
Agriculture
A systematic review of employment outcomes from youth skills training programmes in agriculture in low- and middle-income countries
W. H. E. Maïga, M. Porgo, et al.
Dive into the systematic review examining youth skills training programs in agriculture within low- and middle-income countries. Revealing insights from W. H. Eugenie Maïga and colleagues, this research uncovers the positive impact these programs have on employment and income, while also highlighting a crucial gap in rigorous evaluation that needs to be addressed.
~3 min • Beginner • English
Introduction
Youth in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) experience disproportionately high rates of working poverty and underemployment, with 2019 estimates indicating 21% of employed youth living on less than US$2/day (versus 16% overall), and nearly 70% of working youth in sub-Saharan Africa and ~50% in South Asia living in poverty. Early unemployment and underemployment are linked to worse adult outcomes (income, job satisfaction, health) and higher public costs, and can fuel social unrest. Many LMIC are in a demographic dividend phase, creating urgency and opportunity to expand employment, with agriculture identified as a key sector for job creation in Africa and Asia. Agriculture remains central to livelihoods (32% in 2019), and agricultural development can be up to 3.2 times more effective in reducing poverty than other sectors, with strong links to food security and women’s empowerment. However, youth participation in agriculture has declined since 2000, with migration to urban services economies driven by higher education attainment, barriers to land access, and ageing rural populations. A lack of agricultural education and skills training constrains youth engagement; evidence from Thailand, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Zambia shows interest among youth in modern, productive agriculture, and ICT may expand training access and market connectivity. Despite the proliferation of youth employment programmes, few target agricultural skills specifically and evidence on effectiveness is limited. This review systematically examines skills-based training interventions aimed at increasing youth engagement in agricultural employment in LMIC, focusing on outcomes including employment along value chains, agribusiness, contract farming, entrepreneurship, productivity, income/profit, and extension service involvement.
Literature Review
Prior work documents barriers and determinants of youth engagement in agriculture (education, gender, household and income characteristics, land tenure, access to ICT and youth programmes). Earlier systematic reviews of youth labour market interventions (e.g., Kluve et al.) report small positive effects of skills training and entrepreneurship promotion—especially integrated programmes—while finding weaker results for employment services and wage subsidies. Reviews and stocktakings focused on Africa highlight a chronic lack of rigorous evaluation for agricultural youth employment interventions and very limited evidence to guide policymakers. The present review aligns with these findings, noting scarce effective evaluations specific to agricultural skills training for youth in LMIC.
Methodology
The review followed Petticrew and Roberts’ systematic review guidance and a protocol registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/bhegq/), adhering to PRISMA-P. Research question: What are the effects of skills training interventions on educated and non-educated youth employment outcomes in agricultural value chains, agribusiness or contract farming in LMIC? Inclusion criteria (1990–2019; English or French): youth-focused population; agriculture as field; skills training intervention (agriculture-specific or general skills relevant to agriculture); relevant outcomes (employment along agricultural value chain; agribusiness employment; contract farming; entrepreneurship; productivity/profit/income/marketing; extension service involvement); LMIC setting; original research or reviews/reports; clear, well-accepted methodology. Searches (9 May 2019) were run in CAB Abstracts (OVID), Web of Science Core Collection, EconLit (ProQuest), Agricola (OVID), and Scopus (Elsevier). Grey literature was comprehensively searched using custom web-scraping. Records from databases and grey literature were combined and de-duplicated via Python scripts using title/abstract cosine similarity thresholds. A machine-learning model added metadata fields to accelerate title/abstract screening. Covidence software managed double-blind title/abstract and full-text screening by two independent reviewers with third-party resolution. PRISMA flow: 3,790 database records + 5,318 other sources; after de-duplication and limits, 4,789 screened; 4,528 excluded; 261 full texts assessed; 16 studies included. Data extraction captured interventions, outcomes, methods, and validity/reliability using a standardized form; two researchers extracted per study with third-party conflict resolution (31 conflicts across 261 reviews). Risk of bias was assessed across eight domains (sampling technique; intervention; area; population; data collection method; data analysis; outcome measurement; statistical significance), scored via a star system (maximum 23 stars = 100%). Thresholds: low risk (75–100%), moderate (50–75%), serious (25–50%), critical (0–25%). One RCT, two quasi-experimental (DID, PSM), and multiple non-experimental quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs were included.
Key Findings
- Sixteen studies met inclusion: 9 quantitative, 4 qualitative, 3 mixed methods; 11 based in Africa and 5 in Asia; 12 peer-reviewed, 4 grey literature.
- Interventions: technical education/training (4), vocational training (4), youth programmes (3), agriculture-related courses (2), on-the-job training (1); combinations included technical+vocational (1) and vocational+on-the-job (1). Implementers primarily public policy (12), plus NGOs (2), international (1), mixed public/private (1).
- Target populations: 9 youth-only studies; 7 mixed-age; predominantly mixed-gender; settings spanned rural, urban, and mixed locales; educational backgrounds varied (secondary, university, mixed).
