Gendered impacts of agricultural subsidies in Zambia

Machina, Henry and Ngoma, Hambulo and Kuteya, Aukland (2017): Gendered impacts of agricultural subsidies in Zambia.

Abstract

Governments in Sub-Saharan Africa have been implementing agricultural subsidy programs aimed to raise productivity and promote household food security, among other things. Despite positing some gains in raising productivity, subsidies through the conventional or traditional Farmer Input Support Program (FISP) have been found to crowd out demand for commercial fertilizer. This paper asks if subsidies can reduce the gendered productivity gaps in agriculture. Applying panel data methods to the two-wave Rural Agricultural Livelihoods Surveys data collected in 2012 and 2015, the study found that male-managed plots had an average 34 kg/ha yield advantage over female-managed plots, suggesting gendered productivity gaps. The main empirical results suggest that access to FISP does not disproportionately raise crop productivity for female-managed plots. Thus, FISP is insufficient to address the male-female productivity gaps. While improving access to productive inputs for women is important to address gender productivity gaps, this will need to be complemented with deliberate measures to address the social-cultural norms that tip the balance of power dynamics, rights and entitlements towards men.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• English Title: Are Agricultural Subsidies Gender Sensitive? Heterogeneous Impacts of the Farmer Input Support Program in Zambia
• Language: English
• Keywords: FISP, Productivity gap, gender, Zambia
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q18 - Agricultural Policy ; Food Policy

References

Alderman, H., P.A. Chiappori, L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott, and R. Kanbur. 1995. Unitary versus Collective Models of the Household: Is it Time to Shift the Burden of Proof? World Bank Research Observer 10.1: 1-19.

Chamberlain, G. 1984. Panel Data, Chapter 22. In Handbook of Econometrics Volume 2, ed. G. Zvi and D.I. Michael. Amsterdan: Elsevier.

Chirwa, E.W., P.M. Mvula, A. Dorward, and M. Matita. 2011. Gender and Intra-Household Use of Fertilizers in the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme. Brighton, UK: Future Agricultures Consortium.

Chirwa, E. and A. Dorward. 2013. Agricultural Input Subsidies: The Recent Malawi Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CSO/MAL/IAPRI. 2012 and 2015. Rural Agricultural Livelihoods Survey Data. Lusaka, Zambia: CSO/MAL/IAPRI.

Doss, Cheryl. 2011. If Women Hold up Half the Sky, How Much of the World’s Food Do They Produce? ESA Working Paper No. 11-04. Rome: Agricultural Development Economics Division, FAO. Can be accessed at www.fao.org/economic/esa.

Druilhe, Z. and J. Barreiro-Hurle. 2012. Fertilizer Subsidies in Sub-Saharan Africa. ESA Working Paper 12-04. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Ellis, F., S. Devereux, and P. White. 2009. Social Protection in Africa. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

FAO. 2015. The State of Food and Agriculture 2015, Social Protection and Agriculture: Breaking the Cycle of Rural Poverty. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Farnworth, C.R., V.M. Akamandisa, and M. Hichaambwa. 2011. Zambia Feed the Future Gender Assessment Report. Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Ghosh, S. and R. Kanbur. 2008. Male Wages and Female Welfare: Private Markets, Public Goods, and Intrahousehold Inequality. Oxford Economic Papers-New Series 60.1: 42-56.

Jayne, T.S., N.M. Mason, W.J. Burke, and J. Ariga. 2016. Agricultural Input Subsidy Programs in Africa: An Assessment of Recent Evidence. MSU International Development Working Paper No. 145. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Kanbur, R. and L. Haddad. 1994. Are Better-Off Households More Unequal or Less Unequal? Oxford Economic Papers 46.3: 445-458.

Karamba, R.W. and P.C. Winters. 2015. Gender and Agricultural Productivity: Implications of the Farm Input Subsidy Program in Malawi. Agricultural Economics 46.3: 357-374. doi:10.1111/agec.12169

Kato, T. and M. Greeley. 2016. Agricultural Input Subsidies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Development Studies – Past, Present, and Future. IDS Bulletin 47.2: 33-48.

Kuteya, A.N., C. Lukama, A. Chapoto, and V. Malata. 2016. Lessons Learnt from the Implementation of the E-voucher Pilot. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute Policy Brief No. 8. Lusaka: IAPRI. 19

Liverpool-Tasie, L.S. 2012. Targeted Subsidies and Private Market Participation. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01194. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Marenya, P., K. Menale, and T. Emilio. 2015. Fertilizer Use on Individually and Jointly Managed Crop Plots in Mozambique. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 1.2: 62-83.

Mason, N.M. and S.T. Tembo. 2015. Is FISP Reducing Poverty among Smallholder Farm Households in Zambia? IAPRI Policy Brief No. 71. Lusaka, Zambia: Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute. (Downloadable at http://www.iapri.org.zm).

Mason, N.M., T.S. Jayne, and N. van de Walle. 2016. The Political Economy of Fertilizer Subsidy Programs in Africa: Evidence from Zambia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 99.3: 705-731.

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). Undated. Farmer Input Support Programme. Implementation Manual 2016/2017 Agricultural Season. Lusaka: MoA.

Mundlak, Y. 1978. On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data. Econometrica 46.1: 69-85. doi:10.2307/1913646.

Namonje-Kapembwa, T. and A. Chapoto. 2016. Improved Agricultural Technology Adoption in Zambia: Are Women Farmers Being Left Behind? IAPRI Working Paper No. 106. Lusaka, Zambia: Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI).

Ngoma, H., N.M. Mason, and N.J. Sitko. 2015. Does Minimum Tillage with Planting Basins or Ripping Raise Maize Yields? Meso-Panel Data Evidence from Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 212.0: 21-29. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.06.021

Quisumbing, A.R. 1996. Male–Female Differences in Agricultural Productivity: Methodological Issues and Empirical Evidence. World Development 24.10: 1579-1595.

Quisumbing, A.R., R. Meinzen-Dick, L.R. Terri, A. Croppenstedt, J.A. Behrman, and P. Amber (eds). 2014. Closing the Knowledge Gap on Gender in Agriculture. In: Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gap. Dordrecht: Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Ricker-Gilbert, J., T.S. Jayne, and E. Chirwa. 2011. Subsidies and Crowding Out: A Double-Hurdle Model of Fertilizer Demand in Malawi. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93.1: 26-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaq122.

Ricker-Gilbert, J., T.S. Jayne, and G. Shively. 2013. Addressing the "Wicked Problem" of the Input Subsidy Programs in Africa. Applied Agricultural Economic Perspectives and Policy 35.2: 322-40.

Sitko, N.J, R. Bwalya, J. Kamwanga, and M. Wamulume. 2012. Assessing the Feasibility of Implementing the Farmer Input Support Programme through an Electronic Voucher System in Zambia. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute Policy Brief No 53. Lusaka, Zambia: IAPRI.

Smith, L.C, U. Ramakrishnan, L. Haddad, R. Martorell, and A. Ndiaye. 2003. The Importance of Women’s Status for Child Nutrition in Developing Countries. Research Report No. 131. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Wooldridge, J.M. 2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2nd ed.). Cambidge, MA: MIT Press.

Wossen, T., A. Tahirou, A. Arega, F. Shiferaw, J. Ricker-Gilbert, V. Manyong, and B.A. Awotide. 2017. Productivity and Welfare Effects of Nigeria’s e-Voucher-Based Input Subsidy Program. World Development 97: 251-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.021