IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205288.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Late Delivery of Subsidized Fertilizer Affect Smallholder Maize Productivity and Production?

Author

Listed:
  • Namonje-Kapembwa, Thelma
  • Black, Roy
  • Jayne, Thomas S.

Abstract

Farm input subsidy programs have once again become a popular policy tool that many African governments use to improve agricultural productivity and address rural poverty. Zambia is one of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) that over the past decade has devoted a considerable share of its agricultural budget to the Farmer Input Support Program (FISP). Input subsidy programs have received considerable research attention in recent years. Unfortunately, the issue of late delivery of inputs under government subsidy programs has received little or no research attention even though it has been a longstanding problem in many countries, including Zambia. This paper examined the effects of late delivery of fertilizer on technical efficiency of smallholder maize producers and on foregone national maize output in Zambia. Using cross-sectional household survey data for the 2010/11 agricultural season, a plot-level maize yield response model was estimated using a Stochastic Frontier Approach (SFA) while controlling for the endogeneity of whether farmers received their FISP fertilizer on time. Results indicate that late delivery of fertilizer reduces technical efficiency and maize yield by 4.2%. The estimated results are then extrapolated to quantify the loss in national maize output. The foregone maize output due to late delivery of fertilizer in the 2010/11 farming season was 84,924 metric tons. When valued at the government’s maize purchase price, the forgone income is equivalent to USD 21.2 million. Furthermore, by limiting the sample to only households that obtained fertilizer from FISP, we found that households with large landholding size and high value of productive assets were more likely to receive fertilizer on time, ceteris paribus. It was also found that households with family connections with village headmen/chiefs were more likely to receive fertilizer on time compared to other households.

Suggested Citation

  • Namonje-Kapembwa, Thelma & Black, Roy & Jayne, Thomas S., 2015. "Does Late Delivery of Subsidized Fertilizer Affect Smallholder Maize Productivity and Production?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205288, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205288
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205288/files/AAEA%20selected%20paper%20-Thelma%20NamonjeKapembwa.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205288?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine Amsler & Peter Schmidt & Wen-Jen Tsay, 2015. "A post-truncation parameterization of truncated normal technical inefficiency," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 209-220, October.
    2. Nicole M. Mason & Thomas S. Jayne, 2014. "Fertiliser subsidies and smallholder commercial fertiliser purchases: crowding out, leakage, and policy implications for Zambia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 527-528, June.
    3. Chirwa Ephraim W., 2007. "Sources of Technical Efficiency among Smallholder Maize Farmers in Southern Malawi," Working Papers 172, African Economic Research Consortium, Research Department.
    4. Federico Belotti & Silvio Daidone & Giuseppe Ilardi & Vincenzo Atella, 2013. "Stochastic frontier analysis using Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(4), pages 718-758, December.
    5. Kumbhakar, Subal C & Ghosh, Soumendra & McGuckin, J Thomas, 1991. "A Generalized Production Frontier Approach for Estimating Determinants of Inefficiency in U.S. Dairy Farms," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 9(3), pages 279-286, July.
    6. Hung-Jen Wang, 2002. "Heteroscedasticity and Non-Monotonic Efficiency Effects of a Stochastic Frontier Model," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 241-253, November.
    7. Battese, George E., 1992. "Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: a survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 7(3-4), pages 185-208, October.
    8. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-332.
    9. George E. Batiese, 1992. "Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: a survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 7(3-4), pages 185-208, October.
    10. T.S. Jayne & Shahidur Rashid, 2013. "Input subsidy programs in sub-Saharan Africa: a synthesis of recent evidence," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 547-562, November.
    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. 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.
    2. Resnick, Danielle & Mason, Nicole, 2016. "What Drives Input Subsidy Policy Reform? The Case Of Zambia, 2002-2016," Miscellaneous Publications 246951, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    3. Resnick, Danielle & Mason, Nicole, 2016. "What Drives Input Subsidy Policy Reform? The Case Of Zambia, 2002-2016," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 246951, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    4. Resnick, Danielle & Mason, Nicole M., 2016. "What drives input subsidy policy reform? The case of Zambia, 2002–2016," IFPRI discussion papers 1572, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Nicole M. Mason & Ayala Wineman & Solomon T. Tembo, 2020. "Reducing poverty by ‘ignoring the experts’? Evidence on input subsidies in Zambia," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 1157-1172, October.
    6. Hinkel, Niklas, 2019. "Agricultural Liming in Zambia: Potential Effects on Welfare," EWI Working Papers 2019-6, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    7. 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).

