suffer an income loss in poor years, but cannot be regarded as suffering from transitory food
insecurity.

 Overall, families who have access to purchased inputs, and hence canplant tobacc
hybrid maize have dune well out o liberalisation. These families tend to have above average farm
size. Households which are maize deficit, and have no resources to invest in improved maize
varieties have lost out. These households tend to have below average size. One type of household
which is not represented in the models above is the fgy fpoofamily who has virtually no
interaction with the market. There are indications that the very poorest rural households in
Malawi, it is difficult to estimate their precise number, exist in a world of own production and
barter. Theyperform ganyu largely for maize and they barter any spare vegetables or pulses for
food. Market liberalisation has almost certain had very little impact on them. Households 1
and 2 are only negatively affected insofaras ey sell groundnuts. If they bartered, their position
might not have changed.

 The results form this very simple model are in line with the findings from an recent LP)
model which looks at the same issue, though the LP model allows changes in cropping patterns
in response to price changes (Alwang and Siegel 1996)

 If these findings are representative, then this raises important issues about how poor rural
households can be given some ability to participate in markets on better terms than they are doing
at present. Unless they can develop the ability to buy inputs, raise cash crops and otherwise
improve their productivity, then they are fated to a life of increased marginalisation if they
continue to depend on agriculture for their major income source. For some of these households,
the only viable option will be a movement to increased involvement in off-farm income generating
activities.


C 17