IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jafrec/v26y2017i3p342-371..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Variable Returns to Fertiliser Use and the Geography of Poverty: Experimental and Simulation Evidence from Malawi

Author

Listed:
  • Aurélie P. Harou
  • Yanyan Liu
  • Christopher B. Barrett
  • Liangzhi You

Abstract

We use large-scale, panel experimental data from maize field trials throughout Malawi to estimate the expected biophysical returns to fertiliser use conditional on a range of agronomic factors and weather conditions. Using these estimated returns and historical price and weather data, we simulate the expected profitability of fertiliser application over space and time. We find that the fertiliser bundles distributed under Malawi's subsidy programme are almost always profitable for improved hybrid seeds at retail and farmer-reported maize and fertiliser prices. Our results on the profitability of fertiliser under Malawi's subsidy programme are robust to a tripling of fertiliser prices, to a 50% decrease in the maize price and to drought conditions. We also correlate the estimated expected returns to fertiliser use with geographically disaggregated estimates of headcount poverty rates. We find a very weak positive correlation between poverty and the expected returns to fertiliser, which calls into question whether fertiliser subsidies are spatially distributionally progressive in helping to reduce poverty among Malawian farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Aurélie P. Harou & Yanyan Liu & Christopher B. Barrett & Liangzhi You, 2017. "Variable Returns to Fertiliser Use and the Geography of Poverty: Experimental and Simulation Evidence from Malawi," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 26(3), pages 342-371.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jafrec:v:26:y:2017:i:3:p:342-371.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jae/ejx002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bethuel Kinyanjui Kinuthia, 2020. "Agricultural input subsidy and farmers outcomes in Tanzania," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2020-149, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Narayanan, Sudha, 2021. "Food security from free collection of foods: Evidence from India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Sebastian Palmas & Jordan Chamberlin, 2020. "Fertilizer profitability for smallholder maize farmers in Tanzania: A spatially-explicit ex ante analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Malacarne, J.G. & Paul, L.A., 2022. "Do the benefits of improved management practices to nutritional outcomes “dry up” in the presence of drought? Evidence from East Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    5. Burke, William J. & Jayne, Thom S. & Snapp, Sieglinde S., 2022. "Nitrogen efficiency by soil quality and management regimes on Malawi farms: Can fertilizer use remain profitable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    6. Harou, Aurélie P. & Madajewicz, Malgosia & Michelson, Hope & Palm, Cheryl A. & Amuri, Nyambilila & Magomba, Christopher & Semoka, Johnson M. & Tschirhart, Kevin & Weil, Ray, 2022. "The joint effects of information and financing constraints on technology adoption: Evidence from a field experiment in rural Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    7. Kibrom A. Abay, 2020. "Measurement errors in agricultural data and their implications on marginal returns to modern agricultural inputs," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 323-341, May.
    8. Mwale, Martin Limbikani & Fintel, Dieter von & Marchetta, Francesca & Smith, Anja & Kamninga, Tony Mwenda, 2021. "The Negative Impact of Farm Input Subsidies on Women's Agency in Malawi's Matrilocal Settlements," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315041, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Ruth Hill & Carolina Mejia-Mantilla & Kathryn Vasilaky, 2021. "Is the Price Right? Returns to Input Adoption in Uganda," Working Papers 2105, California Polytechnic State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Narayanan, Sudha & Das, Upasak & Liu, Yanyan & Barrett, Christopher B., 2017. "The “Discouraged Worker Effect” in Public Works Programs: Evidence from the MGNREGA in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 31-44.
    11. Kopper, Sarah A. & Jayne, Thomas S. & Snapp, Sieglinde S., 2020. "Sifting through the weeds: Understanding heterogeneity in fertilizer and labor response in Central Malawi," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Mugizi, Francisco M.P. & Matsumoto, Tomoya, 2021. "A curse or a blessing? Population pressure and soil quality in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from rural Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    13. Kibrom A. Abay & Mehari H. Abay & Mulubrhan Amare & Guush Berhane & Ermias Aynekulu, 2022. "Mismatch between soil nutrient deficiencies and fertilizer applications: Implications for yield responses in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 215-230, March.
    14. Berazneva, Julia & Maertens, Annemie & Mhango, Wezi & Michelson, Hope, 2023. "Paying for agricultural information in Malawi: The role of soil heterogeneity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    15. David B Lobell & George Azzari & Marshall Burke & Sydney Gourlay & Zhenong Jin & Talip Kilic & Siobhan Murray, 2020. "Eyes in the Sky, Boots on the Ground: Assessing Satellite‐ and Ground‐Based Approaches to Crop Yield Measurement and Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 202-219, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fertiliser; subsidy; Malawi; poverty mapping;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:oup:jafrec:v:26:y:2017:i:3:p:342-371.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csaoxuk.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.