Effectiveness of Farm Inputs Subsidy Program in Low Resource Settings: A Case Study of Malawi

Introduction: Despite agriculture being a key sector in Malawi's economy, productivity of smallholder farmers is still low as a result of access to low quality farm inputs, poverty and frequent climatic shocks. The Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP) was established to boost access to subsidized fertilizer and improved seed, and to support agricultural productivity and food security. This study aimed to assess the impact of the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) on smallholder farming household agriculture, food security and livelihood
Methods and Analysis: A mixed-methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative data was employed. Primary data were collected from beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, and secondary on agricultural production, input utilisation, and food security were also collected from the key informants. Descriptive statistical analysis (mean, frequency and percentage) and inferential statistical analysis were used to compare programme outcomes, using quantitative data. Key Informant Interviews and focus group discussions were conducted to gather qualitative data, and these were transcribed, coded and analysed thematically to derive key patterns and insights that supplemented the quantitative findings.
Findings: FISP stimulated the adoption of improved seeds and fertilisers by beneficiary household. Overall, over 80% of the beneficiary households reported having adequate food during the year while 60% of non-beneficiary households indicated adequate food during the year. Climatic shocks, late distribution of inputs, input shortages, targeting problems, and implementation costs, however, limited the programme's effectiveness. The programme was more beneficial for larger landholders and farmers in high rainfall regions than for poorer households and farmers in low rainfall regions.
Conclusions: The study finds that the use of improved seed, improved fertiliser and generation of improved crops have been enhanced and household food security improved since the use of FISP. However, its impact was limited due to delayed input distribution, input shortages, lack of beneficiary targeting, high implementation costs and climate shocks. Beneficiary selection should be made more transparent by having clear criteria for beneficiaries and by updating the beneficiaries' registers regularly, inputs should be provided before the planting season, extension and other complementary agricultural support services should be strengthened, and monitoring systems should be strengthened by regular field supervision and evaluation of the programme.

Farm Input Subsidy Program, agricultural productivity, food security

1. E. Chirwa and A. Dorward, Agricultural Input Subsidies: The Recent Malawi Experience, vol. 15, no. 1, 2013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. B. Chinsinga, “Agricultural Input Subsidies: The Recent Malawi Experience by Ephraim Chirwa and Andrew Dorward,” Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 53, no. 2, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X15000300 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. S. Holden and R. Lunduka, “Impacts of the Fertilizer Subsidy Program in Malawi: Targeting, Household Perceptions and Preferences,” 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. K. Anderson, M. Kurzweil, W. Martin, D. Sandri, and E. Valenzuela, “Measuring Distortions to Agricultural Incentives, Revisited,” World Trade Review, vol. 7, no. 4, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745608004011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. World Bank, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank, vol. 53, no. 9, 2008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. T. Kato and M. Greeley, “Agricultural Input Subsidies in Sub-Saharan Africa,” IDS Bulletin, vol. 47, no. 2, 2016. https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.130 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. G. Ton, S. Desiere, W. Vellema, S. Weituschat, and M. D’Haese, “The Effectiveness of Contract Farming for Raising Income of Smallholder Farmers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Reviews, vol. 13, no. 1, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. A. Dorward and E. Chirwa, “The Malawi Agricultural Input Subsidy Programme: 2005/06 to 2008/09,” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 1, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0567 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. B. Chinsinga, “Deconstructing the Success Myth: A Case of the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP),” III Conferência Internacional do IESE, 2012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. R. Lunduka, J. Ricker-Gilbert, and M. Fisher, “What Are the Farm-Level Impacts of Malawi’s Farm Input Subsidy Program? A Critical Review,” Agricultural Economics, vol. 44, no. 6, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12074 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. S. T. Holden and R. W. Lunduka, “Who Benefit from Malawi’s Targeted Farm Input Subsidy Program?” Forum for Development Studies, vol. 40, no. 1, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2012.688858 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. P. Fatch et al., “Holistic Agricultural Diversity Index as a Measure of Agricultural Diversity: A Cross-Sectional Study of Smallholder Farmers in Lilongwe District of Malawi,” Agricultural Systems, vol. 187, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102991 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.), 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kothari, C. R., Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, vol. 6, no. 1, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, 2006. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. T. S. Jayne and S. Rashid, “Input Subsidy Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Synthesis of Recent Evidence,” Agricultural Economics, vol. 44, no. 6, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12073 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. B. Chinsinga and C. Poulton, “Beyond Technocratic Debates: The Significance and Transience of Political Incentives in the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP),” Development Policy Review, vol. 32, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12079 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Breeding for a Greener Future: Selective Breeding and Crossbreeding Approaches to Minimize Methane Emissions in Ruminant Livestock
• Determinants of Adoption of Post-Harvest Losses Prevention Techniques among Banana/Plantain Marketers in Lagos State, Nigeria
• Enhancing Rice Yield Prediction Using UAV-Based Multispectral Imaging and Machine Learning Algorithms
• Seed-Borne Fungi of Groundnuts (Arachis Hypogaea) and Their Management with Ginger (Zingiber Officinale) Extract In Makurdi, Nigeria
• The Influence of Landforms and Slope on Agricultural Cropping Patterns in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar District