The Impact of Voucher Coupons on the Uptake of Fertilizer and Improved Seeds: Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Mozambique

Carter, Michael R.; Laajaj, Rachid; Yang, Dean

doi:10.1093/ajae/aat040

Cited by 48 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The input pack was intended for one acre of maize cultivation. Key eligibility criteria for beneficiary farmers included: (i) being unable to afford farm inputs at unsubsidised prices; (ii) 7 To our knowledge, to date the only experimental (randomised-controlled trial, RCT) evaluation of a national or government-piloted ISP in SSA is Carter et al (2013Carter et al ( , 2014. The RCT was conducted in one province in Mozambique.…”

Section: Kenya's National Accelerated Agricultural Inputs Access Progmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effects of Kenya's ‘Smarter’ Input Subsidy Programme on Smallholder Behaviour and Incomes: Do Different Quasi‐experimental Approaches Lead to the Same Conclusions?

Mason¹,

Wineman²,

Kirimi³

et al. 2016

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kenya joined the ranks of sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries implementing targeted input subsidy programmes (ISPs) for inorganic fertiliser and improved seed in 2007 with the establishment of the National Accelerated Agricultural Inputs Access Programme (NAAIAP). Although several features of NAAIAP were 'smarter' than other ISPs in the region, some aspects were less 'smart'. However, the efficacy of the programme, and the relationship between its design and effectiveness, have been little studied. This article uses nationwide survey data to estimate the effects of NAAIAP participation on Kenyan smallholders' cropping patterns, incomes, and poverty status. Unlike most previous studies of ISPs, a range of panel data-and propensity score-based methods are used to estimate the effects of NAAIAP. The article then compares these estimated effects across estimators and to the effects of other ISPs in SSA, and discusses the likely links between differences in programme designs and impacts. The results are robust to the choice of estimator and suggest that, despite substantial crowding out of commercial fertiliser demand, NAAIAP had sizeable impacts on maize production and poverty severity. NAAIAP's success in targeting resource-poor farmers and implementation

show abstract

Section: Kenya's National Accelerated Agricultural Inputs Access Progmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… To our knowledge, to date the only experimental (randomised‐controlled trial, RCT) evaluation of a national or government‐piloted ISP in SSA is Carter et al . (, ). The RCT was conducted in one province in Mozambique.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Kenya's ‘Smarter’ Input Subsidy Programme on Smallholder Behaviour and Incomes: Do Different Quasi‐experimental Approaches Lead to the Same Conclusions?

Mason¹,

Wineman²,

Kirimi³

et al. 2016

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, drought was also reported to have had a powerful impact on programmes in three cases Mather & Kelly, 2012;Carter et al, 2013). Authors of these studies encourage future input subsidies programmes to include complementary components if farmers are expected to cope with severe-weather-related effects on their crops.…”

Section: Narrative Synthesis Of Implementation and Contextual Factorsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Overall, there is a high risk of bias within the sample of included studies (see Figure 3). Only three studies were found to have a low risk of bias (Bardhan & Mookherjee, 2011, Carter et al, 2013, Holden, 2013, with the majority of studies found to have a high risk of bias (n=6). Four studies were rated as having a critical risk of bias due to baseline confounding (Ajayi et al, 2009;Denning, 2009;Kamanga, 2010;Parameswaran, 2012).…”

Section: Risk Of Bias In Included Studiesmentioning

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

“…The experiences of similar types of input subsidy programs in other regions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), have revealed mixed findings. For example, some studies have shown improvements with regards to input use (Carter, Laajaj, & Yang, 2013;Chibwana, Shively, Fisher, Jumbe, & Masters, 2014;Gine, Patel, Cuellar-Martinez, McCoy, & Lauren, 2015), as well as higher yields (Gine, Patel, Cuellar-Martinez, McCoy, & Lauren, 2015). However, the bulk of the evidence from SSA indicates that input subsidy programs are usually Pareto inefficient, that is, the costs generally outweigh the benefits (Jayne and Rashid, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural Input Subsidies and Productivity: The Case of Paraguayan Farmers

López¹,

Salazar²,

Salvo³

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

work is licensed under a Creative Commons IGO 3.0 AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC-IGO BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo/ legalcode) and may be reproduced with attribution to the IDB and for any non-commercial purpose, as provided below. No derivative work is allowed.Any dispute related to the use of the works of the IDB that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the UNCITRAL rules. The use of the IDB's name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of IDB's logo shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IDB and the user and is not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license.Following a peer review process, and with previous written consent by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), a revised version of this work may also be reproduced in any academic journal, including those indexed by the American Economic Association's EconLit, provided that the IDB is credited and that the author(s) receive no income from the publication. Therefore, the restriction to receive income from such publication shall only extend to the publication's author(s). With regard to such restriction, in case of any inconsistency between the Creative Commons IGO 3.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license and these statements, the latter shall prevail.Note that link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the license.The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Inter-American Development Bank, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent. ABSTRACTIt is a well-known fact that a great majority of countries implement agricultural input subsidies as a tool to boost agricultural productivity and output. However, even though this practice is widely spread and represents a large part of the agricultural budget, little emphasis has been placed on the evaluation of the effectiveness of such schemes. This paper aims to shed light on this issue by exploring the impact of agricultural input subsidies on agricultural productivity. Using a quasiexperimental approach (Propensity Score Matching), this study estimates the impact of receiving an agricultural input donation on the value of production per hectare as a measure of the effect on agricultural productivity. To this end, data from the "Encuesta Permanente de Hogares" of Paraguay, a nationally representative household survey collected in 2012, was utilized. The results provide evidence that agricultural input donations do not have an impact on agricultural productivity or input utilization.

show abstract

The Impact of Voucher Coupons on the Uptake of Fertilizer and Improved Seeds: Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Mozambique

Abstract: Short-Term Logic and Limitations of Voucher Coupons In the 1970s and early 1980s, a majority of African countries subsidized and sold fertilizer

Cited by 48 publications

References 1 publication

The Effects of Kenya's ‘Smarter’ Input Subsidy Programme on Smallholder Behaviour and Incomes: Do Different Quasi‐experimental Approaches Lead to the Same Conclusions?

The Effects of Kenya's ‘Smarter’ Input Subsidy Programme on Smallholder Behaviour and Incomes: Do Different Quasi‐experimental Approaches Lead to the Same Conclusions?

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

Agricultural Input Subsidies and Productivity: The Case of Paraguayan Farmers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About