wealthier. The implication is that targeting errors of inclusion magnify the labor
market disincentive effects inherent to food aid (or any other form of transfer) by providing
benefits to those who are most able and willing to turn transfers into leisure instead of increased
food consumption. The distortionary effects of food aid on labor supply appear minimal when
food aid is appropriately targeted to intended recipients. Put differently, when one encounters an
apparent labor disincentive problem, this typically signals poor targeting as the root problem, not
a poor work ethic among intended recipients. A slightly different sort of labor distortion can arise
when food-for-work (FFW) programs are relatively more attractive than work on recipients’ own
farms/businesses, either because the FFW pays immediately, or because the household considers
the payoffs to the FFW project to be higher than the returns to labor on its own plots. In this case,
food aid-based programs siphon productive inputs away from local private production, creating a
distortion due to substitution effects, rather than the income effects on which the prior paragraph
focused. In theory, poor timing and FFW wages that are above prevailing market rates can cause
negative dependency by diverting labor from local private uses, particularly if FFW obligations
decrease labor on a household’s own enterprises during a critical part of the production cycle
(Jackson and Eade,1982; Grassroots International 1997, Lappe and Collins, 1977; Molla, 1990;
Salsbury, 1992). For highly food-insecure recipients, FFW program participation may provide
recipients with essential food today while hindering labor investments in future productivity, a
classic case of positive dependency (humanitarian support) inextricably twinned with negative
dependency. (Christopher B. Barrett, 2006)
food aid is that it may discourage people from working on their own farms or other employment,
thus increasing their dependence on external assistance. Economic theory suggests that food aid
transfers may have a negative effect on labour supply, because such transfers are a form of
income. As incomes rise, people tend to work less simply because even hard-working people
prefer more leisure to less (Kanbur, Keen and Tuomala, 1994). Any income transfer – whether in
the form of food or not – discourages recipients from working, everything else being constant.
The question is how severe is this effect. The empirical evidence shows that labour supply
becomes more responsive to changes in income as people get wealthier. In other words, wealthy
people are more likely than poor people to work less in response to an income transfer. Food aid
programmers that include wealthier beneficiaries magnify the labor disincentive effect by
providing benefits to those who are most able and willing to turn transfers into leisure instead of
into increased food consumption. (Fao.org, 2006)

2.4Summary
One particular concern of many critics of food transfers is that they will disincentives recipients
from participating in the labour market and acts as a substitute for local food production.
However a number of studies show that this is not the case. For example, an analysis of data
from rural Ethiopia revealed no evidence of negative dependency effects, and, in fact, showed a
potential positive effect on labour supply. One might fear disincentives to agricultural production
if food transfers provide an adequate replacement. However, in a strange case of aid inefficiency
having a positive unintended consequence, due to the inconsistent timing of the deliveries
associated with food transfer programs food aid does not seem to lead to recipients not
participating in the labour market. We explicitly set aside the issue of whether food aid is the
best resource to use in promoting agricultural market development in recipient countries,
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. In the abstract, food aid seems an undeniably inferior
resource because it is doubly tied, in the following sense. Food aid is inflexible in the form of the
transfer – it comes only as food, not as cash or other useful goods or services – and it is typically
inflexible in sourcing that food, relying on commodities procured in and shipped directly from
the donor country. However, if the volume of international transfers depends on the form in
which donors provide it, particularly if donor country governments are willing to provide food
aid in part because it supports their own farm and agribusiness constituencies, then food aid that
is relatively inefficient per dollar transferred may nonetheless generate greater absolute transfers
than less restricted cash appropriations. We therefore only explore whether food aid violates a
necessary but not sufficient ( AwuduAbdulai ,2004)

Due to the inability of farmers to grow enough food crops, large numbers of people in the study
area have been receiving food aid since from the mid-1980s to cover their food gaps. Local
officials and development actors working in the area argue that such provision of food aid for an
extended period of time is an obstacle to tackling reliance on food aid. During interviews with
government officials at the district level, officials think people suffer from a dependency
syndrome. The head of the District Agricultural Office, for example, explained that “due to
availability of food aid for many years, farmers have developed a dependency syndrome and
have become reluctant to improve their lives. As a consequence they are not willing to use their
potential to improve their livelihood by themselves.” Officials and experts generally describe
local people as unwilling to invest their time and resources to improve their own wellbeing.

