Article2014

Decentralised Beneficiary Targeting in Large-Scale Development Programmes: Insights from the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme

Talip Kilic · Edward Whitney · Paul Winters

62 citations0/0 files storedJournal of African Economies

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare Public Administration in Developing Nations Agricultural Innovations and Practices

Abstract

This paper contributes to the long-standing debate on the merits of decentralised beneficiary targeting in the administration of development programmes, focussing on the large-scale Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP). Using nationally representative household survey data, the study systematically analyses the decentralised targeting performance of the FISP during the 2009–10 agricultural season. The analysis begins with a standard targeting assessment based on the rates of programme participation and the benefit amounts among the eligible and non-eligible populations and provides decompositions of the national targeting performance into the inter-district, intra-district inter-community, and intra-district intra-community components. This approach identifies the relative contributions of targeting at each level. The results show that the FISP is not poverty targeted and that the national government, the districts and the communities are nearly uniform in their failure to target the poor, with any minimal targeting (or mis-targeting) overwhelmingly materializing at the community level. The findings are robust to the choice of the eligibility indicator and the decomposition method. The multivariate analysis of household programme participation reinforces these results and reveals that the relatively well off, rather than the poor or the wealthiest, and the locally well-connected have a higher likelihood of programme participation, and, on average, receive a greater number of input coupons. Since a key programme objective is to increase food security and income among resource-poor farmers, the lack of targeting is a concern and should underlie considerations of alternative targeting approaches.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 62 citations exist upstream.

References

2002Decentralization of Governance and Development 2004Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review 2000Capture and Governance at Local and National Levels 2003Micro-Level Estimation of Poverty and Inequality 1996How does civil society thicken? the political construction of social capital in rural Mexico 2004Monitoring Elite Capture in Community‐Driven Development 2012Targeting the Poor: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia 2004Decentralized targeting of an antipoverty program

Cited by

2020Determinants of bilateral trade between China and Africa: a gravity model approach 2017Poverty, social protection and agriculture: Levels and trends in data 2023Do agricultural subsidies matter for women’s attitude towards intimate partner violence? Evidence from Malawi 2020Targeting humanitarian aid using administrative data: Model design and validation 2019Mobilizing Resources for the Poor

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.