    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. Christopher F. Parmeter & Hung-Jen Wang & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2017. "Nonparametric estimation of the determinants of inefficiency," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 205-221, June.
    2. Filippini, Massimo & Wetzel, Heike, 2014. "The impact of ownership unbundling on cost efficiency: Empirical evidence from the New Zealand electricity distribution sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 412-418.
    3. Giovanni Marin & Alessandro Palma, 2015. "Technology invention and diffusion in residential energy consumption. A stochastic frontier approach," IEFE Working Papers 81, IEFE, Center for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    4. Efecan, Volkan & Temiz, İzzettin, 2023. "Assessing the technical efficiency of container ports based on a non-monotonic inefficiency effects model," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    5. Antti Saastamoinen, 2015. "Heteroscedasticity Or Production Risk? A Synthetic View," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 459-478, July.
    6. Shamsuzzoha & Makoto Tanaka, 2021. "The role of human capital on the performance of manufacturing firms in Bangladesh," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(1), pages 21-33, January.
    7. Ali M. Oumer & Amin Mugera & Michael Burton & Atakelty Hailu, 2022. "Technical efficiency and firm heterogeneity in stochastic frontier models: application to smallholder maize farms in Ethiopia," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 213-241, April.
    8. Cheol-Keun Cho & Peter Schmidt, 2020. "The wrong skew problem in stochastic frontier models when inefficiency depends on environmental variables," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2031-2047, May.
    9. Victor Moutinho & Mara Madaleno, 2021. "Assessing Eco-Efficiency in Asian and African Countries Using Stochastic Frontier Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Dhehibi, Boubaker & Lachaal, Lassaad & Elloumi, Mohamed & Messaoud, Emna B., 2007. "Measurement and Sources of Technical Inefficiency in the Tunisian Citrus Growing Sector," 103rd Seminar, April 23-25, 2007, Barcelona, Spain 9391, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Subal C. Kumbhakar & Christopher F. Parmeter & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2022. "Stochastic Frontier Analysis: Foundations and Advances I," Springer Books, in: Subhash C. Ray & Robert G. Chambers & Subal C. Kumbhakar (ed.), Handbook of Production Economics, chapter 8, pages 331-370, Springer.
    12. Coelli, Tim J. & Battese, George E., 1996. "Identification Of Factors Which Influence The Technical Inefficiency Of Indian Farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 1-26, August.
    13. Federica VIGANO & Andrea SALUSTRI, 2015. "Matching profit and Non-profit Needs: How NPOs and Cooperative Contribute to Growth in Time of Crisis. A Quantitative Approach," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(1), pages 157-178, March.
    14. Rahman, Sanzidur, 2003. "Profit efficiency among Bangladeshi rice farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 487-503.
    15. Tran, Kien C. & Tsionas, Efthymios G., 2009. "Estimation of nonparametric inefficiency effects stochastic frontier models with an application to British manufacturing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 904-909, September.
    16. Abdul-Salam, Yakubu & Phimister, Euan, 2015. "Efficiency Effects of Access to Information on Small Scale Agriculture: Empirical Evidence from Uganda," 89th Annual Conference, April 13-15, 2015, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 204302, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Keller, Michael, 2020. "Wasted windfalls: Inefficiencies in health care spending in oil rich countries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    18. Martin Falk & Eva Hagsten, 2019. "Climate zone crucial for efficiency of ski lift operators," Current Issues in Tourism, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(6), pages 664-681, April.
    19. Dimitris Christopoulos & Margarita Genius & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2021. "Farm and non-farm labor decisions and household efficiency," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 15-31, August.
    20. Sergio Destefanis & Raquel Fonseca, 2006. "Labour-Market Reforms and the Beveridge Curve. Some Macro Evidence for Italy," CSEF Working Papers 168, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; International Development; Productivity Analysis;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea15:205288. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.