IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

To target or not to target? The costs, benefits, and impacts of indicator-based targeting

Listed author(s):
  • Houssou, Nazaire
  • Zeller, Manfred

This paper assesses the cost-effectiveness of indicator-based targeting. Using household survey data from Malawi, we examine whether an indicator-based system is more target and cost-efficient in reaching the poor than universal systems and the currently used mechanisms for targeting agricultural subsidies in the country. Estimation results suggest that targeting Malawi's poor and smallholder farmers with indicator-based systems may be worth the extra effort and may improve program targeting and cost efficiency. Even though under the proposed system administrative costs increase, simulation results indicate that it does not make a targeted program cost-ineffective. More importantly, the proposed system appears to be more target and cost-efficient than the 2000/2001 Targeted Input Program (TIP) and the 2006/2007 Agricultural Input Support Program (AISP), both of which were administered through community-based targeting systems. While TIP and AISP transferred about 50% of total transfer, under the proposed system, about 73% of transfers are delivered to the poor and smallholder farmers. Additionally, the costs of leakage to the non-poor are cut by more than 50% under the proposed system. We conclude from the above findings that the newly proposed system can potentially improve the targeting and cost efficiency of Malawi's development programs. However, such improvements depend on actual implementation of targeted programs, a critical issue that should not be set aside.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Food Policy.

Volume (Year): 36 (2011)
Issue (Month): 5 (October)
Pages: 626-636

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:36:y:2011:i:5:p:626-636
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:36:y:2011:i:5:p:626-636. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.