Can Agricultural Input Subsidy Help The Poor More Than Food Aid Supplies In Malawi?

Alabi Adams Osasogie Reuben Adeolu, Adams Oshobugie Ojor, Osasogie Daniel Izevbuwa
{"title":"Can Agricultural Input Subsidy Help The Poor More Than Food Aid Supplies In Malawi?","authors":"Alabi Adams Osasogie Reuben Adeolu, Adams Oshobugie Ojor, Osasogie Daniel Izevbuwa","doi":"10.1353/jda.2017.0048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study compared the pro-poorness of food aid and fertilizer input subsidy in Malawi. As a land-locked country food imports in Malawi are very expensive. The fertiliser subsidy enables farmers to grow more of their own food rather than rely on imported handouts in an increasingly volatile global market. The study relied on food aid and fertilizer subsidy data from Malawi Integrated Household Survey (IHS) of 2005. The survey was drawn using a two-stage stratified sampling procedure based on population census. The population covered by the survey was all individuals living in selected households. The sample frame includes all three regions of Malawi: North, Centre and South. The survey stratified the country into rural and urban strata. The total sample was 11,280 households. We analysed the data using Distributive Analysis Stata Package (DASP) procedure as indicated in Araar and Duclos (2009). In doing this, we compared the Lorenz curve of per capita consumption expenditure with concentration curve of participation in food aid distribution or fertilizer subsidy in the household. The result from the analysis reveals that food aid is not allocated based on food need in Malawi. For example, the proportions of under-weighed in Centre and Northern regions were about 40% and 28% respectively, and each of the region was allocated about 32% of free food aid. It also shows that the distribution of food-for-work is more pro-poor than that of free food aid, while fertilizer subsidy distribution is more pro-poor than any of the food aid. However, none of the three programmes is well-targeted at poor households and the differences among the three programmes are trivial. This is beacause the share of the poorest household in the fertilizer subsidy, free food and food for work aid were only 19.8%, 19.7% and 20% respectively. This implies that more has to be done to improve targeting of fertilizer subsidy and food aid distribution to reach the intended beneficiaries which are poorest housholds in Malawi. The starting point is to ensure that the most food insecured region(s) and rural areas are well targeted in the distribution of food aid and fertilizer subsidy.","PeriodicalId":84983,"journal":{"name":"Journal Of Developing Areas","volume":"51 1","pages":"329 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/jda.2017.0048","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal Of Developing Areas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2017.0048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study compared the pro-poorness of food aid and fertilizer input subsidy in Malawi. As a land-locked country food imports in Malawi are very expensive. The fertiliser subsidy enables farmers to grow more of their own food rather than rely on imported handouts in an increasingly volatile global market. The study relied on food aid and fertilizer subsidy data from Malawi Integrated Household Survey (IHS) of 2005. The survey was drawn using a two-stage stratified sampling procedure based on population census. The population covered by the survey was all individuals living in selected households. The sample frame includes all three regions of Malawi: North, Centre and South. The survey stratified the country into rural and urban strata. The total sample was 11,280 households. We analysed the data using Distributive Analysis Stata Package (DASP) procedure as indicated in Araar and Duclos (2009). In doing this, we compared the Lorenz curve of per capita consumption expenditure with concentration curve of participation in food aid distribution or fertilizer subsidy in the household. The result from the analysis reveals that food aid is not allocated based on food need in Malawi. For example, the proportions of under-weighed in Centre and Northern regions were about 40% and 28% respectively, and each of the region was allocated about 32% of free food aid. It also shows that the distribution of food-for-work is more pro-poor than that of free food aid, while fertilizer subsidy distribution is more pro-poor than any of the food aid. However, none of the three programmes is well-targeted at poor households and the differences among the three programmes are trivial. This is beacause the share of the poorest household in the fertilizer subsidy, free food and food for work aid were only 19.8%, 19.7% and 20% respectively. This implies that more has to be done to improve targeting of fertilizer subsidy and food aid distribution to reach the intended beneficiaries which are poorest housholds in Malawi. The starting point is to ensure that the most food insecured region(s) and rural areas are well targeted in the distribution of food aid and fertilizer subsidy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在马拉维,农业投入补贴比粮食援助更能帮助穷人吗?
该研究比较了马拉维粮食援助和化肥投入补贴的扶贫效果。作为一个内陆国家,马拉维的食品进口非常昂贵。化肥补贴使农民能够在日益动荡的全球市场上种植更多自己的粮食,而不是依赖进口。这项研究依据的是2005年马拉维综合家庭调查(IHS)的粮食援助和化肥补贴数据。本次调查采用基于人口普查的两阶段分层抽样方法。调查所涵盖的人口是生活在选定家庭中的所有个人。样本框架包括马拉维所有三个区域:北部、中部和南部。这项调查把这个国家分为农村和城市两个阶层。样本总数为11280户。我们使用分布分析软件包(DASP)程序分析数据,如Araar和Duclos(2009)所示。为此,我们将人均消费支出的Lorenz曲线与家庭参与粮食援助分配或肥料补贴的集中度曲线进行了比较。分析的结果显示,粮食援助不是根据马拉维的粮食需求分配的。例如,中部和北部地区体重不足的比例分别约为40%和28%,每个地区分配了约32%的免费粮食援助。研究还表明,以工代赈的分配比免费粮食援助更有利于贫困人口,而肥料补贴的分配比任何一种粮食援助都更有利于贫困人口。然而,这三个方案都没有很好地针对贫困家庭,三个方案之间的差异微不足道。这是因为最贫困家庭在肥料补贴、免费食品和以工代赈中所占的比例分别只有19.8%、19.7%和20%。这意味着必须做更多的工作来改善肥料补贴和粮食援助分配的目标,以使马拉维最贫穷的家庭受益。出发点是确保粮食最缺乏保障的地区和农村地区在分配粮食援助和化肥补贴方面有很好的针对性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Earnings Announcement and Stock Prices of Quoted Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria in the Era of COVID-19 Pandemic Revisiting the Exchange Rate -Oil Price Nexus in Turbulent Period: What Can We Learn From Nigeria and South Africa During Covid-19? Trade Implications on Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIS) Due to COVID-19 Pandemic and India China Altercation Analysis of Non-Oil Exports – Economic Growth Relationship in Nigeria: The Role of Institutional Qualities Who are the Poor Farm households' in Nigeria and is this Population Changing Over Time?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1