Year Published
- 2008 (0)
- (-) Remove 2009 filter 2009
- 2010 (1) Apply 2010 filter
- (-) Remove 2011 filter 2011
- 2012 (0)
- (-) Remove 2013 filter 2013
- 2014 (0)
- 2015 (0)
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
- 2017 (1) Apply 2017 filter
- 2018 (0)
- 2019 (1) Apply 2019 filter
- 2020 (0)
- 2021 (1) Apply 2021 filter
Research Topics
Populations
Types of Research
- Data Analysis (0)
- Literature Review (1) Apply Literature Review filter
- Portfolio Review (0)
- Research Brief (0)
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Global (0)
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (1) Apply Sub-Saharan Africa filter
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
Dataset
- ASTI (0)
- FAOSTAT (0)
- Farmer First (0)
- LSMS & LSMS-ISA (0)
- Other Datasets (0)
Current search
- (-) Remove Poverty filter Poverty
- (-) Remove Development Finance & Policy filter Development Finance & Policy
- (-) Remove 2013 filter 2013
- (-) Remove 2009 filter 2009
- (-) Remove 2011 filter 2011
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
- (-) Remove Aid & Other Development Finance filter Aid & Other Development Finance
- (-) Remove Education & Training filter Education & Training
- (-) Remove Smallholder Farmers filter Smallholder Farmers
Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are generally defined as geographically delimited areas administered by a single body, offering certain incentives (duty-free importing and streamlined customs procedures, for instance) to businesses that physically locate within the zone. This literature review provides a baseline analysis of SEZs and their potential impacts on smallholder farmers in SSA. Criticism on SEZs is distinctly divided between those who criticize on social or environmental grounds versus those who question the economic impact of SEZs. SEZs are often criticized based on perceived negative socio-economic impacts—particularly their negative impact on women, labor, and working conditions. This review includes several country-specific studies that find evidence that SEZs actually have higher environmental standards and higher worker satisfaction than outside the SEZ. Most responses to criticisms do note, however, that the case studies’ results are not necessarily generalizable to SEZs throughout the world. The literature review includes key elements of successes and failures pulled from the case studies of SEZs in SSA. Though the evidence is insufficient to conclusively determine if smallholder farmers receive direct benefits from SEZs and their associated agroindustrial contracts, this review finds that resources provided to farmers (credit at rates lower than bank rates, technical or managerial assistance, pesticides, seeds, and fertilizer on credit) tend to be concentrated among larger farmers. The report concludes with a note on donor involvement as well as recommendations for further research.