IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i7p740-d594541.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Targeting of Agricultural Support Measures: Indicator-Based Assessment of Coverages and Leakages

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew C. LaFevor

    (Department of Geography, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA)

  • Alexandra G. Ponette-González

    (Department of Geography and the Environment, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA)

  • Rebecca Larson

    (Department of Geography, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA)

  • Leah M. Mungai

    (Department of Geography, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA)

Abstract

Agricultural support programs distribute payments to farms based on a diverse set of policy objectives. Adequate targeting of this support to priority areas is key to efficient and effective policy. We evaluated the targeting strategy of a national-level program in Mexico that distributed support based on seven criteria that prioritized poor smallholder farming communities at high risk of cropland failure. We used a series of logistic models to assess the coverage and leakage rates of the program’s targeting strategy and found rates of about 80 and 20 percent, respectively. We also found significant differences between the targeting priorities specified in program rules and the observed distribution of support measures. In general, the program favored arid and semi-arid regions at high risk of soil erosion but neglected smallholder farms in high-poverty regions with elevated rates of cropland failure. Our findings highlight the continued lack of financial support for smallholder agriculture in Mexico, despite program rules and priority statements that stress the vulnerability of this sector. This study also illustrates the important role of spatial targeting in better aligning agricultural support payments with stated policy priorities. This alignment is often overlooked in ex-post assessment, but it is critical for improving targeting precision, equity, and overall policy effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew C. LaFevor & Alexandra G. Ponette-González & Rebecca Larson & Leah M. Mungai, 2021. "Spatial Targeting of Agricultural Support Measures: Indicator-Based Assessment of Coverages and Leakages," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:7:p:740-:d:594541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/7/740/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/7/740/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Houssou, Nazaire & Zeller, Manfred, 2011. "To target or not to target? The costs, benefits, and impacts of indicator-based targeting," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 626-636, October.
    2. Jad Chaaban & Hala Ghattas & Alexandra Irani & Alban Thomas, 2018. "Targeting mechanisms for cash transfers using regional aggregates," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(2), pages 457-472, April.
    3. Rong-Gang Cong & Mark Brady, 2012. "How to Design a Targeted Agricultural Subsidy System: Efficiency or Equity?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-12, August.
    4. Whittaker, Gerald & Färe, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Barnhart, Bradley & Bostian, Moriah & Mueller-Warrant, George & Griffith, Stephen, 2017. "Spatial targeting of agri-environmental policy using bilevel evolutionary optimization," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 66(PA), pages 15-27.
    5. Wodon, Quentin T., 1997. "Targeting the poor using ROC curves," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(12), pages 2083-2092, December.
    6. Verme, Paolo & Gigliarano, Chiara, 2019. "Optimal targeting under budget constraints in a humanitarian context," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 224-233.
    7. Wu, Feng & Qushim, Berdikul & Calle, Marcelo & Guan, Zhengfei, 2018. "Government Support in Mexican Agriculture," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(3), September.
    8. Fabio Bartolini & Gianluca Brunori & Laura Fastelli & Massimo Rovai, 2013. "Understanding the participation in agri-environmental schemes: evidence from Tuscany Region," ERSA conference papers ersa13p1084, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Niskanen, Olli & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    10. Adama Bah & Samuel Bazzi & Sudarno Sumarto & Julia Tobias, 2019. "Finding the Poor vs. Measuring Their Poverty: Exploring the Drivers of Targeting Effectiveness in Indonesia," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 33(3), pages 573-597.
    11. Bredemeier, Birte & von Haaren, Christina & Rüter, Stefan & Reich, Michael & Meise, Thomas, 2015. "Evaluating the nature conservation value of field habitats: A model approach for targeting agri-environmental measures and projecting their effects," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 113-122.
