Key findings

The main results and statistical inferences are summarised as follows. Note that all the estimation results are collated and given in Appendix 4: Table A5.1.

The Cambodian evidence indicates that households with greater agricultural land property rights had less food insecurity. It shows that an increase in household agricultural land property rights potentially leads to lower probability of facing household food insecurity. An increase in security in agricultural land property rights of household tends to lead to higher probability of shortening the length of household food insecurity among rural farmers. Strengthening agricultural land property rights potentially benefits rural farmers when they could capitalise on secure land rights in the production of food crops to tackle their food insecurity.

Additional evidence from Cambodia shows positive impacts of agricultural land property rights on the following possible channels. Greater agricultural land property rights appear to have enabled rice farmers to obtain greater access to credit from credit institutions. Similarly, greater security in agricultural land property rights tends to enable them to collateralise their plots, for instance, in land and rural financial markets and possibly in other creative use for their economic gains.43 When land property rights and credit markets complement each other, growth in the latter is essential. As land property rights contribute to improving farmers’ revenue-cost ratios, it could help farmers optimise

43_{This evidence is in line with some existing studies, including Atwood (1990), Besley (1995), Field and}

Torero (2006), Piza et al. (2016), and de Soto (2000). However, the evidence contrasts with Lawry et al.

(2016), Carto and Olinto (2003), Deininger and Feder (2009), and Brasselle et al. (2002). In Carter and Olinto (2003), Deininger and Feder (2009), and Brasselle et al. (2002), land property rights have positive impacts on facilitation of credit access if properly functioning rural credit markets exist.

112

gains from rice production. The Cambodian evidence also reveals that greater agricultural land rights tend to improve rice productivity and raise rice revenue.44

The cross-country examination provides similar evidence: developing countries with greater private property rights appear to have experienced less food insecurity. The between estimator (BE) estimation results indicate that a one-percent increase in property rights security (namely PRP) would potentially reduce prevalence of undernourishment (PU) and prevalence of food inadequacy (PFI) by about 0.85 percent and 0.64 percent on average, respectively. The evidence also shows that a one-percent increase in security in private property rights (PRP) can potentially improve dietary energy supply adequacy (ADESA) by about 0.15 percent on average. However, property rights security is not significant but is negatively associated with depth of food deficit (DFD). In tandem, the robustness test results of the ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions show that a one- percent increase in PRP is associated with a reduction in prevalence of undernourishment (PU) by about 0.37 percent and in prevalence of food inadequacy (PFI) by about 0.22 percent on average. Additionally, a one-percent increase in private property rights security (PRP) can potentially improve average dietary energy supply adequacy (ADESA) by about 0.05 percent, on average.

The plot-level evidence from Cambodia shows that plots having access to irrigation seemed to have higher rice productivity and rice revenue. On potential impact, providing irrigation for the currently unirrigated plots could improve rice yield by about 0.7 tonnes per harvest or 0.6 million riels per hectare on average, respectively. The plot- level evidence shows that plots with access to formal irrigation, i.e., the one which is sourced from rivers, dikes, or canals (RDC), tends to have higher rice yield and rice revenue, at per harvest and per hectare levels, relative to access to river, lake, or pond (RLP) irrigation and underground or piping (UP) irrigation. The plot-level evidence also shows that plots with access to formal irrigation (RDC) is associated with higher total rice yield by about 0.98 tonnes per harvest and 1.2 tonnes per hectare, relative to plots having no irrigation. The plot-level evidence also demonstrates that having formal irrigation supply tends to raise rice revenue by about 0.81 million riels (≈USD200) per harvest and 0.93 million riels (≈USD225) per hectare on average respectively, relative to plots without access to irrigation. Having access to RLP irrigation appears to provide lower rice production and rice revenue than formal irrigation access. RLP could improve

44_{This evidence contrasts with Deininger and Ali (2008), Chankrajang (2015), Gavian and Ehui (1999),}

113

rice yield and rice revenue by about 0.38 tonnes and 0.34 million riels per harvest per hectare, respectively, relative to no irrigation. RLP irrigation has no significant link with per-hectare rice yield and per-hectare rice revenue. Lastly, UP irrigation does not have any significant link with any of the tested measures of rice productivity and rice revenue. The Cambodian results indicate that plots affected by extreme flooding had lower rice production and rice revenues, relative to those plots unaffected by extreme flooding.45 The extreme flooding would reduce per-hectare rice yield by about 0.7 tonnes per harvest or 0.3 to 0.4 tonnes per hectare on average, respectively. Extreme flooding tends to reduce rice revenue by about 0.6 million riels (≈USD150) per harvest or 0.3 million riels (≈USD75) per hectare on average, respectively. Another piece of plot-level evidence indicates that formal irrigation (RDC) tends to be associated with raising rice productivity and rice revenues. Providing irrigation to the currently unirrigated plots could potentially improve rice yield and rice revenue by about 0.7 tonnes per harvest and 0.57 million riels per hectare, respectively. This potential impact could help uplift the rice farmers, at least most of those surveyed households, in rural Cambodia not only out of food insecurity situations in the medium term but also out of abject poverty totally in the long run.