IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v44y2026i1ne70057.html

Digital innovations and institutional barriers in agricultural input subsidy programmes in sub‐Saharan Africa: Evidence from Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Ayobami Adetoyinbo
  • Saurabh Gupta
  • Victor Okoruwa

Abstract

Motivation: Agricultural input subsidy programmes are crucial for improving agricultural productivity in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA). However, there is little empirical evidence on how second‐generation input subsidy programmes (SISPs) based on information and communication technology (ICT) are implemented and the institutional challenges that undermine their effectiveness. Purpose: This article assesses the implementation of ICT‐based SISPs and their challenges in SSA using the Nigerian e‐wallet input subsidy programme as a case study. We draw on a conceptual framework that integrates the national innovation system (NIS), contingency theory, and new institutional economics. Approach and methods: We analysed expert interviews and participatory qualitative data from Process Net‐Maps and focus group discussions (FGDs) using content and Process Net‐Map analyses. Findings: The results show that over 20 public, private and community actors were involved in implementing the e‐wallet SISP across five stages. The programme increased private‐sector participation, reduced corruption, improved recipient targeting, and speeded up input delivery compared to first‐generation input programmes. However, weak institutional arrangements (such as poor funding, restricted institutional collaborations, and stakeholder capability gaps) undermined the innovation aspect of the e‐wallet SISP. The programme also faced five main challenges: policy inconsistency, poor information flow and weak reporting, moral hazards such as “round‐tripping,” input leakage and diversion, and elite capture. The study concludes that institutional constraints, rigid organizational structures, and a narrow focus on solving first‐generation programme challenges limited the ability of actors to adapt to new and evolving challenges. Policy implications: Effective SISPs and input policies require supportive institutional environments that allow actors from all sectors to function effectively. Programmes should thus be designed and managed with flexible and organic structures that foster collaboration among private, public, and community stakeholders. Continuous, stage‐specific evaluations and smart governance tools, such as real‐time mobile data collection and buy‐back initiatives, can strengthen monitoring, input tracking, accountability, and input use incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayobami Adetoyinbo & Saurabh Gupta & Victor Okoruwa, 2026. "Digital innovations and institutional barriers in agricultural input subsidy programmes in sub‐Saharan Africa: Evidence from Nigeria," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 44(1), January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:44:y:2026:i:1:n:e70057
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.70057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.70057
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.70057?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. 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. Stein T. Holden, 2019. "Economics of Farm Input Subsidies in Africa," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 501-522, October.
    3. Adu-Gyamfi Poku & Regina Birner & Saurabh Gupta, 2018. "Why do maize farmers in Ghana have a limited choice of improved seed varieties? An assessment of the governance challenges in seed supply," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(1), pages 27-46, February.
    4. Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 1999. "National Business Systems and National Systems of Innovation," International Studies of Management & Organization, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 60-77, June.
    5. Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool-Tasie & Hiroyuki Takeshima, 2013. "Input promotion within a complex subsector: fertilizer in Nigeria," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 581-594, November.
    6. Sonja Marjanovic & Rebecca Hanlin & Stephanie Diepeveen & Joanna Chataway, 2013. "Research Capacity‐Building In Africa: Networks, Institutions And Local Ownership," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(7), pages 936-946, October.
    7. Chirwa, Ephraim & Dorward, Andrew, 2013. "Agricultural Input Subsidies: The Recent Malawi Experience," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199683529.
    8. Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 2007. "National Innovation Systems—Analytical Concept and Development Tool," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 95-119.
    9. Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Omonona, Bolarin T. & Sanou, Awa & Ogunleye, Wale O., 2017. "Is increasing inorganic fertilizer use for maize production in SSA a profitable proposition? Evidence from Nigeria," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 41-51.
    10. Pan, Lei & Christiaensen, Luc, 2012. "Who is Vouching for the Input Voucher? Decentralized Targeting and Elite Capture in Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1619-1633.
    11. T.S. Jayne & David Mather & Nicole Mason & Jacob Ricker-Gilbert, 2013. "How do fertilizer subsidy programs affect total fertilizer use in sub-Saharan Africa? Crowding out, diversion, and benefit/cost assessments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 687-703, November.
    12. Takeshima, Hiroyuki & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O., 2015. "Fertilizer subsidies, political influence and local food prices in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Nigeria," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 11-24.
