Explore the vast range of titles available.

Input subsidy programs (ISP) often have two conflicting targeting goals: selecting individuals with the highest marginal return to inputs on efficiency grounds, or the poorest individuals on equity grounds, allowing for a secondary market to restore efficiency gains. To study this targeting dilemma, we implement a field experiment where beneficiaries of an ISP were selected via a lottery or a local committee. In lottery villages, we find evidence of displacement of private fertilizer and of a secondary market as beneficiaries are more likely to sell inputs to non-beneficiaries. In contrast, in non-lottery villages we find no evidence of displacement nor of elite capture. The impacts of the ISP on agricultural productivity and welfare are limited, suggesting that resources should be directed at complementary investments, such as improving soil quality and irrigation.

We examine the effects of a subsidy program in Haiti that provided smallholders subsidies for inputs (rice seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, and specific labor tasks) using a randomized control trial. The program led to lower input use and lower yields in the year subsidies were received, and the decline in input use and yields persisted through the following year. Using data from a complementary information intervention in which randomly selected farmers were provided clarification regarding their future receipt of vouchers, we find evidence suggesting that incorrect expectations of future transfers partially explain the disappointing outcomes. In addition, instead of increasing input use, the subsidies seem to have led farmers to pay off their loans and take fewer new ones. In complex post-emergency environments such as the one in which this program took place, input subsidies may need to be avoided, as they require considerable information to optimally design and careful coordination by many actors to achieve the expected gains.

The influence of international donors in the policymaking of social protection (SP) in Sub-Saharan Africa has been a hot topic of debate since the early 2000s. Recent studies differ in perspective on whether donors’ influence is limited to soft power, or whether the use of hard power is more dominant. This article investigates the relative policy power of domestic elites and international donors, by comparing recent SP reforms in Malawi and Zambia. The cases show divergent reforms, in which Malawi’s SP programs are overall stagnating, while Zambia’s are expanding. The article innovates by jointly analyzing the politics underpinning the two most dominant instruments of SP in both countries: agricultural input subsidies and social cash transfers. While most studies examine them in isolation, a joint analysis underscores the ways in which the programs are embroiled in ongoing political competition, on the ideological, electoral, and clientelist levels, often pitting international donors against domestic elites. Based on original qualitative data (2023–2024), the article makes three arguments. First, recent economic crises enhanced donor hard power via International Monetary Fund and World Bank loan conditions, compelling both governments to reform. Second, donors exercise soft power in tandem, tailoring reform strategies to national contexts. Third, long-term trajectories of SP institutionalization diverge: Zambia shows increasing institutionalization, while Malawi’s remains static and limited. These trajectories are rooted in structural differences and reinforced by path dependency. The findings contribute to broader debates on the political economy of donor influence and the future of SP in the Global South.

This study was conducted to examine perceived effects of crop diversification on food security status of maize-based farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria. A multi-stage sampling technique was employed to obtain data from 183 maize-based farmers using an interview schedule. The data were analyzed using Herfindahl indexing, Food Consumption Score of the World Food Programme for determining household food security and Chi-square test. The results showed that the extent of crop diversification was moderate for slightly above half of the respondents (51.4%). The majority of the respondents (91.3%) had acceptable food consumption (>35), which corresponds to their food security situation. Crop diversification among the farmers indicated positive and significant influence of crop diversification on the food security status of the farmers at 1% level of significance using chi-square. More than half of the respondents perceived that crop diversification had strong effects on increased access to food preferences for an active and healthy life (56.3%), access to utilizable and digestible food (57.4%) and access to sufficient food (53.6%). The study concluded that crop diversification practices contributed to food security by increasing access to preferred sufficient, utilizable and digestible food for active and healthy life of maize-based farmers in Kwara State. Thus, extension agents should increase awareness of the importance of crop diversification for the farmers’ output in the study area.

Price and affordability are important drivers of food choice, particularly for rural smallholder farming households in Malawi, experiencing extreme poverty, food insecurity, and lack of dietary diversity. Lowering the cost of staple crops such as maize targeted by agricultural input subsidy programmes (AISPs) may potentially increase consumption of the staple crop, but it might also lead to consumption of a more diverse range of foods. Using a discrete choice experiment, this study investigated food choice responses to changes in maize price in rural Malawi. Study participants (n = 400) were given a series of choice tasks for which they were asked to choose between food baskets with varying cost, reflecting local prices and with maize at both high and low price. Baskets contained different types of foods including maize, rice, cabbage, small-dried fish, and/or a soft drink. The data were analysed using mixed logit models including investigation of heterogenous effects based on socio-demographic characteristics, food security and actual market purchases. Individuals revealed a preference, as expected, for lower cost food baskets. Small-dried fish and cabbage were the highest valued food products. At a low cost of maize, the expected utility from a basket with maize was greater than a basket with other items, particularly among households with high- and low-food purchases, low socioeconomic status, living in Phalombe District, and experiencing food insecurity, indicating that among such populations a low price of maize will not necessarily lead to increases in dietary diversity. In contrast, among households living in Lilongwe District, with high SES and food secure, a lower maize price will not lead to a loss in dietary diversity as they prefer a basket containing non-maize products over maize. The findings suggest that achieving food security and dietary diversity may require a range of policy approaches addressing different pathways of impact as opposed to relying on subsidizing inputs for staple crop production.

