IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/1231.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Did using input vouchers improve the distribution of subsidized fertilizer in Nigeria?: The case of Kano and Taraba states

Author

Listed:
  • Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda

Abstract

Though input vouchers are increasingly being used as a mechanism to target subsidies in developing countries, limited empirical evidence of their performance relative to other distribution mechanisms exist. Consequently this study contributes to this scarce literature by comparing an input voucher program piloted in Nigeria in 2009 to the previous government led distribution mechanism. Input purchase experiences are compared when subsidized fertilizer was distributed through a voucher program or by the government. Using propensity score matching techniques, the study finds that voucher program participants received more bags of subsidized fertilizer than nonparticipants and paid a price significantly lower than the market price. However, they received their fertilizer later than nonparticipants and where significant had more underweight bags than nonparticipants. Given the costs associated with voucher programs, this study demonstrates when the distribution of subsidized fertilizer via vouchers improved farmers’ timely access to good and more affordable fertilizer.

Suggested Citation

  • Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda, 2012. "Did using input vouchers improve the distribution of subsidized fertilizer in Nigeria?: The case of Kano and Taraba states," IFPRI discussion papers 1231, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:1231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01231.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Banful, Afua B. & Nkonya, Ephraim & Oboh, Victor, 2010. "Constraints to fertilizer use in Nigeria," IFPRI discussion papers 1010, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Carolyn Heinrich & Alessandro Maffioli & Gonzalo Vázquez, 2010. "A Primer for Applying Propensity-Score Matching," SPD Working Papers 1005, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Strategic Planning and Development Effectiveness (SPD).
    3. Becker, Sascha O. & Caliendo, Marco, 2007. "mhbounds – Sensitivity Analysis for Average Treatment Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 2542, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    4. Banful, Afua Branoah, 2011. "Old Problems in the New Solutions? Politically Motivated Allocation of Program Benefits and the "New" Fertilizer Subsidies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 1166-1176, July.
    5. Liverpool-Tasie, Saweda L.O. & Banful, Afua Branoah & Olaniyan, Babatunde, 2010. "Assessment of the 2009 fertilizer voucher program in Kano and Taraba, Nigeria:," NSSP working papers 17, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Michael Morris & Valerie A. Kelly & Ron J. Kopicki & Derek Byerlee, 2007. "Fertilizer Use in African Agriculture : Lessons Learned and Good Practice Guidelines," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 6650.
    7. Minot, Nicholas & Benson, Todd, 2009. "Fertilizer subsidies in Africa: Are vouchers the answer?," Issue briefs 60, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Jacob Ricker-Gilbert & Thomas S. Jayne & Ephraim Chirwa, 2010. "Subsidies and Crowding Out: A Double-Hurdle Model of Fertilizer Demand in Malawi," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(1), pages 26-42.
    9. Sascha O. Becker & Marco Caliendo, 2007. "Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(1), pages 71-83, February.
    10. Zhiying Xu & William J. Burke & Thomas S. Jayne & Jones Govereh, 2009. "Do input subsidy programs "crowd in" or "crowd out" commercial market development? Modeling fertilizer demand in a two-channel marketing system," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(1), pages 79-94, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:fpr:ifprid:1231. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    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.