Skip to main content

Fertilizer subsidies and the role of targeting in crowding out: evidence from Kenya

Abstract

The impact of input subsidy programs depends on the extent to which they increase fertilizer use. We used panel data of smallholder farm households from Kenya to analyse the targeting criteria of two fertilizer subsidy programs in Kenya and how these targeting criteria affected farmers’ commercial demand for fertilizer and total fertilizer use. We found that every kilogram of subsidized fertilizer allocated to farmers reduced the quantity of commercial fertilizer purchased by 0.40 kg, a crowding-out effect that is double those found recently in Malawi and Zambia. The large magnitude of crowding out is driven by the fact that neither subsidy program focused on reaching households that had not previously been purchasing commercial fertilizer. There is little evidence that these programs systematically focused on relatively poor households either. The programs crowded out commercial fertilizer use most severely in medium/high potential zones (relative to low), and among households in the upper half of landholding/asset distributions (relative to the lower half). Different targeting criteria could substantially increase the contribution of these subsidy programs to total fertilizer use and hence to national food production and food security.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    This quantity of fertilizer and seed was intended to match the general fertilizer and seed application rates recommended for planting one acre of maize.

  2. 2.

    The authors thank Dr. Eric Kramon for sharing these data on electoral results with us. Eric is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, George Washington University, USA. While we note that the official electoral results of this election were disputed, these data are nevertheless the best available for our purposes in this paper.

  3. 3.

    As noted by Mason and Jayne (2013), in the event that there is significant illegal diversion by government officials of either vouchers or subsidized fertilizer away from intended villages or depots, then the actual magnitude of effects of household receipt of subsidized fertilizer in displacing commercial fertilizer demand may actually be higher than those estimated by our method here. We do not attempt to estimate the effect of diversion or leakage on the average crowding in or out estimate for these two programs in Kenya because unlike in the cases of Zambia (Mason and Jayne 2013) or Malawi (Holden and Lunduka 2013; Lunduka et al. 2013), Kenya does not have a population-based representative household survey with which one can estimate whether or not diversion has occurred and its magnitude, nor are we aware of anecdotal evidence of significant illegal diversion of government subsidized fertilizer into Kenya’s commercial fertilizer supply chain.

  4. 4.

    Binary soil group indicators are based on four of the six general soil-types found in the villages covered by the Tegemeo surveys, as categorized by Sheahan et al. (2013).

  5. 5.

    Expected main season rainfall computed as a 10-year moving average of cumulative rainfall during the main season period for each zone; expected main season rainfall shock is the fraction of 20-day periods during the main season during which cumulative rainfall (during those 20 days) is <40 mm.

  6. 6.

    Farm asset value includes the value of all livestock, farm equipment, radios, etc., as reported by households.

  7. 7.

    We add n = 4 cases of receipt of subsidized fertilizer from an NGO in 2009 to those of NAAIAP because, like NAAIAP, the subsidy amount covered by NGOs was 100%, and because one might expect NGOs to target poorer farmers on average (as NAAIAP was intended to do).

  8. 8.

    For each crop, we compute the naïve price expectation using prices from the same months over time.

  9. 9.

    Rainfall variables are derived from rainfall estimates based on data from satellites (such as cloud cover and cloud top temperatures) and rain stations, which are combined to interpolate estimates of decadal (10-day period) rainfall, which can be matched to sample households/villages using global positioning system (GPS) coordinates. Rainfall estimates were matched to GPS coordinates of each village.

  10. 10.

    Generated using spatial coordinates of each village and secondary data on elevation (SRTM (2000)) and the length of growing period from the GAEZ 3.0 database (Fischer et al. 2000), which is measured in terms of the number of days experiencing temperatures >5 °C when moisture conditions are adequate for plant growth.

  11. 11.

    The LR statistic comparing the two models is 3687, the p-value for which is 0.000, which indicates that the Cragg DH model of household commercial fertilizer demand clearly fits our data better than the Tobit in this case.

  12. 12.

    Ricker-Gilbert et al. (2011) noted studies that have relaxed this assumption in the DH model, and which have found that their results are similar whether this assumption is relaxed or maintained (Jones 1992; Garcia and Labeaga 1996). We maintain this assumption as well.

  13. 13.

    See Ricker-Gilbert et al. (2011) for a recent application of this adapted control function approach.

