Effects of the Maize Input Subsidy Program on Groundnuts Production in Zambia

Zulu, Peter; Kalinda, Thomson; Tembo, Gelson

doi:10.5539/jas.v6n7p253

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Kenya, Mason et al (2017) reported a land allocation bias toward maize as a result of fertiliser and improved seed subsidy programmes that targeted maize. Mason et al (2013) and Zulu et al (2014) examined the effect of the maize input subsidy programme (fertiliser and improved seed) on a legume crop. They found that farmers reallocate land toward maize from other crops like groundnuts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Input subsidies and crop diversity on family farms in Burkina Faso

Ahmad

Smale

Thériault

et al. 2022

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since their independence, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have used input subsidies to increase agricultural productivity and improve food security. We analyse the effects of both a fertiliser and a seed subsidy on farming households' land allocation among crops and crop diversity in Burkina Faso. Although previous studies investigated either the impact of a fertiliser or a seed subsidy on targeted crops, few examined the effects of both subsidies combined. Applying a correlated random-effects model with a control function approach to nationally representative, 2-year panel data collected from farming households, we find that those with access to the fertiliser subsidy allocate more land to the crops it targets (rice, maize and cotton) than non-targeted crops. Focusing on a minor crop with key agronomic and nutritional attributes, we conclude that land allocation to cowpea as the primary crop and intercrop declined with the fertiliser subsidy.The fertiliser subsidy also negatively affects crop diversity. However, we find that the cowpea seed subsidy offsets the bias of fertiliser subsidy toward fertiliser-targeted crops and enhances diversity.In developing agricultural economies, the increasing use of modern inputs, such as chemical fertiliser, has been associated with higher agricultural productivity, especially when combined with improved seed varieties and/or adequate provision of moisture through irrigation infrastructure (Erisman et al., 2008;Morris, 2007;Smil, 2002). Historically, as a reflection of infrastructural impediments, such as sparse road networks and distance from ports, farmers in sub-Saharan Africa have used fertiliser at substantially lower rates than farmers in Asia and Latin America (Heisey & Norton, 2007). Although average fertiliser usage in sub-Saharan Africa grew by 8% annually in the early 2000s (Ariga et al., 2019) and almost doubled from 2008 (12 kg/ha) to 2018 (20 kg/ha), use rates are still well below the international average of 136 kg/ha (AFAP, 2020;World Bank, 2019).Increasing the use of modern inputs has been a policy aim in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa since their independence. Low fertiliser use has been considered a key contributing factor to lagging agricultural productivity growth in sub-Saharan Africa (Morris, 2007). High fertiliser prices, often reflecting substantial transport costs in landlocked countries such as Burkina Faso, and limited access to credit are key reasons for low fertiliser use (Gro Intelligence, 2016;Morris, 2007). The first generation of government-managed subsidy programmes resulted in unsustainable fiscal burdens, and these were dismantled during the 1990s as part of the World Bank's structural adjustment programmes. However, since the Abuja Declaration on Fertiliser in 2006, 'smart' input subsidies have proliferated in sub-Saharan

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Input subsidies and crop diversity on family farms in Burkina Faso

Ahmad

Smale

Thériault

et al. 2022

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, as a result of reduced dependence on maize imports, the carbon footprint (Chinsinga, 2011). However, there has been some evidence from neighbouring Zambia of similar input subsidy programmes resulting in reductions in area allocated to non-cereal crop production and negative impacts on production diversity (Zulu et al, 2014, Chinsinga, 2011. Concerns have also been raised in relation to subsidy programmes about the sustainability of agricultural inputs (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%