2020
DOI: 10.1017/s1355770x20000285
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coping with negative shocks and the role of the farm input subsidy programme in rural Malawi

Abstract: This study uses household panel data from Malawi's 2010/11 and 2012/13 Integrated Household Panel Survey to investigate the mitigating role of its Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) against the deleterious impacts of negative rainfall shock on households’ welfare in rural Malawi. The study finds that the FISP has a cushioning role on the negative impact of rainfall shocks. The use of a farm input subsidy scheme enables rural households to substantially increase their food consumption and overall food security… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From Table 3, the findings reveal the interplay between using mobile money services and the food security indicators. The use of these outcome variables in Table 3 as food security indicators is consistent with the existing literature on food security, and it also follows Ajefu and Abiona (2020) and Ajefu et al (2021). Based on the results in columns (1), ( 2) and (3), using mobile money is positively linked to the dependent variables reported in Table 3column (1), household dietary diversity; column (2), food consumption score; and column (3), total food expenditure.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…From Table 3, the findings reveal the interplay between using mobile money services and the food security indicators. The use of these outcome variables in Table 3 as food security indicators is consistent with the existing literature on food security, and it also follows Ajefu and Abiona (2020) and Ajefu et al (2021). Based on the results in columns (1), ( 2) and (3), using mobile money is positively linked to the dependent variables reported in Table 3column (1), household dietary diversity; column (2), food consumption score; and column (3), total food expenditure.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“… For the indicators of food security used in this paper, we followed studies such as Ajefu and Abiona (2020) and Ajefu et al (2021). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several driving forces affect the profitability of livelihood strategies. Examples are agricultural technologies (Angelsen and Kaimowitz, 2001), levels of natural resource use (Coomes et al, 2004), historical conditions (Coomes et al, 2016), soil fertility (Heger et al, 2020) and the availability of other ecosystem services (Junqueira et al, 2016), environmental variability (Börner et al, 2015b;Ajefu et al, 2020;Alfani et al, 2021;Girard et al, 2021), farm/forest output level (i.e., productivity) (Klemick, 2011), market prices (e.g., the decline in Brazil nut retail prices) (Ubiali and Alexiades, 2022), and institutional constraints (e.g., land tenure insecurity, encroaching) (Tseng et al, 2021).…”
Section: Metric Of Forest Cover and Lucc Extend And Patchinessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, public policies are likely to influence the coping capacity of agricultural households. Ajefu et al (2020) show how input subsidies may help households deal with the negative impact of rainfall shocks and smooth their consumption and food intake. When it comes to private adaptation, Girard et al (2021) provide a comprehensive description of the risk-management and risk-coping strategies that may be put in place by agricultural households, and how the economic context may influence the choice of those strategies.…”
Section: Climate Change Adaptation Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%