Estimating the Enduring Effects of Fertiliser Subsidies on Commercial Fertiliser Demand and Maize Production: Panel Data Evidence from Malawi

Ricker‐Gilbert, Jacob; Jayne, T.S.

doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12161

Cited by 59 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fertilizer subsidy schemes in both Malawi and Zambia have been contentious (see Chinsinga and O'Brien 2008, Chirwa and Dorward 2013, Sitko and Jayne 2014b, Arndt et al 2016, Ricker-Gilbert and Jayne 2017. The challenges for implementation of fertilizer subsidies in both countries stems from two forms of market failure.…”

Section: State Intervention For Agricultural Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives on Agriculture, Diversification, and Gender in Rural Africa: Theoretical and Methodological Issues

Djurfeldt¹,

Dzanku²,

Isinika³

2018

Agriculture, Diversification, and Gender in Rural Africa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chapter frames the book in terms of the recent debates on smallholder agriculture and the empirical context of sub-Saharan Africa and presents the aims of the book. Moreover, it outlines the theoretical basis for the book departing from theoretical perspectives on pro-poor agricultural growth, gender-based differences in agricultural productivity, linkages to the non-farm sector, and gender-based aspects of such diversification. The chapter details the research design employed by the project and how it has evolved over time, and lists the countries and regions in which the data have been collected. The longitudinal data gathered in 2002, 2008 and 2013/15 are described, as are the complementary qualitative data collected since 2008. Finally, the chapter summarizes the structure of the book.

show abstract

Section: State Intervention For Agricultural Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives on Agriculture, Diversification, and Gender in Rural Africa: Theoretical and Methodological Issues

Djurfeldt¹,

Dzanku²,

Isinika³

2018

Agriculture, Diversification, and Gender in Rural Africa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Takeshima and Nkonya (2014) was published after the search date but would have been excluded on the basis that there was no measure of direct or indirect effect on relevant outcome: the focus is on crowding out. Gine et al (2014) and Ricker‐Gilbert and Jayne (2016) were not available at the time when our search was completed. Mason et al (2015) would have been excluded on the basis that there was no measure of direct or indirect effect on relevant outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dorward¹,

Roberts²,

Finegold³

et al. 2018

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of input subsidies on agricultural productivity, beneficiary incomes and welfare, consumer welfare and wider economic growth. The review summarizes evidence from 15 experimental and quasi‐experimental studies and 16 studies that use computable models, the majority concerning sub‐Saharan Africa. This review examines studies that evaluate the impact of agricultural input subsidies, including subsidies for agricultural machinery, seeds or fertilisers, on farmers, farm households, wage labourers or food consumers in low‐ or lower‐ middle‐income countries. It includes 15 experimental and quasi‐experimental studies and 16 simulation modelling studies. The majority relate to sub‐Saharan Africa (15 to Malawi) and to subsidised fertilizers and seeds. Fertiliser and seed subsidies are associated with increased use of these inputs, higher agricultural yields and increased income among farm households, but evidence of their effects on poverty is limited. There is much evidence that subsidy schemes are prone to inefficiency, bias and corruption. Models show that introducing or increasing subsidies generally results in positive effects for consumers and wider economic growth. However, the models indicate that the way subsidies are funded, world input prices and beneficiary targeting all have important influences on predicted outcomes. The authors were not able to find any studies examining subsidies for machinery. Plain language summary Agricultural input subsidies raise input use, yields and farm income. The review in briefAgricultural input subsidies raise input use, yields and farm income, but the evidence base is small and comes from a limited number of schemes and countries. What is this review about?Greater use of improved seeds and inorganic fertilisers, and increased mechanisation, could boost agricultural productivity in some low‐ or lower‐middle‐income countries, but there is disagreement about whether subsidising these inputs is an effective way to stimulate their use.This review examines the evidence for impacts of input subsidies on agricultural productivity, beneficiary incomes and welfare, consumer welfare and wider economic growth. What are the main findings of this review?What studies are included?This review examines studies that evaluate the impact of agricultural input subsidies, including subsidies for agricultural machinery, seeds or fertilisers, on farmers, farm households, wage labourers or food consumers in low‐ or lower‐ middle‐income countries. It includes 15 experimental and quasi‐experimental studies and 16 simulation modelling studies. The majority relate to sub‐Saharan Africa (15 to Malawi) and to subsidised fertilizers and seeds.What are the main results of this review?Fertiliser and seed subsidies are associated with increased use of these inputs, higher agricultural yields and increased income among farm households, but evidence of their effects on poverty is limited. There is much evidence that subsidy schemes are prone to inefficiency, bia...

show abstract

“…Second generation ISPs have been credited with recent increases in fertilizer use within smallholder farming systems of SSA (Sheahan and Barrett, 2017), and are currently the centerpiece of many African governments' agricultural development programs (Jayne et al, 2018). While these ISPs have resulted in substantial increases in fertilizer use (Sheahan and Barrett, 2017), positive effects on maize productivity have been minimal (Mason and Tembo, 2015;Ricker-Gilbert and Jayne, 2017). A scrutiny of current ISPs illustrates underlying inadequacies in their structure and implementation.…”

Section: Evaluating the Effectiveness Of Maize Input Subsidy Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feed the crop, not the soil! : Explaining variability in maize yield responses to nutrient applications in smallholder farms of western Kenya

Kinyanjui

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Estimating the Enduring Effects of Fertiliser Subsidies on Commercial Fertiliser Demand and Maize Production: Panel Data Evidence from Malawi

Cited by 59 publications

References 35 publications

Perspectives on Agriculture, Diversification, and Gender in Rural Africa: Theoretical and Methodological Issues

Perspectives on Agriculture, Diversification, and Gender in Rural Africa: Theoretical and Methodological Issues

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

Feed the crop, not the soil! : Explaining variability in maize yield responses to nutrient applications in smallholder farms of western Kenya

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About