Simulating the Impacts of Rural Social Cash Transfers and Farmer's Subsidies in Malawi and Ghana
A considerable body of experimental economics research examines the impacts of cash transfer programmes. In many developing countries, though, cash transfers are relatively minor compared to other transfer mechanisms in terms of their claim on public resources. In Malawi, fertilizer subsidies dwarf cash transfers, while next door in Zambia, the government pays farmers prices well above market levels for their maize. Yet no study to our knowledge has attempted to compare the full impact of social cash transfers and other kinds of transfers on rural incomes and welfare in low-income countries. (?)
A simulation impact evaluation of rural income transfers in Malawi and Ghana
We use a disaggregated rural economy-wide modelling framework to simulate and compare the impacts of an input subsidy, cash transfer, and output price support on production and welfare in rural Malawi and Ghana. Household groups in the models are defined by their eligibility for current transfers. Simulations are calibrated to official government spending. No intervention appears as unequivocally superior. The impacts and efficiency of each transfer mechanism are shaped by the structure of the economy, market conditions, and programme design.
Operational details of the 2008 fertilizer subsidy in Ghana: Preliminary report
"In July 2008, the government of Ghana instituted a country-wide subsidy on 50Kg bags of four types of fertilizer in an effort to mitigate the effect of rising energy and food prices. Farmers received the subsidy in the form of fertilizer- and region-specific vouchers distributed by agricultural extension agents. This descriptive report details the operational design of the subsidy program and offers preliminary observations of its implementation. The fertilizer subsidy was a unique example of a public-private partnership in which thegovernment consulted heavily with fertilizer importers in the design stage and relied exclusively on the existing private distribution system to deliver fertilizer to farmers. While this structure offers clear benefits, initial observations suggest scope for improvement in both the system design and implementation. Poor timing, shortage of fertilizer and a small network of fertilizer retailers participating in the program prevented fertilizer use from increasing as much as was possible within the program budget and may have disadvantaged smaller retailers. Amidst such constraints, less than 50 percent of the vouchers country-wide had been redeemed by the end of the planting seasons." from text