IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jafrec/v24y2015i1p26-56..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decentralised Beneficiary Targeting in Large-Scale Development Programmes: Insights from the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme

Author

Listed:
  • Talip Kilic
  • Edward Whitney
  • Paul Winters

Abstract

This paper contributes to the long-standing debate on the merits of decentralised beneficiary targeting in the administration of development programmes, focussing on the large-scale Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP). Using nationally representative household survey data, the study systematically analyses the decentralised targeting performance of the FISP during the 2009–10 agricultural season. The analysis begins with a standard targeting assessment based on the rates of programme participation and the benefit amounts among the eligible and non-eligible populations and provides decompositions of the national targeting performance into the inter-district, intra-district inter-community, and intra-district intra-community components. This approach identifies the relative contributions of targeting at each level. The results show that the FISP is not poverty targeted and that the national government, the districts and the communities are nearly uniform in their failure to target the poor, with any minimal targeting (or mis-targeting) overwhelmingly materializing at the community level. The findings are robust to the choice of the eligibility indicator and the decomposition method. The multivariate analysis of household programme participation reinforces these results and reveals that the relatively well off, rather than the poor or the wealthiest, and the locally well-connected have a higher likelihood of programme participation, and, on average, receive a greater number of input coupons. Since a key programme objective is to increase food security and income among resource-poor farmers, the lack of targeting is a concern and should underlie considerations of alternative targeting approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Talip Kilic & Edward Whitney & Paul Winters, 2015. "Decentralised Beneficiary Targeting in Large-Scale Development Programmes: Insights from the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 24(1), pages 26-56.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jafrec:v:24:y:2015:i:1:p:26-56.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jae/eju021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lendie Follett & Heath Henderson, 2022. "A hybrid approach to targeting social assistance," Papers 2201.01356, arXiv.org.
    2. Bastien Michel & Samuel Kembou & Sonali Wayal & Joanna Murray, 2023. "Leveraging Mobile Phone Expansion in LMICs to Improve Parental Practices," Working Papers hal-03909663, HAL.
    3. Jacob Ricker-Gilbert & T. S. Jayne, 2017. "Estimating the Enduring Effects of Fertiliser Subsidies on Commercial Fertiliser Demand and Maize Production: Panel Data Evidence from Malawi," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 70-97, February.
    4. Jayne, T.S. & Mason, Nicole M. & Burke, William J. & Ariga, Joshua, 2016. "Agricultural Input Subsidy Programs in Africa: An Assessment of Recent Evidence," Food Security International Development Working Papers 245892, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    5. Simons, Andrew M., 2022. "What is the optimal locus of control for social assistance programs? Evidence from the Productive Safety Net Program in Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. R. Wendy Karamba & Paul C. Winters, 2015. "Gender and agricultural productivity: implications of the Farm Input Subsidy Program in Malawi," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(3), pages 357-374, May.
    7. Dionne, Kim Yi & Horowitz, Jeremy, 2016. "The Political Effects of Agricultural Subsidies in Africa: Evidence from Malawi," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 215-226.
    8. Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob & Mason, Nicole & Chamberlin, Jordan, 2016. "What Is Driving Farmland Rental Prices In Sub-Saharan Africa? Evidence From Malawi," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235819, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Xavier Giné & Shreena Patel & Bernardo Ribeiro & Ildrim Valley, 2022. "Efficiency and equity of input subsidies: Experimental evidence from Tanzania†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1625-1655, October.
    10. Fujimoto, Takefumi & Suzuki, Aya, 2021. "Do Fertilizer and Seed Subsidies Strengthen Farmers' Market Participation? the Impact of Tanzania NAIVS on Farmers' Purchase of Agricultural Inputs and Their Maize-Selling Activities," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315044, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Henderson, Heath & Follett, Lendie, 2022. "Targeting social safety net programs on human capabilities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    12. Asfaw, Solomon & Carraro, Alessandro, 2016. "Welfare Effect of Farm Input Subsidy Program in the Context of Climate Change: Evidence from Malawi," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246281, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    13. Kazushi Takahashi & Rie Muraoka & Keijiro Otsuka, 2020. "Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: A review of the recent literature," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 31-45, January.
    14. Jayne, T.S. & Sitko, Nicholas J. & Mason, Nicole M., 2017. "Can Input Subsidy Programs Contribute To Climate Smart Agriculture?," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 270626, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    15. Houssou, Nazaire & Asante-Addo, Collins & Andam, Kwaw S., 2017. "Improving the targeting of fertilizer subsidy programs in Africa south of the Sahara: Perspectives from the Ghanaian experience," IFPRI discussion papers 1622, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Jayne, Thomas S. & Mason, Nicole M. & Burke, William J. & Ariga, Joshua, 2018. "Review: Taking stock of Africa’s second-generation agricultural input subsidy programs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-14.
    17. Vidhya Unnikrishnan & Subhasish Dey, 2023. "Political meddling in social assistance programme: Panel data evidence from India," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(6), pages 1346-1364, August.
    18. Follett, Lendie & Henderson, Heath, 2023. "A hybrid approach to targeting social assistance," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    19. Haseeb, Muhammad & Vyborny, Kate, 2022. "Data, discretion and institutional capacity: Evidence from cash transfers in Pakistan," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    20. Mwale, Martin Limbikani, 2022. "Unintended consequences of farm input subsidies: women’s contraceptive usage and knock-on effects on children," MPRA Paper 112689, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Hodjo, Manzamasso & Dalton, Timothy & Nakelse, Tebila & Acharya, Ram N & Blayney, Don, 2021. "From coupon to calories: Assessing input coupon impact on household food calories production," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 22(C).
    22. Tewodaj Mogues & Alvina Erman, 2020. "Institutional arrangements to make public spending responsive to the poor: When intent meets political economy realities," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 38(1), pages 100-123, January.
    23. Martin Limbikani Mwale & Tony Mwenda Kamninga, 2024. "Unintended consequences of farm input subsidies: women’s contraceptive usage and knock-on effects on children," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 1-28, September.
    24. Mwale, Martin Limbikani, 2023. "Do agricultural subsidies matter for women’s attitude towards intimate partner violence? Evidence from Malawi," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    25. Han, Huawei & Gao, Qin, 2019. "Community-based welfare targeting and political elite capture: Evidence from rural China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 145-159.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jafrec:v:24:y:2015:i:1:p:26-56.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csaoxuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.