    12. Eakin, Hallie, 2005. "Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: Cases from Central Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 1923-1938, November.
    13. Bibi, Sami & Duclos, Jean-Yves, 2007. "Equity and policy effectiveness with imperfect targeting," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 109-140, May.
    14. Bertoni, Danilo & Curzi, Daniele & Aletti, Giacomo & Olper, Alessandro, 2020. "Estimating the effects of agri-environmental measures using difference-in-difference coarsened exact matching," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Va Dany & Kathryn J. Bowen & Fiona Miller, 2015. "Assessing the institutional capacity to adapt to climate change: a case study in the Cambodian health and water sectors," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 388-409, May.
    16. Sofia Mardero & Birgit Schmook & Jorge Omar López-Martínez & Lizette Cicero & Claudia Radel & Zachary Christman, 2018. "The Uneven Influence of Climate Trends and Agricultural Policies on Maize Production in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Mettepenningen, E. & Beckmann, V. & Eggers, J., 2011. "Public transaction costs of agri-environmental schemes and their determinants--Analysing stakeholders' involvement and perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 641-650, February.
    18. Valencia, Vivian & García-Barrios, Luis & Sterling, Eleanor J. & West, Paige & Meza-Jiménez, Amayrani & Naeem, Shahid, 2018. "Smallholder response to environmental change: Impacts of coffee leaf rust in a forest frontier in Mexico," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 463-474.
    19. Zhu, Lanlan & Zhang, Chunman & Cai, Yinying, 2018. "Varieties of agri-environmental schemes in China: A quantitative assessment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 505-517.
    20. Del Rossi, Gemma & Hecht, Jory S. & Zia, Asim, 2021. "A mixed-methods analysis for improving farmer participation in agri-environmental payments for ecosystem services in Vermont, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    21. Alder Keleman, 2010. "Institutional support and in situ conservation in Mexico: biases against small-scale maize farmers in post-NAFTA agricultural policy," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(1), pages 13-28, March.
    22. Amruta Nori-Sarma & Anobha Gurung & Gulrez Shah Azhar & Ajit Rajiva & Dileep Mavalankar & Perry Sheffield & Michelle L. Bell, 2017. "Opportunities and Challenges in Public Health Data Collection in Southern Asia: Examples from Western India and Kathmandu Valley, Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, June.
    23. Bigman, David & Fofack, Hippolyte, 2000. "Geographical Targeting for Poverty Alleviation: An Introduction to the Special Issue," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 14(1), pages 129-145, January.
    24. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    25. Cullen, Paula & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & hUallacháin, Daire Ó & Sheridan, Helen, 2020. "Impact of farmer self-identity and attitudes on participation in agri-environment schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    26. Quetzalcóatl Orozco-Ramírez & Marta Astier & Sara Barrasa, 2017. "Agricultural Land Use Change after NAFTA in Central West Mexico," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, October.
    27. Marcos Agurto & César Calvo & Miguel Ángel Carpio, 2019. "Targeting when Poverty is Multidimensional," Working Papers 2019-4, Lima School of Economics.
    28. Unay-Gailhard, İlkay & Bojnec, Štefan, 2015. "Farm size and participation in agri-environmental measures: Farm-level evidence from Slovenia," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46, pages 273-282.
    29. van der Sluis, Theo & Pedroli, Bas & Kristensen, Søren B.P. & Lavinia Cosor, Georgia & Pavlis, Evangelos, 2016. "Changing land use intensity in Europe – Recent processes in selected case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 777-785.
    30. Esteve Corbera & Sébastien Costedoat & Driss Ezzine‐de‐Blas & Gert Van Hecken, 2020. "Troubled Encounters: Payments for Ecosystem Services in Chiapas, Mexico," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 51(1), pages 167-195, January.
    31. Nathaniel D. Mueller & James S. Gerber & Matt Johnston & Deepak K. Ray & Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley, 2012. "Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management," Nature, Nature, vol. 490(7419), pages 254-257, October.
    32. Tebogo B. Seleka, 2020. "Targetting Effectiveness of Social Transfer Programs in Botswana:Means-tested versus Categorical and Self-selected instruments," Working Papers 72, Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis.
    33. Skoufias, Emmanuel & Davis, Benjamin & de la Vega, Sergio, 2001. "Targeting the Poor in Mexico: An Evaluation of the Selection of Households into PROGRESA," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1769-1784, October.
