IFPRI Discussion Paper 01498
January 2016
The Impact of Agricultural Extension Services in the
Context of a Heavily Subsidized Input System
The Case of Malawi
Catherine Ragasa
John Mazunda
Mariam Kadzamira
Development Strategy and Governance Division
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), established in 1975, provides evidence-based
policy solutions to sustainably end hunger and malnutrition and reduce poverty. The Institute conducts
research, communicates results, optimizes partnerships, and builds capacity to ensure sustainable food
production, promote healthy food systems, improve markets and trade, transform agriculture, build
resilience, and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is considered in all of the Institute’s work.
IFPRI collaborates with partners around the world, including development implementers, public
institutions, the private sector, and farmers’ organizations, to ensure that local, national, regional, and
global food policies are based on evidence. IFPRI is a member of the CGIAR Consortium.
AUTHORS
Catherine Ragasa (c.ragasa@cgiar.org
) is a research fellow in the Development Strategy and
Governance Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.
John Mazunda (j.mazunda@cgiar.org
) was a policy analyst in the Malawi Strategy Support Program of
IFPRI, Lilongwe, Malawi, when this paper was written. He is currently program manager of the Nigeria
Strategy Support Program of IFPRI, Abuja, Nigeria.
Mariam Kadzamira (maleytata@yahoo.com
) is director of Institutional Development and Investments
for the Farmers Union of Malawi, Lilongwe.
Notices
1.
IFPRI Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results and are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and
critical comment. They have not been subject to a formal external review via IFPRI’s Publications Review Committee. Any opinions
stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy
Research Institute.
2.
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map(s) herein do not imply official endorsement or
acceptance by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) or its partners and contributors.
Copyright 2016 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. Sections of this material may be reproduced for
personal and not-for-profit use without the express written permission of but with acknowledgment to IFPRI. To reproduce the
material contained herein for profit or commercial use requires express written permission. To obtain permission, contact
ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org.
iii
Contents
Abstract v
Acknowledgments vi
1. Introduction 1
2. Conceptual Framework and Empirical Model 4
3. Data and Methods 8
4. Determinants of Access to Extension Service 12
5. Determinants of FISP Input Subsidy Receipt 17
6. Impact of Access to Advice and Subsidized Inputs on Farm Productivity and Food
Security 20
7. Conclusions 29
References 31
iv
Tables
3.1 Descriptive statistics of variables used in the estimation, pooled 2010 and 2013 9
4.1 Percentage of farming households receiving agricultural advice, and source, type, and usefulness
of advice 14
4.2 Results of the probit and Tobit models explaining access to agricultural advice 15
5.1 Correlates of input subsidy receipt 18
6.1 Results of estimation of the impact of access to agricultural advice and input subsidy on farm
productivity 20
6.2 Results of estimation of impact of access to agricultural advice and input subsidy on food security
indicators 23
6.3 Impact of frequency and quality of advice and different delivery modes on farm productivity and
food security indicators 26
v
ABSTRACT
Since 2005, the government of Malawi has focused on the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) as its
major strategy for increasing maize production, promoting household food security, and enhancing rural
incomes. Amid concerns about the program’s high costs and inconsistent impact, expenditure on FISP is
declining and attention is beginning to shift to other enablers of agricultural productivity growth, such as
agricultural extension and education. There is a growing hypothesis that lack of knowledge on state-of-
the-art and improved management practices may be a factor that contributes to the limited substantial
impact of the fertilizer subsidy in Malawi. This paper aims to test this hypothesis and to contribute to
better understanding of strategies to revitalize the agricultural extension system in Malawi. Specifically, it
examines the interplay between the fertilizer subsidy and access to extension services, and their impact on
farm productivity and food security in Malawi. Results show that the fertilizer subsidy has inconsistent
impact on farm productivity and food security; at the same time, access to agricultural advice was
consistently insignificant in explaining farm productivity and food security. Further analysis, however,
shows that when access to extension services is unpacked to include indicators of usefulness and farmers’
satisfaction, these indicators were statistically significant. Households who reported that they received
very useful agricultural advice had greater productivity and greater food security than those who reported
receiving advice that they considered not useful. This result implies the need to ensure the provision of
relevant and useful agricultural advice to increase the likelihood of achieving agricultural development
outcomes.
Keywords: extension services, fertilizer subsidy, agricultural productivity, food security, impact
assessment, Africa south of the Sahara
JEL code: Q16, Q12
