555
official estimates were 3.44 million Mg, of which 300,000–600,000 Mg was an
incremental production due to the subsidy program (Arndt et al. 2015; Dorward
and Chirwa 2011). Overall maize yield increased by 2.6 times between 2005 and
2007 because of subsidies (Sanchez 2015). Denning et al. (2009) further reported
that Malawi moved from 43% national food deficit in 2005 to 53% food surplus in
2007. The positive impact continued in later years as Dorward and Chirwa (2011)
reported an increase in FISP-related maize production from 406,348 Mg in 2006 to
968,900 Mg in 2008–2009. Production estimates for years 2009–2010 to
2015–2016 (Fig. 2) were well above 3 million Mg, except for the drought years of
2014–2015 and 2015–2016.
At the household level, some studies support the macro-level statistics of positive
impact of subsidized inorganic fertilizer on maize production and yields, while
some authors contradict it. Holden and Lunduka (2010) used three waves of panel
data from six districts in Central and Southern Malawi and reported a positive and
significant impact of FISP on maize production and productivity. Using 6 years of
panel data, Ricker-Gilbert and Jayne (2011) found that an additional kilogram of
subsidized fertilizer in the current year and past three seasons increases maize yield
by 1.82 and 3.16 kg, respectively. With reference to the standard package of FISP of
100 kg fertilizer, these figures suggest an incremental maize production due to FISP
of 182 and 316 kg. The positive impact of past receipt of subsidized fertilizer could
be because subsidized fertilizer gives farmers a learning experience on the importance of inorganic fertilizer, so that they may continue using the input in subsequent
years. Another possible reason is that FISP generates enough income that enables
farmers to invest in other yield-enhancing technologies (Lunduka et al. 2013).
In another study, Ricker-Gilbert and Jayne (2012) found that an additional kilogram
of subsidized fertilizer contributes 2.43 kg of maize for an average farmer, and 2.61 and
0.75 kg for households at the 75% and 10% percentile of maize production, respectively. This suggests that better-off households benefit more from FISP as opposed to
poor households. The possible explanation is that fertilizer response is very low on
plots for poor households than for rich households. This result, however, raises questions on the program’s ability to generate substantial gains in maize production among
the poor. This further threatens the capacity of FISP to reduce the productivity and
poverty gap between the poor and the rich. Another possible reason is that poor households are less likely (than better- off households) to receive subsidy coupons due to
targeting errors and corruption in the program (Holden and Lunduka 2013).
Evaluating the 2012–2013 FISP, Dorward et al. (2013) found that access to a full
subsidy pack (two 50-kg bags) gives an incremental benefit of at least 500 kg of
maize, while a 50-kg fertilizer access increases maize production by 200–400 kg. In
Kasungu and Machinga districts, Chibwana et al. (2014) reported a maize yield
increase of 477 kg/ha by seed and fertilizer subsidy beneficiaries, while it was
249 kg/ha for fertilizer subsidy beneficiaries only. Using data from the Third
Integrated Household Survey (IHS3), Karamba and Winters (2015) reported a modest increase in gross output value of 17%/ha due to FISP among male and female
farmers. The results, however, failed to establish the significant impact of FISP on
reducing the gender productivity gap between female and male farmers. The modest
Impact of Farm Input Subsidies Vis-à-Vis Climate-Smart Technologies on Maize…
official estimates were 3.44 million Mg, of which 300,000–600,000 Mg was an
incremental production due to the subsidy program (Arndt et al. 2015; Dorward
and Chirwa 2011). Overall maize yield increased by 2.6 times between 2005 and
2007 because of subsidies (Sanchez 2015). Denning et al. (2009) further reported
that Malawi moved from 43% national food deficit in 2005 to 53% food surplus in
2007. The positive impact continued in later years as Dorward and Chirwa (2011)
reported an increase in FISP-related maize production from 406,348 Mg in 2006 to
968,900 Mg in 2008–2009. Production estimates for years 2009–2010 to
2015–2016 (Fig. 2) were well above 3 million Mg, except for the drought years of
2014–2015 and 2015–2016.
At the household level, some studies support the macro-level statistics of positive
impact of subsidized inorganic fertilizer on maize production and yields, while
some authors contradict it. Holden and Lunduka (2010) used three waves of panel
data from six districts in Central and Southern Malawi and reported a positive and
significant impact of FISP on maize production and productivity. Using 6 years of
panel data, Ricker-Gilbert and Jayne (2011) found that an additional kilogram of
subsidized fertilizer in the current year and past three seasons increases maize yield
by 1.82 and 3.16 kg, respectively. With reference to the standard package of FISP of
100 kg fertilizer, these figures suggest an incremental maize production due to FISP
of 182 and 316 kg. The positive impact of past receipt of subsidized fertilizer could
be because subsidized fertilizer gives farmers a learning experience on the importance of inorganic fertilizer, so that they may continue using the input in subsequent
years. Another possible reason is that FISP generates enough income that enables
farmers to invest in other yield-enhancing technologies (Lunduka et al. 2013).
In another study, Ricker-Gilbert and Jayne (2012) found that an additional kilogram
of subsidized fertilizer contributes 2.43 kg of maize for an average farmer, and 2.61 and
0.75 kg for households at the 75% and 10% percentile of maize production, respectively. This suggests that better-off households benefit more from FISP as opposed to
poor households. The possible explanation is that fertilizer response is very low on
plots for poor households than for rich households. This result, however, raises questions on the program’s ability to generate substantial gains in maize production among
the poor. This further threatens the capacity of FISP to reduce the productivity and
poverty gap between the poor and the rich. Another possible reason is that poor households are less likely (than better- off households) to receive subsidy coupons due to
targeting errors and corruption in the program (Holden and Lunduka 2013).
Evaluating the 2012–2013 FISP, Dorward et al. (2013) found that access to a full
subsidy pack (two 50-kg bags) gives an incremental benefit of at least 500 kg of
maize, while a 50-kg fertilizer access increases maize production by 200–400 kg. In
Kasungu and Machinga districts, Chibwana et al. (2014) reported a maize yield
increase of 477 kg/ha by seed and fertilizer subsidy beneficiaries, while it was
249 kg/ha for fertilizer subsidy beneficiaries only. Using data from the Third
Integrated Household Survey (IHS3), Karamba and Winters (2015) reported a modest increase in gross output value of 17%/ha due to FISP among male and female
farmers. The results, however, failed to establish the significant impact of FISP on
reducing the gender productivity gap between female and male farmers. The modest
Impact of Farm Input Subsidies Vis-à-Vis Climate-Smart Technologies on Maize…