Targeting problems can contribute to the dependency syndrome. This is especially true when
people receive food aid when they do not need external assistance to smooth their consumption.
This is what Lentz and Barrett[66] described as a negative dependency, which occurs when
individuals’ or households’ needs are met at the expense of recipients’ capacity to meet their
own basic needs in the future. This makes targeting a critical issue in the management of food
aid as it may ‘cultivate’ a dependency syndrome.

As discussed earlier, in the study area, people were provided with food aid irrespective of
households’ food insecurity status in the 1980s and 1990s. This seems to have created a
dependency attitude for some households. This is reflected by the fact that some interviewed
households believed that they should be eligible for transfers even if they were not chronically
food-insecure by local standards. In this regard, some households in the study area tried to
portray themselves as chronically food-insecure and by doing so expected to have access to food
aid transfers. Especially in one of the villages, during a focus group discussion, there seemed to
be a general unwillingness to use the term “better-off” among community representatives. There
will also a tendency to exaggerate the problem when it comes to food-gap related questions
especially for non-beneficiary households. However, this self-representation of households as in
need of food aid cannot be described as a dependency syndrome. (AschaleDagnachewSiyoum,
2012).

Food aid is that it may discourage people from working on their own farms or other employment,
thus increasing their dependence on external assistance. Economic theory suggests that food aid
transfers may have a negative effect on labour supply, because such transfers are a form of
income. As incomes rise, people tend to work less simply because even hard-working people
prefer more leisure to less (Kanbur, Keen and Tuomala, 1994). Food aid programmes that
include wealthier beneficiaries magnifythelabour disincentive effect by providing benefits to
those who are most able and willing to turn transfers into leisure instead of into increased food
consumption
Perhaps the most pervasive – and we believe, misguided – claim is that food aid
somehow makes people lazy, that food aid unintentionally discourages people from
working. It is certainly true that microeconomic theory suggests that because transfers
increase recipients’ welfare, they generate income effects that will tend to reduce labor
supply simply because even hard-working people prefer more leisure to less.4 The
economic reality that any transfer – whether in the form of food or not – discourages
recipients from working, everything else held constant, undermines much popular
support for transfers, as heated debates over the past decade about domestic welfare
programs in Europe and North America have vividly demonstrated.
 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction

This chapter shows on the research methodology of the study. Therefore this chapter will be comprised
ten main parts: Research Design, Research Population, Sample size, Sampling tech unique, Research
Instrument, Research quality, Data Collection Procedure, Data analysis, Limitation of the Study and
Ethical Consideration.

3.1 Research Design

Descriptive research design will be used to determine the relationship between the dependent and the
independent variables and to establish any association between these variables. According to Magenta
(2003), descriptive survey design helps a researcher to gather, summarize, present and interpret
information for the purpose of clarification. This strategy is proposed because it allows the collection of a
large amount of data from a sizable population in an economical manner. The study will also be cross
sectional in design. This type of design allows the researcher to collect research data at one point in time.
The study will also be quantitative in design. In quantitative design, the researcher aims to determine the
problem numerically. This type of design doesn’t need to go deep into the details of the problem.

3.2 Research Population

Categories Population Percentage
IDPs Kulan 45 45%
IDps Kalamashorto 55 55%

100 100%
Total

The target population of this study is the IDPS Population department by selecting some of them
Because we are more dependent on them and they are a good source of information to analyze the topic.
The target population for this study will be conducted some selected population, who works in the firm.
The target population of this study will 100 IDPS population of the organization respondents where 45
respondents of them are from IDPS Kulan and 55 respondents from IDPS Kalama sharooto

3.3 Sample Size

The researchers will used Solvent’s formula to calculate the sample size, with maximum
Acceptable error 5 %.

N
n=
1+N (e) 2

N: Stands the population

n. Stands the sample
a. Stands acceptable error
n = 100/ 1+100(0.05) ^2 =80
The target populations of this study were 60 respondents, the sample size of this study will 52 based on
Slovene's formula.
The table 3.2 below shows the sample respondents of the study with the following, Categories

Table3. 2 Sample size

Categories Sample size Percentage

IDPS Kulan
36 45%
IDPS Kalamasharoto
44 55%

Total 80 100%

3.4 Sampling Procedure

The sampling procedure of this study is used be probability sampling procedure particularly, this study
employed purposive Simple random sampling will employed in the study to ensure that all individuals in
the defined population have an equal and independent chance of being selected for choosing the sample
of respondent. (Saunders, 2012).
3. 5 Research Instrument
The researcher is used questionnaire as the tool for collecting data from different companies.
Questionnaire is “a technique of data collection in which each person asked to respond to the same set of
questions in a predetermined order” (Sounders, 2009). The reason for selection of this tool is first
questionnaire is in-expensive, second questionnaire does not require interviewer time and third it allows
respondents to maintain their anonymity and reconsider their responses.

