TY - JOUR
T1 - Fruitless or Fruitful? Examining Ghana's Agricultural Inputs Subsidy and Household Welfare
AU - Asante, Bright Owusu
AU - Prah, Stephen
AU - Ankrah, Daniel Adu
AU - Kwapong, Nana Afranaa
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - There are mixed accounts of the impact of government input subsidies on farmers welfare outcomes in the global south with political colorations, which often tend to exaggerate outcomes. Ghana's Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ) programme phase 1, promised to be revolutionary in attaining the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)-2 of ending hunger. However, the programme received criticisms with mixed sentiments within the political circle and policy arena, with scarce evidence in the extant literature. Using cross sectional data collected from 1107 maize farmers, we find that participating in the PFJ increases maize yield by 454.90 kg/ha, gross income by US$ 171.74 and per capita consumption by US$ 0.43. Our findings show that the adoption of only fertilizer increases maize yield significantly by 1609.2 kg/ha, gross maize income by $332, and improves per capita consumption significantly by $1.22. Participating in the PFJ programme is influenced by age, gender, marital status, education, farm size, credit, pests and diseases, market access, farm distance, radio, political affiliation, and the perception of timely supply of seeds and fertilizers. Our results suggest that adopting multiple combinations of packages remain financially viable. The choice of combinations of interventions is significantly influenced by socioeconomic and institutional factors. We suggest that agricultural extension and advisory services target efforts to address structural challenges relating to land ownership, credit access, market access, pests, and diseases to improve welfare outcomes. The study highlights the need to expand and sustain the PFJ programme to have a maximum impact on maize production, income generation, and household consumption.
AB - There are mixed accounts of the impact of government input subsidies on farmers welfare outcomes in the global south with political colorations, which often tend to exaggerate outcomes. Ghana's Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ) programme phase 1, promised to be revolutionary in attaining the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)-2 of ending hunger. However, the programme received criticisms with mixed sentiments within the political circle and policy arena, with scarce evidence in the extant literature. Using cross sectional data collected from 1107 maize farmers, we find that participating in the PFJ increases maize yield by 454.90 kg/ha, gross income by US$ 171.74 and per capita consumption by US$ 0.43. Our findings show that the adoption of only fertilizer increases maize yield significantly by 1609.2 kg/ha, gross maize income by $332, and improves per capita consumption significantly by $1.22. Participating in the PFJ programme is influenced by age, gender, marital status, education, farm size, credit, pests and diseases, market access, farm distance, radio, political affiliation, and the perception of timely supply of seeds and fertilizers. Our results suggest that adopting multiple combinations of packages remain financially viable. The choice of combinations of interventions is significantly influenced by socioeconomic and institutional factors. We suggest that agricultural extension and advisory services target efforts to address structural challenges relating to land ownership, credit access, market access, pests, and diseases to improve welfare outcomes. The study highlights the need to expand and sustain the PFJ programme to have a maximum impact on maize production, income generation, and household consumption.
KW - agricultural interventions
KW - Ghana
KW - household welfare
KW - maize
KW - multinomial endogenous switching regression
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85217155619&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/rode.13195
DO - 10.1111/rode.13195
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85217155619
SN - 1363-6669
JO - Review of Development Economics
JF - Review of Development Economics
ER -