Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Lessons from Malawi’s Farm Input Subsidy Programme

Nature Food volume 4, pages 734–735 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Our recent research exploring AISP impact on diets in Malawi2,3 — specifically, the impact of the country’s Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP), implemented from 2005 to 2020 — highlights the need for caution with repurposing subsidies. Here, we explore three key reasons for it: apart from policy implementers, the beneficiaries themselves shape policy outcomes; vested interests also shape policy processes and are not always aligned with public interest; and characteristics of the target population (especially market access and resource constraints) give rise to trade-offs between food security and nutrition goals.

First, policy implementation is a critical aspect of the policy process and one that easily results in unintended consequences. Many scholars have noted a ‘gap’ in policy implementation between policy expectations and results. The top-down perspective, which sees policy implementation as an activity simply requiring careful technical, administrative or managerial execution, is often considered unrealistic. By contrast, the bottom-up perspective considers that policy implementers, sometimes at ‘grassroots’ level, have an important role in policy implementation4. The work of Lipsky on the behaviour of street-level bureaucrats (the front-line staff administering policies, such as teachers, local government officials, doctors and nurses) was influential in this regard5. However, it is not just policy implementers who shape policy outcomes — it is, in fact, also the targeted beneficiaries themselves. The people targeted by the FISP receiving vouchers for subsidized seed and fertilizer sometimes sold on their vouchers due to their need for immediate financial benefit, or shared their vouchers with others — thus potentially reducing fertilizer use efficiency and diluting any measured programme impact. Both practices may also crowd out private sector input sales through displacement effect.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Exploring Potential Benefits of Repurposing Agricultural Subsidies in Sub-Saharan Africa (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, 2022); https://www.glopan.org/subsidies/

  2. Matita, M., Johnston, D. & Walls, H. Malawi J. Econ. 2, 59–65 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Walls, H. et al. Food Secur. 15, 21–39 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Buse, K. et al. Making Health Policy 3rd edn (Open Univ. Press, 2023).

  5. Lipsky, M. Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (Russell Sage Foundation, 1980).

  6. Hutchinson, E. et al. BMJ Global Health 5, e003092 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chinsinga, B. The Political Economy of Agricultural Policy Processes in Malawi: A Case Study of the Fertilizer Subsidy Program (Institute of Development Studies, Univ. Sussex, 2012).

  8. Mdee, A., Ofori, A., Chasukwa, M. & Manda, S. J. Peasant Stud. 48, 1260–1283 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Holden, S. T. & Lunduka, R. W. Forum Dev. Stud. 40, 1–25 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Matita, M., Chiwaula, L., Chirwa, E. W., Mazalale, J. & Walls, H. Food Policy 113, 102309 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the Drivers of Food Choice (DFC) Competitive Grants Programs, which is funded by the UK government’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and is managed by the University of South Carolina, Arnold School of Public Health, USA; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    Helen Walls

  2. Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lilongwe, Malawi

    Mirriam Matita

  3. University of Malawi, Chancellor College, Zomba, Malawi

    Mirriam Matita

Authors
  1. Helen Walls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mirriam Matita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Walls.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walls, H., Matita, M. Lessons from Malawi’s Farm Input Subsidy Programme. Nat Food 4, 734–735 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00838-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00838-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing