COVID-19 continues to plague global food security not only directly through health effects but also indirectly through responses that restrict key economic functions of the agri-food sector. De-spite the growing literature on the effects of COVID-19 on the agri-food sector, evidence on cer-tain players like mechanization service providers (MSP) and mechanization equipment retailers (MER) remain scarce. This study provides insights into the effects of COVID-19 restrictions on MSP and MER in Myanmar, where the majority of MSP and MER are relatively new and poten-tially vulnerable to these economic shocks, using an unbalanced panel data from five rounds of phone surveys. We find that direct responses to COVID-19 involving movement restrictions, as well as disruptions in the market that led to increased cost and reduced availability of machinery and equipment, and growing financial challenges, had significantly negative effects on revenue prospects, service delivery, sales of machines and equipment by MSE and MER. Our analyses based on rare multi-round surveys during a single production season also reveal important dy-namics in MSP’s decision-making; negative revenue prospects at particular period can further hurt revenue prospects in subsequent periods, which is consistent with the hypotheses that agents like MSP who had incurred significant sunk-cost in machines can engage in more desperate and thus potentially suboptimal business practice to recover the sunk-cost. This may result in a vi-cious cycle of declining revenues in the future in the face of shocks like COVID-19. Overall, evi-dence suggests that, policies to minimize movement restrictions, various financial support, and mitigate any pessimism at the beginning of production season are all important to make sure MSP and MER continue to function effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic that persists in 2021.

The relationship between productivity and farm size has been at the center of considerable debate. Agricultural mechanization – that is rapidly taking off in a large number of low- and middle-income countries – has been identified as one of the emerging technologies in these settings with a critical, yet complex, influence on this productivity-size relation. However, knowledge gaps remain as how agricultural transformation due to the adoption of new technologies and the change in factor costs, such as mechanization fees, are associated with this productivity - size relation. In the case of Myanmar, where mechanization use has dramatically increased over the last decade, we find a significant inverse productivity - plot size relationship, with small rice plots having productivity levels approximately 30 percent higher than large plots. However, rising mechanization fees – more so in conflict-affected townships – attenuated this inverse relation between rice productivity (yield and profit per land) and plot size substantially. These results primarily hold on the largest rice plot cultivated by each farmer, but also generally hold when comparing total rice area and major non-rice area. Our results are likely explained by the fact that, in Myanmar, smallholders have become more dependent on mechanization services than larger farms (who can rely on their own machines) do, that alternatives to mechanization services have become scarce (as mechanization use changed little, despite these price increases), and that mechanization service costs account for a significant share of the total production costs among smallholders.

Evidence is scarce on how conflict affects technology adoption and consequent agricultural productivity in fragile states, an important topic given the high share of the extreme poor living in fragile environments globally. Our study contributes to filling this knowledge gap by using unique large-scale data on rice producers in Myanmar before and after a military coup in 2021, leading to a surge of conflicts in the country. We find that the increase in violent events significantly changed rice productivity. Specifically, increases in fatal violent events between 2020 and 2021 reduced rice Total Factor Productivity (TFP) – a measure of how efficiently agricultural inputs are used to produce rice – by about 4 percent on average in the short-run. Moreover, poorer farmers are more affected by conflict, as seen through an increased output elasticity to agricultural equipment owned, indicating reduced output resilience for less-capital owning, and therefore poorer, farmers. This seems partly due to reduced access to agricultural extension services, which would otherwise help farmers maintain productivity, even with limited capital ownership, through substitution with human capital and skills. Lower mechanization service fees partly mitigate these effects. Our results consistently hold for both short- and long-run production functions, across various specifications, and in Upper and Lower Myanmar. These findings suggest that containing and reducing violent events is critical in restoring rice productivity. Improved access to extension services, as well as to cheap mechanization service provision to mitigate lack of equipment ownership, could compensate for these losses and boost the productivity of farmers, especially for those with less production capital, in such fragile settings.

Mechanization service providers in Myanmar were originally interviewed by telephone in May 2020 and again in June 2020 to determine how their businesses were being affected by COVID-19 related restrictions. The results of those surveys were published in Myanmar Strategy Support Program Policy Notes 07 and 12, respectively. To trace the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their economic activities, a third phone survey of mechanization service providers was done in early-July 2020. This Note reports on the results of the third survey, as well as some trends since the first and the second surveys.

Agricultural mechanization service providers (MSP) are crucial to enabling smallholder farmers to undertake a range of power-intensive farm and post-harvest operations in a timely manner. These operations are important for food production and farm income. MSPs are capital-intensive operations. The economic viability of these businesses is highly sensitive to capacity utilization, which generates the cash flow needed to repay equipment loans; to prices of imported capital goods, including machines, equipment, and fuels; and to the availability of machine operators, among others. Hence, the operations of MSPs are sensitive to restrictions on mobility and trade. The COVID-19 pandemic in Myanmar, the restrictions imposed as policy responses to control the spread of the virus, and the associated market disruptions affect the operations of MSPs across the country. However, the specific impacts MSPs experience depends on factors specific to different regions and states. Measures to support MSPs and to ensure farmer access to their services should be guided by an understanding of the situation on the ground.

Mechanization service providers in Myanmar were originally interviewed by telephone in early May 2020 in order to determine how their businesses were being affected by COVID-19 related restrictions. The results of that survey were published in Myanmar Strategy Support Program Policy Note 07. To trace the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their economic activities, a second phone survey of mechanization service providers was done in mid-June 2020. This Policy Note reports on the results of this second survey.

Mechanization service providers (MSP) in Myanmar were originally surveyed by telephone over three rounds in May, June, and July 2020 to determine how their businesses were being affected by COVID-19 related restrictions. Most of the MSPs interviewed were engaged in providing farmers with tractor-related services. The results of those surveys were published in Myanmar Strategy Support Program Policy Notes 07, 12, and 17, respectively. To trace the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their economic activities, a fourth round of the survey of MSPs was done in early-November 2020, administered mostly to those engaged in harvesting activities. This note reports on the results of the fourth survey, as well as some trends seen between the earlier survey rounds and this last one.