    13. Pekka Stenholm & Zoltán J. Ács & Robert Wuebker, 2015. "Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 20, pages 387-404, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Marito Garcia & Charity M. T. Moore, 2012. "The Cash Dividend : The Rise of Cash Transfer Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2246, April.
    15. Mason, Nicole M. & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob, 2013. "Disrupting Demand for Commercial Seed: Input Subsidies in Malawi and Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 75-91.
    16. Adu-Baffour, Ferdinand & Daum, Thomas & Birner, Regina, 2021. "Governance challenges of small-scale gold mining in Ghana: Insights from a process net-map study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    17. Hambulo Ngoma & Henry Machina & Auckland N. Kuteya, 2021. "Can agricultural subsidies reduce gendered productivity gaps? Panel data evidence from Zambia," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(2), pages 303-323, March.
    18. Nicole M. Mason & T.S. Jayne & Rhoda Mofya-Mukuka, 2013. "Zambia's input subsidy programs," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 613-628, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fujimoto, Takefumi & Suzuki, Aya, 2021. "Do Fertilizer and Seed Subsidies Strengthen Farmers' Market Participation? the Impact of Tanzania NAIVS on Farmers' Purchase of Agricultural Inputs and Their Maize-Selling Activities," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315044, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Jayne, T.S. & Mason, Nicole M. & Burke, William J. & Ariga, Joshua, "undated". "Agricultural Input Subsidy Programs In Africa: An Assessment Of Recent Evidence," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 259509, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    3. 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.
    4. Ricome, Aymeric & Barreiro-Hurle, Jesus & Sadibou Fall, Cheickh, 2024. "Government fertilizer subsidies, input use, and income: The case of Senegal," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    5. Yoko Kijima, 2022. "Effect of Nigeria’s e-voucher input subsidy program on fertilizer use, rice production, and household income," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(4), pages 919-935, August.
    6. Matita, Mirriam & Chiwaula, Levison & Wadonda Chirwa, Ephraim & Mazalale, Jacob & Walls, Helen, 2022. "Subsidizing improved legume seeds for increased household dietary diversity: Evidence from Malawi’s Farm Input Subsidy Programme with implications for addressing malnutrition in all its forms," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    7. Takefumi Fujimoto & Aya Suzuki, 2024. "Do fertilizer and seed subsidies strengthen farmers' market participation? Evidence from Tanzania's subsidy program," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 339-359, February.
    8. Jongwoo Kim & Nicole M. Mason & David Mather & Felicia Wu, 2021. "The effects of the national agricultural input voucher scheme (NAIVS) on sustainable intensification of maize production in Tanzania," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 857-877, September.
    9. Holden, Stein T., 2018. "The Economics of Fertilizer Subsidies," CLTS Working Papers 9/18, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    10. Smits, Esther & Kuijpers, Rob & Miteng, Justin Amos & Deng Chol, David & Mono, Turo Thomas & Francesconi, Nicola, 2024. "Is seed aid distribution still justified in South Sudan?," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    11. Nicole M. Mason & Thomas S. Jayne & Nicolas van de Walle, 2017. "The Political Economy of Fertilizer Subsidy Programs in Africa: Evidence from Zambia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 705-731.
    12. Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool-Tasie, 2017. "Is fertiliser use inconsistent with expected profit maximization in sub-Saharan Africa? “Evidence from Nigeria”," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 22-44, February.
    13. Mason, Nicole & Tembo, Solomon, 2015. "Do Input Subsidies Reduce Poverty among Smallholder Farm Households? Panel Survey Evidence from Zambia," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212448, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. 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.
    15. Mason, Nicole M. & Tembo, Solomon T., "undated". "Do input subsidies reduce poverty among smallholder farm households? Evidence from Zambia," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170617, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Houssou, Nazaire & Andam, Kwaw S. & Asante-Addo, Collins, 2017. "Can better targeting improve the effectiveness of Ghana's Fertilizer Subsidy Program? Lessons from Ghana and other countries in Africa south of the Sahara," IFPRI discussion papers 1605, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Mogues, Tewodaj & Erman, Alvina, 2016. "Institutional arrangements to make public spending responsive to the poor—(where) have they worked? Review of the evidence on four major intervention types," IFPRI discussion papers 1519, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Mwale, Martin Limbikani, 2022. "Unintended consequences of farm input subsidies: women’s contraceptive usage and knock-on effects on children," MPRA Paper 112689, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Wossen, Tesfamicheal & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Alene, Arega & Feleke, Shiferaw & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob & Manyong, Victor & Awotide, Bola Amoke, 2017. "Productivity and Welfare Effects of Nigeria's e-Voucher-Based Input Subsidy Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 251-265.
    20. Mason, Nicole M. & Tembo, Solomon T., 2015. "Do Input Subsidy Programs Raise Incomes and Reduce Poverty among Smallholder Farm Households? Evidence from Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 198702, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    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:bla:devpol:v:44:y:2026:i:1:n:e70057. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.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.