  14. 14.

    Our estimate of the APE of (unconditional) subsidized fertilizer quantity on household commercial fertilizer demand is −0.403 (p = 0.006) as compared to −0.412 (p = 0.007) if we did not use attrition weights.

  15. 15.

    The significance and magnitude of our average displacement result was virtually the same whether we used a balanced or unbalanced panel. This is likely because once we drop n = 28 households that were observed in the first four years but not in 2010 (we dropped these because 2010 was the only year in which subsidized fertilizer was observed), there were only n = 9 households (n = 27 cases) that were observed in 2010 as well as other years (but not for the 4 years we used).

  16. 16.

    We do not use the first wave of the panel because of data limitations for two variables (10-year expected seasonal rainfall (or rainfall shock); 1 = household suffered an adult death in past 3–4 years) that do not enable those to be included for that wave. If we run models (2) and (4) with a balanced or unbalanced panel of 5 years (assuming zero deaths prior to the first wave, and using a 3-year moving average of rainfall and rainfall shock), the significance and magnitude of the displacement effect remains virtually the same (unconditional APE of subsidized fertilizer on commercial fertilizer demand is −0.420 (p = .013)).

  17. 17.

    For example, in the probit, the joint significance of the year dummies is p = 0.062; agro-ecological zone dummies (p-value = 0.000); soil group dummies (p-value = 0.000); prices of non-maize crops (p-value = 0.000).

  18. 18.

    In the second stage of the DH, the joint significance of the year dummies is p = 0.144; agro-ecological zone dummies (p-value = 0.120); soil group dummies (p-value = 0.110); prices of non-maize crops (p-value = 0.401).

References

  1. Argwings-Kodhek, G., Jayne, T., Nyambane, G., Awuor, T. & Yamano, T. (1998). How can micro-level household survey data make a difference for agricultural policy making? Nairobi, Kenya: Egerton University/Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development. Available at: http://www.tegemeo.org/viewdocument.asp?ID=28.

  2. Ariga, J., & Jayne, T.S. (2009). Private sector responses to public investments and policy reforms: the case of fertilizer and maize market development in Kenya. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00921. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.

  3. Ariga, J., & Jayne, T. S. (2011). Fertilizer in Kenya: Factors driving the increase in usage by smallholder farmers. In P. Chuhan-Pole & M. Angwafo (Eds.), Yes, Africa can: Success stories from a dynamic continent. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Banful, A. B. (2011). Old problems in the new solutions? Politically motivated allocation of program benefits and the “new” fertilizer subsidies. World Development, 39(7), 1166–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Braun, H.M.H., & Staff of the Kenya Soil Survey. (1980). Exploratory soil map and agro-climatic zone map of Kenya. Kenya soil survey. Nairobi: Republic of Kenya Ministry of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chamberlain, G. (1984). Panel Data. In Z. Grilliches & M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chang, E. (2005). Electoral incentives for political corruption under open-list proportional systems. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 716–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cragg, J. (1971). Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica, 39(5), 829–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (1995). Quantitative development policy analysis. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. de Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2006). Progress in modeling of rural Household’s behavior under market failures. In A. de Janvry & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty, inequality and development (Vol. 2, pp. 155–181). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Duflo, E., Kremer, M., & Robinson, J. (2011). Nudging farmers to use fertilizer: Theory and experimental evidence from Kenya. American Economic Review, 101(6), 2350–2390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2008). Lifting African and Asian farmers out of poverty: Assessing the investment needs. Research report for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. New York: The Economist Intelligence Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fan, S., Gulati, A., & Thorat, S. (2008). Investment, subsidies, and pro poor growth in rural India. Agricultural Economics, 39(2), 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischer, G., van Velthuizen, H. & Nachtergaele, F.O. (2000). Global agro-ecological zones assessment: methodology and results. Interim Report IR-00-064. International institute for applied systems analysis and the food and agricultural organization of the United Nations. The data are available from: http://geodata.grid.unep.ch/