The rise in the price of agricultural inputs during the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a resurgence of agricultural input subsidy (AIS) programs in Tanzania. This study examines the effects of Tanzania’s AIS programs introduced in 2022 on women’s participation in small-scale commercial farming (SSCF) in Kalambo District. The study employs a qualitative research approach with a case study design. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, key-informant interviews, focus group discussions, and observations, with respondents selected using purposive and snowball sampling techniques. The study revealed that the subsidy program is highly associated with women’s participation in SSCF and increased farm productivity. Women with access to subsidized inputs are better equipped to utilize modern farming techniques, resulting in higher yields compared to those without access to these resources. The study also revealed that the high price of subsidized fertilizers, price fluctuation of agricultural commodities/crops, the limited availability of agro-dealers in many villages and wards, the delay in receiving fertilizers, and limited access to accurate and comprehensive information about agricultural input subsidies and land ownership issues are challenges limiting women’s full benefit from AISs. Based on the study’s findings, the study recommends strengthening women’s land rights through various approaches, such as joint titling and community land reform, increasing subsidy rates for vulnerable women, creating tiered support, and expanding agro-dealer networks or mobile delivery systems.

Since 2007 input subsidies given out by the government in support to field crop and vegetable production has had the greatest share in the agricultural budget of Serbia. The principal goal of input subsidy programs, as measures of agricultural support, is primarily the promotion of productivity and competitiveness of field crop production. The employment of optimal agricultural practices stimulated an increase in the use of mineral fertilizers, declared seeds, etc. At the same time these measures were noted to raise both output and quality of agricultural products including farmers' income. The implementation and importance of these measures has so far not been attracting sufficient attention and therefore the objective of the study was to analyze the effects of input subsidies on the economic position of production of some major field crops (wheat, com, sunflower, soybean, sugar beet) on family farms owning 6-20 hectares of arable land and focused on field crop production in 2007-2011 in the plain regions of Serbia. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

PurposeThe primary objective of the present study is to figure out the relative effectiveness of alternate public expenditure with regard to agricultural development particularly in the context of input subsidies vis-a-vis investment. Besides, the authors also endeavour to test the applicability of crowding-out hypothesis in the present context.Design/methodology/approachInitially, unit root tests are applied for checking stationarity of the underlying data using Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Kwiatkowski–Phillips–Schmidt–Shin (KPSS) tests. Further, the highly celebrated autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) model is applied on annual time series data for the period 1991–2020 to investigate the long-run and short-run impact of the said relationship.FindingsThe authors observe that public investment is more productive than input subsidies for overall agricultural development. Besides, the findings document the existence of crowding-in hypothesis, i.e. complementarity between public investment and private investment in case of the agricultural sector in India.Research limitations/implicationsThe outcome of the research recommends to reprioritize state expenditure and reformulate agricultural policy regarding the public financing of agriculture. More to invest and less to subsidize seems a better policy intervention to achieve desirable outcomes from the Indian agriculture in the long run.Originality/valueThis study is novel in the sense that the subsidies vs investment debate is revisited in the current scenario of agricultural development so that resource allocation be optimized. To ensure robustness of the study, the authors specifically took four proxies of agricultural development, namely, productivity growth, private investment, food security and farmers’ income.

Agricultural input subsidy programmes (AISP) are often considered an important means of improving agricultural productivity and food security in developing countries. However, the impact of AISP on food choice and nutrition is unclear, not least because staple crops targeted tend to be calorie-dense but nutrient-poor. AISP targeting maize, for example, may increase maize production and consumption and reduce intake of nutrient-rich foods. Alternatively, a fall in maize prices may enable consumers to purchase other goods including other food items. Using mixed-methods approaches, this paper examines the impact of a prominent AISP, Malawi’s Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP), on overall food choice. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Quantitative data were collected through household, individual and market surveys, and a discrete-choice experiment. Hypothesised impact pathways from AISP to food choice and dietary diversity, and prior literature, suggest Malawi’s FISP could be contributing to improved dietary diversity. However, analyses from our surveys, discrete-choice experiment, interviews, and focus group discussions do not suggest any significant FISP impact on food choices and dietary diversity. Our findings suggest this lack of impact could be due to how the FISP policy is designed and implemented – but that even with changes, as with the Affordable Inputs Programme which replaced the FISP in 2020, it may still be an inefficient means of addressing dietary diversity in rural Malawi. The results highlight issues needing consideration by policymakers and the agri-nutrition community to advance discussion and research for how best to design AISP and other public policy to address malnutrition in all its forms.

Governments in developing countries are increasingly using farm-input support programs to improve crop productivity and, in turn, reduce poverty among farming households. However, the intended policy outcomes of enhancing productivity and poverty reduction would not be fully optimized if smallholder farmers are technically inefficient. Using nationally representative panel data from Malawi’s Living Standards and Measurement Survey (LSMS), we apply a stochastic production frontier translog model to examine the effects of hybrid seed and fertilizer adoption on the technical efficiency of smallholder maize-based cropping systems. The results show a higher adoption rate for fertilizer application (80%) than the use of hybrid seeds which is estimated at 57% of the sampled maize producers in 2016 and 2019. The mean technical efficiency for the sample is 56% suggesting that an average farmer can improve their productive performance by 44%. Results from treatment effects, propensity score matching and stochastic dominance analysis show that hybrid seeds and inorganic fertilizer adoption increase farmers’ technical efficiency by 10 and 15%, respectively. The study highlights the need for policy strategies to incentivize affordability of farm inputs and upscale accessibility to increase the use of hybrid seeds and fertilizers among smallholder farmers. Facilitating remunerative commodity price offers (high value-cost ratio) and innovative payment schemes like payment by instalments and improved access to financial services could be some of the ways through which smallholder farmers can increase the purchase and use of hybrid seeds and fertilizer.