The questionnaires used in this study developed by researchers and approved by supervisor about
financial planning on organizational profitability in Mogadishu-Somalia. The Questionnaire would be
used in view of the fact that the study is concern with variables that cannot be observed such as opinions
and feelings. This study used questionnaire instrument as main tool for collection data, which used in
quantitative research and questionnaire developed from (Aneta and Miroslav , 2017). Questionnaire may
define as technique of data collection in which each person is ask to respond to the same set of questions
in develop order. Questionnaire is a formalize set of questions for obtaining information from respondents
Guidelines for questionnaire construction are provide at each stage of the process, besides on research
objectives of the study. The selection of this tool has been guide by the nature of data to be collected, the
time available as well as by the objectives of the study and questionnaire techniques will adopted in
collecting primary data as it provides and efficient way of collecting responses from a large sample size

3.6 Research Quality

3.6.1 Validity
Validity refers to the extent to which data collection method accurately measures what it will intended to
measure or to the extent to which research findings are about what they are claimed to be about
(Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Generally, validity of each question or group of questions were
assesses rather than of the questionnaire as a whole. In order to increase validity of the questions in this
research; the research team were utilize content validity index for the reason that the research team were
construct the questions as clear as possible, measuring only one thing at the time.
3.6.2 Reliability
Reliability refers to the consistency in reaching the same result when the measurement is made
repeatedly. When it comes to the questionnaire pre-testing, revision and further testing of it may increase
its reliability (Webb, 2002). To increase the reliability of this research adopted Questionnaires were used.
Before handing out the questionnaire the research team will doing pilot testing with five experts 27
including the supervisor some changes as well as reformulations of questions and possible amendments
were made as the result of that pilot test.

3.7 Data Gathering Procedures

After approved the proposal the researcher will used requested student affair office a letter that
information the research is investigating academic research. After receiving an introductory letter from
the office, the researchers were requested member of population to fill questionnaire with un-bias and
honestly.

Finally, the researchers distribute questionnaires to branch managers of SMEs in some Electronics then;
researchers were analysis data by using statistical package for social sciences, (SPPS) version 20.0.

3.8 Data Analysis

Data analysis entails examining the data collected and making deductions and inferences (Walid, 2015).
This study used quantitative approach and data analyzed by using statistical package for the social science
(SPSS) version 20.0. The data collected for the purpose of the study developed and coded for
completeness and accuracy. To examine the stated objective, Descriptive statistics used of measure of
central tendency such as percentages, mean and standard deviation (sounders et al., 2009) to utilize the
objectives.
In the questionnaire each selected one to five scale for where

1 strongly disagree
2 disagree
3 neutral
4 agree
5 strongly agree
Table 3.8.1 mean range and their interpretation

Mean range Description Interpretation

0.001-1.00 Strongly Disagree Very Poor

1.00-2.00 Disagree Poor

2.00-3.00 Neutral Good

3.00-4.00 Agree Very Good

4.00-5.00 Strongly Agree Excellent

3.9 Limitations of the Study

The researcher will needed to find information needed, reinforcing document and conduct survey for this
research study. However, there are little research carry out for this study so the journals and articles
founded for this research study were limited. During the study, here are some of the challenges that the
researcher may encounter: Lack of enough time and fund to make the research study, Lack of enough
books to get this research and library, facing language barriers since some of the respondents may not
know English language and this need to be translated in to their mother language.

3.10 Ethical Considerations

In this study the researcher considered the ethical issues throughout the research project, and will kept the
openness, privacy and confidentiality of the respondent. Any anonymity and confidentiality of the secret
information give high priority and this study strictly, only academic purpose and that utmost
confidentiality would be observed. More over the researchers respect to maintain individual self -
confidence. This research will fully conducted ethically and all copyright will observed and where
permission is required to reproduce materials will sought. Because of the confidentiality, privacy and
informed Consent may be ethical problem of the study (Onen and Oso, 2008). In this study the
researchers were used committed to keep the privacy of the participants through undisclosed their
information. In addition, the team requested the academic department a certificate of confidentiality so as
to get confidentiality and the researcher will provided the participants with information about the purpose
of the research and the expected duration of participation and the procedure to be fallowed
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents results of the study, descriptive analysis was done and frequency tables
were used in order to present the study results. This chapter comprises two sections include the
first section presents the demographic data about respondents, the second section discusses about
data presentation and analysis. This chapter covers on data analysis, presentation and
interpretation. The data analysis and interpretation based on research questions as well as
research objective.