- Risk of bias: 15% low risk, 60% moderate, 25% serious. Many studies had weaknesses in design and evaluation methods, limiting generalizability.
- Outcomes and effects:
• Job creation: 8 studies examined this outcome. An RCT in Uganda found vocational training increased post-training employment rates (21%) versus firm-based on-the-job training (14%); vocational trainees’ total earnings rose 34% versus 20% for firm-trained. A Ghana youth programme reported 92,075 jobs created overall, including 16,383 in agribusiness (17.8%). Mixed-methods evidence from Ghana (YIAP) showed 86.4% remained in farming one year post-exit.
• Self-employment/entrepreneurship: Radio-based skills training increased adoption of orange-fleshed sweet potato cultivation; odds of engagement were 8.9x (Ghana), 2.3x (Tanzania), 1.7x (Burkina Faso), 1.1x (Uganda) among listeners versus non-listeners. In South Africa, availability of youth-focused agriculture programmes was associated with an 8-fold higher likelihood of youth engagement/self-employment in agriculture. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies also reported business start-ups following short vocational courses.
• Productivity: In Nigeria (NAERLS RUYEP), 84.2% of beneficiaries achieved maize yields >1 t/ha versus 66% of non-participants.
• Income/Earnings: Zimbabwe’s TREE programme increased beneficiary income by US$787 over 2011–2014 relative to non-beneficiaries. In India, continued adopters of beekeeping and mushroom cultivation reported family income increases of 49% and 24%, respectively. A Somaliland enterprise recycling livestock by-products yielded additional weekly earnings of ~US$44.6 (bone crafts) and ~US$50.2 (soap).
• Extension services: In Uganda (Gulu University), most graduates participating in student–farmer attachments/SSEPs entered extension roles; 96% obtained first job within a year (serious risk of bias study).
- Comparative interventions:
• Vocational vs. firm training: Both improved employment/earnings; vocational training showed larger effects (Uganda RCT).
• Combined technical+vocational (Nepal poultry technician): employment increased by 34.2% among 41 trainees.
- Programme duration: 10 of 16 studies reported duration; most lasted ≤1 year; others ranged 2–5 years, consistent with technical/vocational training formats.
- Overall, most studies reported positive associations between skills training and employment-related outcomes (job creation, self-employment, productivity, income), but the evidence base is limited in rigor and breadth.
Discussion
The review set out to assess whether skills training interventions improve youth employment outcomes along agricultural value chains in LMIC. Across diverse contexts and intervention types, findings generally indicate small to moderate positive effects on employment, earnings, entrepreneurship, and farm productivity, aligning with prior cross-sectoral evidence that skills and integrated training can improve youth labour outcomes. However, robust causal evidence remains scarce: only one RCT and two quasi-experiments were identified; many studies used descriptive, qualitative, or non-experimental methods, constraining causal inference and generalizability. The dominance of public-policy-implemented programmes suggests government commitment, yet the paucity of rigorous evaluations (e.g., RCTs, strong quasi-experiments) and lack of cost-effectiveness analyses limit the ability to prioritize and scale effective models. ICT-enabled training (e.g., participatory radio) shows potential for wide reach and behaviour change, including among women, but requires more rigorous impact evaluation. Importantly, heterogeneity by gender, literacy, and education was largely unaddressed, and no studies assessed effects among illiterate youth, impeding inclusive policy design. Overall, while skills training appears promising for youth engagement in agriculture, better-designed evaluations are needed to substantiate effectiveness and guide investment.
Conclusion
This systematic review consolidates evidence on youth-focused agricultural skills training in LMIC, showing generally positive associations with employment, earnings, entrepreneurship, productivity, and engagement along agricultural value chains. It highlights substantial gaps: few rigorous evaluations, limited coverage of vulnerable groups (e.g., illiterate youth), and scarce cost-effectiveness analyses. To inform policy and donor investment, future research should: implement rigorous impact evaluations (RCTs or strong quasi-experimental designs); incorporate long-term follow-up to assess sustainability; analyze heterogeneity by gender, education, and context; and estimate costs, returns on investment, and scalability. Strengthening evaluation and reporting standards will enable identification and transfer of effective practices across LMIC to advance youth employment, poverty reduction, and food security through agriculture.
Limitations
- Limited number of eligible studies (n=16) restricts generalizability across LMIC contexts and intervention types.
- Predominance of non-experimental, descriptive, or qualitative designs; only one RCT and two quasi-experimental studies, increasing risk of bias and limiting causal inference.
- Weaknesses in sampling, data collection, and outcome measurement noted in many studies; 25% rated at serious risk of bias.
- Heterogeneity by gender, literacy, and education largely unaddressed; no studies focused on illiterate youth.
- Lack of cost-effectiveness and ROI analyses; limited long-term follow-up of participants post-training.
- Language and time restrictions (English/French, 1990–2019) may omit relevant evidence.
Related Publications
Explore these studies to deepen your understanding of the subject.