    34. Herzon, I. & Birge, T. & Allen, B. & Povellato, A. & Vanni, F. & Hart, K. & Radley, G. & Tucker, G. & Keenleyside, C. & Oppermann, R. & Underwood, E. & Poux, X. & Beaufoy, G. & Pražan, J., 2018. "Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 347-354.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew C. LaFevor, 2022. "Spatial and Temporal Changes in Crop Species Production Diversity in Mexico (1980–2020)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Matthew C. LaFevor, 2022. "Crop Species Production Diversity Enhances Revenue Stability in Low-Income Farm Regions of Mexico," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Matthew C. LaFevor & Aoife K. Pitts, 2022. "Irrigation Increases Crop Species Diversity in Low-Diversity Farm Regions of Mexico," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Matthew C. LaFevor, 2022. "Characterizing Agricultural Diversity with Policy-Relevant Farm Typologies in Mexico," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Brown, Caitlin & Ravallion, Martin & van de Walle, Dominique, 2018. "A poor means test? Econometric targeting in Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 109-124.
    3. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4334 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Christophe Muller, 2016. "Optimal transfers with distribution regressions: An application to Egypt at the dawn of the XXIst century," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-179, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    5. Christophe Muller & Sami Bibi, 2006. "Focused Targeting Against Poverty Evidence From Tunisia," Working Papers. Serie AD 2006-01, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    6. Theresa Beltramo & Hai-Anh H. Dang & Ibrahima Sarr & Paolo Verme, 2020. "Estimating Poverty among Refugee Populations: A Cross-Survey Imputation Exercise for Chad," Working Papers 536, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    7. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    8. Bojnec, Štefan & Fertő, Imre, 2022. "Do different types of Common Agricultural Policy subsidies promote farm employment?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    9. Christophe Muller, 2007. "Anti-Poverty Transfers without Riots in Tunisia," Working Papers DT/2007/08, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    10. Huang, Iona Y. & Behrendt, Karl & Parker, Eleanor & Hill, Nigel & Purewal, Amandeep Kaur & Swales, David & Baker, Sarah, 2022. "Ready or not, here I come: Understanding English farmers perceptions of the changes in UK agricultural and environmental policy," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321210, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    11. Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2020. "Valuing Rural Residents' Attitude Regarding agri-environmental Policy in China: A Best-worst Scaling Analysis," Discussion Paper Series DP2020-01, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    12. Nasri, Khaled & Weslati, Adnen, 2022. "Targeting Household Deprivations for Multidimensional Poverty Alleviation: An Application to Tunisian Data," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1019, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    13. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Droste, Nils & Ließ, Mareike & Sidemo-Holm, William & Weller, Ulrich & Brady, Mark V., 2021. "Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    14. Schnitzer,Pascale & Stoeffler,Quentin, 2021. "Targeting for Social Safety Nets : Evidence from Nine Programs in the Sahel," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9816, The World Bank.
    15. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    16. Christophe Muller, 2018. "Optimal Cash Transfers with Distribution Regressions: An Application to Egypt at the Dawn of the XXIst Century," AMSE Working Papers 1802, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    17. Marivoet, Wim & Ulimwengu, John & Sedano, Fernando, 2019. "Spatial typology for targeted food and nutrition security interventions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 62-75.
    18. Jelena Vapa Tankosić & Radivoj Prodanović & Vladimir Medović, 2023. "Analysis of Agri-Environmental Management Practices and Their Implementation in the Agricultural Policies of the Republic of Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-24, August.
    19. Katsuya Tanaka & Nicholas Hanley & Laure Kuhfuss, 2022. "Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 720-738, September.
    20. Christophe MULLER & Sami BIBI, 2008. "Focused Transfer Targeting against Poverty Evidence from Tunisia," THEMA Working Papers 2008-37, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    21. Morawetz, Ulrich & Sinabell, Franz, 2015. "Assessment Of Targeting In The Rural Development Programme: A Case Study Of The Austria Investment Support Measure," 55th Annual Conference, Giessen, Germany, September 23-25, 2015 210576, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:7:p:740-:d:594541. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.