4.1 PERSONAL INFORAMTION

This part presented the background information of the respondents who contributed in this
Study; the main aim of this background information is to find out the basic features of the
respondents. Moreover, the respondents have also given the promise that all the data they
provided is used only for academic purpose and the respondents were confidential. The
demographic/personal information of the respondent comprised Gender of the respondent, Age,
Marital status, Educational level and Occupational level. Each of the demographic features of the
respondent were presented frequency tables and followed by their interpretation
Table 4.5.1 gender of the respondents

Frequency Percent

Male 30 37.5
Female 50 62.5
Total 80 100
Source: Primary Data,2022
The above table shows gender of the respondents, majority of the respondents were Male 30
respondents with a percentage of (37.5%) while 50 of the respondents were Female with a
percentage of (62.5%). The majority of the respondent ‘s genders are female.
Table 4.1.2 Age of the respondent
Frequency Percent

20-25 8 10.0

26-30 58 72.5
31-40 7 8.8
40 above 7 8.8
Total 80 100
Source: Primary Data,2022
The above table shows Age of the respondents. In these study respondents whose age 20-25
years were 8 respondents with a percentage of (10.0%), the respondents whose age is between
26-30 years were 58 respondents with a percentage of (72.5%), the respondents whose age is
between 31-40 years were 7 respondents with a percentage of (8.8%), while those who are aged
40 years and above were 7 respondents with a percentage of (8.8%). the majority of the
respondent ‘s age is between 20-30 years.

Table 4.1.3 Marital Status of the respondents

Frequency Percent

Single 20 25.0

Married 46 57.5
Divorce 14 17.5
Total 80 100.0
Source: Primary Data,2022
The above table shows marital status of the respondents, 46 of the respondents were married with
a percentage of (57.5%) while the other 20 respondents were single with a percentage of
(25.0%), and last divorced were 14 with percentage of (17.5%).
Table 4.1.4 educational level of respondents
Frequency Percent

Non-formal 42 52.5

Primary 14 17.5
Secondary 20 25.0
Bachelor 2 2.5
Master 2 2.5
Total 80 100.0

Source: Primary Data,2022

Table 4.1.4 shows that the educational level of respondents the frequency of informal education
were 42(52.5%), the frequency of primary level 14(17.5%), the frequency of secondary level
4.1.3 Marital Status of the respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Single 20 25.0 25.0 25.0 Married 46 57.5 57.5 82.5 Divorced 14 17.5 17.5 100.0 Total 80
100.0 100.0 20(25.0%), the frequency of bachelor 2(2.5%), the frequency of master were
2(2.5%).so the result indicated that that majority of respondents were informal education.
4.2 Data Presentation and Analysis
4.2.1 Food aid
Interpretatio
Mean Rank
n
Reliance on food aid cause
decline the production of
subsistence farming 1.31 Poor 1

Reliance on food aid creates

disincentives for self-reliant
behavior (e.g., growing a
crop or getting a job 1.37 Poor 2

reliance on food aid creates

disincentives for self-reliant
behavior dependency on food
aid creates long run food 1.81 Poor 3
insecurity

Many of the potentially

negative effects of food aid
are commonly lumped under 2.0418 Good 4
the catch-all label
“dependency”
Total Mean Average 1.633 Poor
Source: Primary Data,2022

According to the table 4.2.1 presented descriptive analysis of objective one which was to Food
aid as the table scored average mean (M= 1.633). This indicates that Food aid. was good the
majority of the respondents where agreed and 1.31 minority of the respondents strongly disagree
4.2.2 Risk Management Plan
Table 4.2.2 Dependency of food aid
Mean Interpretation Rank
food aid reduce the
production of your 1.73 Poor 1
subsistence farming

Food aid is obstacle

stallholder farmer to produce
1.91 Poor 2
their life hood

food aid can affect household

and national production if it
reduces or decline 2.22 Good 3
subsistence farming
production
food aid can undermine
3.96
subsistence agricultural Very Good 4
production
Total Mean Average 2.455 Good

