Review: Taking stock of Africa’s second-generation agricultural input subsidy programs
Open accessAbstract
Input subsidy programs (ISPs) remain one of the most contentiously debated development issues in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). After ISPs were phased out during the 1980s and 1990s, the landscape has changed profoundly since the early 2000s. By 2010, at least 10 African governments initiated a new wave of subsidy programs that were designed to overcome past performance challenges. This study provides the most comprehensive review of recent evidence to date regarding the performance of these second generation ISPs, synthesizing nearly 80 ISP-related studies from seven countries (Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, and Ethiopia). We specifically evaluate ISP impacts on total fertilizer use, food production, commercial input distribution systems, food prices, wages, and poverty. We also consider measures that could enable ISPs to more cost-effectively achieve their objectives. We find that ISPs can quickly raise national food production, and that receiving subsidized inputs raises beneficiary households’ grain yields and production levels at least in the short-term. However, the overall production and welfare effects of subsidy programs tend to be smaller than expected. Two characteristics of program implementation consistently mitigate the intended effects of ISPs: (1) subsidy programs partially crowd out commercial fertilizer demand due to difficulties associated with targeting and sale of inputs by program implementers, and (2) lower than expected crop yield response to fertilizer on smallholder-managed fields. If these challenges could be addressed, ISPs could more effectively mitigate the concurrent challenges of rapid population growth and climate change in SSA.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Falconnier, G. N., Cardinael, R., Corbeels, M., Baudron, F., Chivenge, P., Couëdel, A., Ripoche, A., Affholder, F., Naudin, K., Benaillon, E., et al. (2023) · Outlook on Agriculture · doi:10.1177/00307270231199795 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Fertilizer, soil health, and economic shocks: A synthesis of recent evidence
Abay, K. A., Chamberlin, J., Chivenge, P., & Spielman, D. J. (2025) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102892 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Ragasa, C., Takeshima, H., Asante, S., Amare, M., Ma, N., Olanrewaju, O., & Duchoslav, J. (2025) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102815 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jayne, T. S., Mason, N. M., Burke, W. J., & Ariga, J.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- International Fertilizer Development Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Burke, William J.
- Venue
- Food Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 75
- Pages
- 1-14
- ISSN
- 0306-9192 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2792177023
- Cited by
- 321
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 46 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 6
- FWCI
- 64.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Food Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- World Bank
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1039151)
- US Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Food Security (AID-OAA-L-13-00001)
- USAID Missions (611-A-00-11-00001-00, AID-623-A-12-00022)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Economics and Practices
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economics of Agriculture and Food Markets
- Keywords
- fertilizer use, food production, smallholder farmers, grain yield, food prices, poverty, targeting, crowding out, sub-Saharan Africa, program implementation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review