Agricultural input subsidies for improving productivity, farm income, consumer welfare and wider growth in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Hemming, David; Chirwa, Ephraim; Ruffhead, Holly J; Hill, Rachel Anne; Osborn, Janice; Langer, Laurenz; Harman, Luke; Coffey, Chris; Dorward, Andrew; Phillips, Daniel R.

doi:10.23846/sr51062

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study also quantifies impact of seed subsidy on efficiency through regression analysis. Similar study was done by Anand [3] on Stakeholders' opinion on agricultural subsidies and their impact in Punjab and Hemming et al [4].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Impact of Groundnut Seed Subsidy on Farm Efficiency in Ananthapuramu District of Andhra Pradesh, India

Rani

Jyothi²,

Reddy

et al. 2022

IJECC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments used seed subsidy as an incentive to encourage crop diversification and use of high yielding varieties. In present study, an attempt has been made to study farm efficiency of groundnut seed subsidy in Ananthapuramu district of Andhra Pradesh. For this purpose, two mandals (Kanaganapalli, Gudibanda) were selected based on highest number of subsidy benefited farmers. The data pertains for the year 2021 kharif season for 64 seed subsidy beneficiary and 136 non-beneficiary farmers. The data was collected from each respondent through personal interviews with the help of structured schedules. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was employed to analyze technical efficiency and scale efficiency of the farmers. For better comparison, all the farmers were divided into two categories viz. subsidized and non-subsidized and propensity score matching is also used. The empirical results observed that the overall mean Variable Returns to Scale (VRS) efficiency was 0.760, Constant Returns to Scale (CRS) efficiency was 0.70. The positive impact of seed subsidy is visible, as seed subsidy beneficiary farmers mean VRS efficiency was 0.916 which is greater than non-subsidized farmer’s i.e. 0.716. The variation is because of high input costs incurred to the non-subsidized farmers. The regression results also indicates that seed subsidy is positive influence on efficiency (VRS), efficiency (CRS) and scale efficiency to the extent of up to 20% increase in efficiency. Yet it has also been noticed that farmers still rely on non-subsidized sources for their seed requirement, because they could not meet the conditions of availing seed subsidy from the Andhra Pradesh state government.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Impact of Groundnut Seed Subsidy on Farm Efficiency in Ananthapuramu District of Andhra Pradesh, India

Rani

Jyothi²,

Reddy

et al. 2022

IJECC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A considerable body of literature addresses the effects of AISP in Malawi and beyond (Hemming et al, 2018). There are, however, few studies on the links between AISP and nutritional outcomes with a recent review by finding a lack of attention to an important aspect of AISP impact on malnutrition -their effects on DD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subsidizing improved legume seeds for increased household dietary diversity: Evidence from Malawi’s Farm Input Subsidy Programme with implications for addressing malnutrition in all its forms

Matita

Chiwaula²,

Chirwa³

et al. 2022

Food Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although suggested solutions such as subsidies on inputs like fertilizers, seeds and machinery are viable options, studies have shown mixed results on their impact on production. Agricultural input subsidies have been shown to have sustained beneficial impact by increasing production and income, only in the short term (Jayne et al, 2018), while some studies have found it difficult to directly link subsidies to agricultural outcomes like output (Kato, 2016;Lopez et al, 2017;Hemming et al, 2018). Moreover, subsidies have been criticized for crowding out commercial sales and being a disincentive for efficient use of resources by protecting farmers from competition (Emvalomatis et al, 2008;Chirwa and Dorward, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Smallholder Farmer's Participation in the Wheat Value Chain in North-West Mt. Kenya

Mwangi¹,

Owuor²,

Kiteme³

et al. 2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wheat is the second most important carbohydrate staple in Kenya and is produced by both smallholder and large-scale farmers. Smallholders are the majority, but produce <20% of the total national production. Compared to large-scale farmers, they have been considered to be less efficient producers and thus fail to benefit fully from their participation in the wheat value chain. This study aims at establishing the value accruing to smallholder and large-scale farmers participating in wheat production in north-west Mt. Kenya. For comparative purposes and to explore the potential of smallholder farmers, a sample of 58 smallholder and seven large-scale farmers was selected for the study. We use budget analysis to determine the gross output, cost of production and gross margins attained by the smallholder and large-scale farmers. Further, an analysis of constraints to productivity is done to establish the factors hindering farmers from reaching high yield potential. Results of the study show that smallholder farmers obtain lower yields, have higher costs of production per bag of wheat and lower gross margins compared to large-scale farmers. High cost of inputs, low market prices, low bargaining power, high cost of machinery services, diseases and weeds were among factors excluding smallholder farmers from benefitting from their participation in the value chain. However, results also show that smallholder farmers can produce wheat profitably albeit with necessary support. Thus, interventions should consider these constraints and aim at improving smallholder farmers' horizontal and vertical integration in the value chain. We recommend continued investment in research and development on wheat, adoption of climate resilient agricultural practices, improvements in the fertilizer subsidy programme and creating or increasing participation in producer groups that will provide possibilities of increased bargaining power and reduction of costs through improved access to machinery services, markets and credit.

show abstract

Agricultural input subsidies for improving productivity, farm income, consumer welfare and wider growth in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Abstract: Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector-the effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low-and middle-income countries A mixed-method systematic review

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Impact of Groundnut Seed Subsidy on Farm Efficiency in Ananthapuramu District of Andhra Pradesh, India

Impact of Groundnut Seed Subsidy on Farm Efficiency in Ananthapuramu District of Andhra Pradesh, India

Subsidizing improved legume seeds for increased household dietary diversity: Evidence from Malawi’s Farm Input Subsidy Programme with implications for addressing malnutrition in all its forms

Assessing Smallholder Farmer's Participation in the Wheat Value Chain in North-West Mt. Kenya

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About