Source: Primary Data,2022

According to the table 4.2.2 presented descriptive analysis of objective one which was to
Dependency of food aid as the table scored average mean (M= 2.455). This indicates that
Dependency of food aid was good the majority of the respondents where agreed and 1.73
minority of the respondents strongly disagree
4.2.3 Long term investment plan
Table 4.2.3 Labor disincentive
Mean Interpretation Rank
Food aid is that it may
discourage people from
working on their own
farms or other
1.61 Poor 1
employment, thus
increasing their
dependence on external
assistance
Dependence on food aid
1.75
makes smallholder Poor 2
farmers laziness
Food aid reduce the
number of family that
2.76 Good 3
works own there
subsistence agriculture
Food aid has caused
farmers to become lazy
and unwilling to work on
their farms, which has 2.80 Good 4
severely damaged the
country's small-scale
farmers' production
Total Average Mean 2.23 Good

Source: Primary Data,2022

According to the table 4.2.3 presented descriptive analysis of objective one which was to
Dependency of food aid as the table scored average mean (M= 2.23). This indicates that
Dependency of food aid was good the majority of the respondents where agreed and 1.61
minority of the respondents strongly disagree

4.2.4 Organizational Profitability

Table 4.2.4 Subsistence Production
Mean Interpretation Rank
food aid degrades farm
workers because workers
prefer to take food aid instead 1.74 Poor 1
of working there farmers

food aid somehow makes

people lazy and reduce their
subsistence farming 2.31 Good 2
production

Reliance on food aid

reproduces the need for more
aid in the aid receiving
populations. 2.43 Good 3

To achieve maximum
profitability the firm should
enhances its target sales, this
situation ultimately increases the 2.70 Good 4
value of the company in the eyes
of investors

Total Mean Average 2.295 Good

Source: Primary Data,2022

According to the table 4.2.4 presented descriptive analysis of objective one which was to
Dependency of food aid as the table scored average mean (M= 2.295). This indicates that
Dependency of food aid was good the majority of the respondents where agreed and 1.74
minority of the respondents strongly disagree

4.3 Correlation Analysis

Table 4.3.1 Correlational analysis
Subsistence Production

Pearson Correlation .721**

Food aid Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 52
Pearson Correlation .791**
Dependency of food aid Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 52
Pearson Correlation .879**
Labor disincentive Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 52
Pearson Correlation 1
Subsistence Production Sig. (2-tailed)
N 52

In the above table 4.3.1 shows that the result of correlation analyzes of the relationship between
“variables of financial planning and organizational profitability and how they relate each other
with their degrees”. And in the first variable (cash flow management plan) with organizational
profitability, Thus the cash flow management plan has positive and strong relationship with
organizational profitability as indicated the Pearson Correlation (r=0.721 p=0.000), And in the
second variable (risk management plan) with organizational profitability, Thus the risk
management plan has positive relationship with organizational profitability as indicated the
Pearson Correlation (r=0.791, p=0.000), and in the last variable is (long term investment plan)
with organizational profitability. Thus, the long term investment plan has positive and strong
relationship with organizational profitability as indicated the Pearson Correlation (r=0.879,
p=0.00), the finally as the variables indicated that the relationships were strong and positive and
means that the financial planning has positive influence on organizational profitability of some
selected commercial banks in Mogadishu Somalia.

CHAPTER FIVE
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter draws conclusions and makes recommendations on impact of food aid on
subsistence farming. Suggestions are also made:
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
The study showed that smallholder farmers are an important part of Somalia’s economy and
depend on many Somali families. The study also found that food aid has had a significant impact
on small-scale agricultural production. In recent years, farmers have become dependent on
foreign aid, which has hampered the country's production. The findings of the study showed that
the Reliance on food aid cause decline the production of subsistence farming, which decrease
national production also reliance on Food aid reproduce the need for more aid in the aid
receiving populations and this Dependency on food aid creates long run food insecurity, and also
food aid somehow makes people lazy and reduce their subsistence farming production. Food aid
increase unemployment because sometimes is conditional to stay camps to get This research
shows that if the government and food aid providers come up with a different food aid policy,
such as giving farmers cash on their farms instead they entering camps and became
unemployment.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and the conclusions, the following recommendations were made:
 Micro finance should provide for subsistence farmers instead of food aid because micro
finance encourage to increase their production.
 The government should focus on investing for small holder famers in order to increase
production and reduce food aid.
 The government should make protection polices which encourages subsistence farmers
to increase their production
 Training and development should be given in order increase capacity and knowledge for
smallholder famers
 I recommend adding curriculum of Somali
 Therefore, the other researchers should focus the others areas