  15. Garcia, J., & Labeaga, J. M. (1996). Alternative approaches to modeling zero expenditure: An application to Spanish demand for tobacco. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58(3), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goetz, S. J. (1992). A selectivity model of household food marketing behavior in sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(2), 444–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Greene, W. (2004). Fixed effects and bias due to the incidental parameters problem in the Tobit model. Econometric Reviews, 23(2), 125–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Holden, S., & Lunduka, R. (2013). Who benefits from Malawi’s targeted farm input subsidy program? Forum for Development Studies, 40(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jayne, T. S., & Rashid, S. (2013). Input subsidy programs in sub-Saharan Africa: A synthesis of recent evidence. Agricultural Economics, 44(6), 547–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jayne, T. S., Govereh, J., Mwanaumo, A., Nyoro, J. K., & Chapoto, A. (2002). False promise or false premise? The experience of food and input market reform in eastern and southern Africa. World Development, 30(11), 1967–1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jones, A. M. (1992). A note on computation of the double-hurdle model with dependence with an application to tobacco expenditure. Bulletin of Economic Research, 44(1), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liverpool-Tasie, S. (2014). Fertilizer subsidies and private market participation: The case of Kano state, Nigeria. Agricultural Economics, 45, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lunduka, R., Ricker-Gilbert, J., & Fisher, M. (2013). What are the farm-level impacts of Malawi’s farm input subsidy program? A critical review. Agricultural Economics, 44(6), 563–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mason, N. (2011). The effects of the zambian food reserve agency and government fertilizer programs on smallholder farm household fertilizer use and crop production. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation essay, Michigan State University.

  25. Mason, N., & Jayne, T. S. (2013). Fertilizer subsidies and smallholder commercial fertilizer purchases: Crowding out, leakage, and policy implications for Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3), 558–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ministry of Agriculture. (2008). Program Design and Guidelines 2008/09. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ministry of Agriculture. (2010). Progress and way forward for the National Accelerated Agricultural Inputs Access Program (NAAIAP). Nairobi: Government of Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Morris, M., Kelly, V., Kopicki, R., & Byerlee, D. (2007). Fertilizer use in African agriculture: Lessons learned and good practice guidelines. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Mundlak, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica, 46, 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ricker-Gilbert, J., Jayne, T. S., & Chirwa, E. (2011). Subsidies and crowding out: A double-hurdle model of fertilizer demand in Malawi. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(1), 26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rivers, D., & Vuong, Q. H. (1988). Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous Probit models. Journal of Econometrics, 39, 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sheahan, M., Black, R., & Jayne, T. S. (2013). Are Kenyan farmers under-utilizing fertilizer? Implications for input intensification strategies and research. Food Policy, 41, 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Singh, I., Squire, L., & Strauss, J. (1986). Agricultural household models. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. SRTM. (2000). The SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) data (v.4) are available from: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/

  35. Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26, 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Vella, F. (1993). A simple estimator for simultaneous models with censored endogenous regressors. International Economic Review, 34(2), 441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wanzala, M., Fuentes, P. & Mkumbwa, S. (2013). Practices and policy options for the improved design and implementation of fertilizer subsidy programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. NEPAD Policy Study. Randjespark, Midrand: New Partnership for Africa’s Development.

  38. Wooldridge, J. W. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Xu, Z., Burke, W. J., Jayne, T. S., & Govereh, J. (2009). Do input subsidy programs “crowd in” or “crowd out” commercial market development? Modeling fertilizer demand in a two-channel marketing system. Agricultural Economics, 40(1), 79–94.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for financial support for this research from the Guiding Investments in Sustainable Agricultural Markets in Africa (GISAMA) project, a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) to Michigan State University’s Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics. Further funding for this research was provided by the Food Security III Cooperative Agreement (GDGA-00-000021-00) between Michigan State University and the United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Food Security, Office of Agriculture, Research, and Technology. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors alone and do not represent the views of BMGF or USAID. Neither sponsor had a role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors are also grateful to Eric Kramon (George Washington University) for access to electoral data from Kenya and Jordan Chamberlain (CIMMYT) for generating and sharing spatial variables for village-level elevation and length of growing period. This article has also benefited from longstanding discussions on the topic with Joshua Ariga, John Olwande, Jake Ricker-Gilbert, Bill Burke, and Nicole Mason.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Mather.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mather, D.L., Jayne, T.S. Fertilizer subsidies and the role of targeting in crowding out: evidence from Kenya. Food Sec. 10, 397–417 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0773-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Africa
  • Kenya
  • Fertilizer subsidy
  • Smallholder agriculture