IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i14p3952-d250113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Household Welfare Implications of Better Fertilizer Access and Lower Use Inefficiency: Long-Term Scenarios for Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Ermias Engida Legesse

    () (Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 21, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Amit Kumar Srivastava

    () (Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn, Katzenburgweg 5, D-53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Arnim Kuhn

    () (Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 21, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Thomas Gaiser

    () (Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn, Katzenburgweg 5, D-53115 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

High population growth in Ethiopia is aggravating farmland scarcity, as the agrarian share of the population stays persistently high, and also creates increasing demand for food and non-food biomass. Based on this fact, this study investigates welfare implications of intensification measures like interventions that improve access and use efficiency to modern farming inputs. Using a dynamic meso-economic modeling framework for Ethiopia, ex-ante scenarios that simulate a) decreased costs of fertilizer use and b) elevated efficiency of fertilizer application for all crops are run for a period of 20 years. Fertilizer-yield response functions are estimated (based on results from an agronomic crop model and actual survey data) and embedded into the economic model in order to get realistic marginal returns to fertilizer application. This is our novel methodological contribution in which we introduce how to calculate input use inefficiency based on attainable yield levels from agronomic crop model and actual yield levels. Simultaneous implementation of these interventions lead to annual yield increases of 8.7 percent for an average crop farmer compared to the current level. Increased fertilizer application is also found to be profitable for an average farmer despite price reduction for crops following increased market supply. As a result of price and income effects of the interventions, all household types exhibit welfare gain. Non-farming households, being net consumers, enjoy lower costs of living. Rural farming households enjoy even higher welfare gain than non-farming households because they consume a higher share from crop commodities that become cheaper, and because their farming profits increase.

Suggested Citation

  • Ermias Engida Legesse & Amit Kumar Srivastava & Arnim Kuhn & Thomas Gaiser, 2019. "Household Welfare Implications of Better Fertilizer Access and Lower Use Inefficiency: Long-Term Scenarios for Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(14), pages 1-24, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3952-:d:250113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3952/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3952/
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2008. "How High Are Rates of Return to Fertilizer? Evidence from Field Experiments in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 482-488, May.
    2. Yu, Bingxin & Nin-Pratt, Alejandro & Funes, José & Gemessa, Sinafikeh Asrat, 2011. "Cereal production and technology adoption in Ethiopia:," IFPRI discussion papers 1131, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Bold, Tessa & Kaizzi, Kayuki & Svensson, Jakob & Yanagizawa-Drott, David, 2015. "Low Quality, Low Returns, Low Adoption: Evidence from the Market for Fertilizer and Hybrid Seed in Uganda," CEPR Discussion Papers 10743, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Jaleta, Moti & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele, 2013. "Tradeoffs in crop residue utilization in mixed crop–livestock systems and implications for conservation agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 96-105.
    5. Caria, A. Stefano & Tamru, Seneshaw & Bizuneh, Gera, 2011. "Food security without food transfers?: A CGE analysis for Ethiopia of the different food security impacts of fertilizer subsidies and locally sourced food transfers," ESSP working papers 29, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Gaiser, Thomas & Perkons, Ute & Küpper, Paul Martin & Kautz, Timo & Uteau-Puschmann, Daniel & Ewert, Frank & Enders, Andreas & Krauss, Gunther, 2013. "Modeling biopore effects on root growth and biomass production on soils with pronounced sub-soil clay accumulation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 256(C), pages 6-15.
    7. Caria, A. Stefano & Tamru, Seneshaw & Bizuneh, Gera, 2011. "Food security without food transfers?: A CGE analysis for Ethiopia of the different food security impacts of fertilizer subsidies and locally sourced food transfers," IFPRI discussion papers 1106, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Channing Arndt & Karl Pauw & James Thurlow, 2016. "The Economy-wide Impacts and Risks of Malawi's Farm Input Subsidy Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 962-980.
    9. Bart Minten & Bethlehem Koru & David Stifel, 2013. "The last mile(s) in modern input distribution: Pricing, profitability, and adoption," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 629-646, November.
    10. Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele & Muricho, Geoffrey, 2011. "Agricultural Technology, Crop Income, and Poverty Alleviation in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1784-1795.
    11. Spielman, David J. & Mekonnen, Dawit Kelemework & Alemu, Dawit, 2012. "Seed, fertilizer, and agricultural extension in Ethiopia," IFPRI book chapters, in: Dorosh, Paul A. & Rashid, Shahidur (ed.), Food and agriculture in Ethiopia: Progress and policy challenges, chapter 4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Engida, Ermias & Tamru, Seneshaw & Tsehaye, Eyasu & Debowicz, Dario & Dorosh, Paul A. & Robinson, Sherman, 2011. "Ethiopia’s growth and transformation plan: A computable general equilibrium analysis of alternative financing options," ESSP working papers 30, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Srivastava, Amit Kumar & Mboh, Cho Miltin & Gaiser, Thomas & Kuhn, Arnim & Ermias, Engida & Ewert, Frank, 2019. "Effect of mineral fertilizer on rain water and radiation use efficiencies for maize yield and stover biomass productivity in Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 88-100.
    14. Jayne, T.S. & Chamberlin, Jordan & Headey, Derek D., 2014. "Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in Africa: A synthesis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-17.
    15. Becerril, Javier & Abdulai, Awudu, 2010. "The Impact of Improved Maize Varieties on Poverty in Mexico: A Propensity Score-Matching Approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1024-1035, July.
    16. Minten, Bart & Barrett, Christopher B., 2008. "Agricultural Technology, Productivity, and Poverty in Madagascar," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 797-822, May.
    17. Verkaart, Simone & Munyua, Bernard G. & Mausch, Kai & Michler, Jeffrey D., 2017. "Welfare impacts of improved chickpea adoption: A pathway for rural development in Ethiopia?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 50-61.
    18. Martins, Pedro, 2014. "Structural change in Ethiopia : an employment perspective," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6749, The World Bank.
    19. Zerfu, Daniel & Larson, Donald F., 2010. "Incomplete markets and fertilizer use : evidence from Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5235, The World Bank.
    20. Demeke, Mulat & Kelly, Valerie A. & Jayne, Thomas S. & Said, Ali & Le Vallee, Jean-Charles & Chen, H., 1998. "Agricultural Market Performance and Determinants of Fertilizer Use in Ethiopia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 55599, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    CGE; fertilizer-yield-response; productivity; welfare; Ethiopia;

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3952-:d:250113. 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: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.