Smallholder Agriculture & Rural Economics
When the Neighbourhood Watches Over the Farm: Leveraging a Passive Security Externality
How shared infrastructure can quietly transform a smallholder's fortunes
Picture a smallholder banana farmer on the edge of a busy neighbourhood. Every season, the calculation is the same: harvest too early and the fruit fetches a lower price; wait for peak ripeness and risk theft in the night. For countless smallholders across the tropics, crop theft is not a minor nuisance — it is a structural threat to household income, forcing farmers into chronic under-production of high-value crops like bananas, pawpaw, and plantain.
Now imagine that a sports complex opens nearby — a facility staffed around the clock with security personnel. The guards are there for the courts and the car parks, not for the farms. Yet their presence, their lights, and the steady traffic of people they attract spill out well beyond the fence line. Suddenly, the smallholder's fields fall within an informal but effective security umbrella. Theft drops. The farmer sleeps better. And a quiet economic opportunity opens up.
Passive Security Externality: a security benefit received by a party — in this case a smallholder farmer — as an unintended by-product of security infrastructure established for another purpose entirely.
Understanding the Externality
In economics, an externality is any cost or benefit that falls on someone not party to a transaction or decision. Negative externalities — pollution, noise, congestion — receive most of the academic attention. But positive externalities are equally real and often underappreciated. When a landowner plants trees and the neighbours benefit from shade and cleaner air, that is a positive externality. When a sports complex installs 24-hour security and a nearby farm benefits from reduced theft, the same logic applies.
What makes this case particularly interesting is the passivity of the benefit. The farmer did nothing to create it, did not negotiate for it, and pays nothing for it. It arrives as an accidental gift of proximity — what economists call a non-excludable, non-rival good in the immediate area. The security coverage is not diminished because the farmer benefits from it, and the farmer cannot reasonably be charged for it.
The Window of Opportunity
The security externality, however, is not permanent. Sports facilities change management, contracts lapse, and security arrangements evolve. A farmer who recognises the temporary nature of this favourable condition faces a distinct strategic choice: how to intensify production while the window is open.
This is what agricultural economists would call risk-adjusted production intensification — the rational decision to invest more heavily in high-value, theft-susceptible crops precisely because the risk of loss has temporarily declined. Under normal conditions, a farmer might limit banana cultivation to what they can realistically guard, harvest piecemeal, or sell underripe to reduce exposure. With effective security nearby, those constraints loosen.
Practical responses might include planting a larger area with high-value varieties, allowing fruit to ripen fully on the plant for better market prices, delaying harvest to consolidate a larger single sale, or investing in post-harvest handling that would previously have been too risky to leave on-site. Each of these represents a form of production intensification — doing more, with better timing, because the threat environment has improved.
The Smallholder's Rational Calculus
Smallholder farmers are sometimes portrayed in development literature as resistant to change or risk-averse to a fault. The reality is more nuanced: they are typically accurately risk-averse, calibrating their decisions to the genuine threats they face. When theft risk is high, under-production of valuable crops is not irrationality — it is prudent loss-avoidance.
This means that when a security externality reduces theft risk, even temporarily, the rational response is a recalibration of that same calculus in the opposite direction. The farmer is not taking a gamble; they are responding logically to changed conditions. Development practitioners should take note: improving rural security — even as a side effect of unrelated infrastructure — can unlock productive capacity that was always there but suppressed by risk.
Implications for Policy and Practice
This scenario carries lessons that extend well beyond one banana farm. First, it illustrates that the economic value of security infrastructure is frequently undercounted. A cost-benefit analysis of a sports complex built on public investment would typically omit the agricultural productivity gains in its shadow. Were those gains measured, the social return on such infrastructure would look considerably more attractive.
Second, it suggests that agricultural extension programmes and rural development planners should actively map security externalities — identifying where existing infrastructure already provides informal protection, and helping farmers take deliberate advantage of those windows. Access to credit or inputs timed to such periods could amplify the benefit significantly.
Third, and perhaps most practically, it underscores the value of farmer awareness. A smallholder who consciously recognises that they are operating in a temporarily favourable security environment can plan around it — negotiating forward contracts with buyers, timing investments, and communicating with traders about expected supply. The externality is most valuable when it is understood.
Conclusion
The story of the banana farmer beside the sports complex is, at its heart, a story about paying attention. The security benefit arrived without fanfare, unannounced in any policy document, unrecognised by the facility that produced it. But for a smallholder farmer navigating the perpetual uncertainty of crop theft, it represented something rare and precious: a window in which the ordinary rules of risk were, for a time, suspended.
Leveraging a passive security externality to enable temporary production intensification is not a complicated strategy. It asks only that farmers — and the development professionals who support them — learn to see opportunity in unexpected places, and to act on it while the conditions allow.
References
- Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1988). The Theory of Environmental Policy (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- Fafchamps, M., & Minten, B. (2002). Returns to social network capital among traders. Oxford Economic Papers, 54(2), 173–206.
- Goldsmith, P. D., Gunjal, K., & Ndarishikanye, B. (2004). Rural–urban migration and agricultural productivity: the case of Senegal. Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 33–45.
- Hirvonen, K., & Hoddinott, J. (2017). Agricultural production and children's diets: Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 48(4), 469–480.
- Lanjouw, P., & Stern, N. (Eds.). (1998). Economic Development in Palanpur over Five Decades. Oxford University Press.
- Reardon, T., & Vosti, S. A. (1995). Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries: Asset categories and investment poverty. World Development, 23(9), 1495–1506.
- World Bank. (2020). Agriculture and Food: Overview. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/overview
- Zerbe, R. O., & McCurdy, H. E. (1999). The failure of market failure. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(4), 558–578.
