Input Subsidy Programs in Asia What lesson can we learn for Africa Shahidur Rashid (presenting) Paul A. Dorosh, IFPRI M.K. Mujeri, BIDS INPUT SUBSIDY PROGRAM IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 16 APRIL 2013 WASHINGTON DC 20006
Presentation Outline 1. Contextual differences between Asian and African agriculture 2. Differences in policies and strategies 3. Effects of subsidies 4. Recent trends 5. Summary
1.1 Differences in natural endowment (1) A. Irrigation potentials Irrigation potentials in Asia has been much higher In 2009, 56% of agricultural lands were irrigated. This compares with only 0.28% in SSA Cropping intensity is also lower in SSA-- generally one main crops 56.0 54.0 52.0 50.0 48.0 46.0 44.0 Figure: Irrigated land as% of total ag. Land-- S. Asia and SSA 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 South Asia SSA Page 3
1.1 Differences in natural endowment (2) Irrigation potentials makes the difference Fertilizer use in Irrigation land is much higher than in nonirrigated land Use of fertilizer is non-irrigated land is only 1/3 rd of irrigated land this is similar to many SSA countries including Ethiopia and Kenya Page 4
1.1 Differences in natural endowment (3) B. Natural gas Due to large markets and availability of gas, fertilizer production grew fast I all five courtiers When Green Revolution began, all countries (except Pakistan) were large net importers Domestic production was 1/3 rd to 1/5 th of the total use By mid 1980s, more or less self-sufficient Share of consumption to production 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Bangladesh India Pakistan East Asia Indonesia Page 5
1.2 Differences in the degree of interventions Unlike many African countries before SAPs, government s shares in ag market was small Governments shares in rice markets was within 5-7% range, except in India and Pakistan Pakistan and India s shares increased after GR was complete. Except for Pakistan, government s market shares are even smaller 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Govt's market share (rice) 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Bangladesh India Indonesia Philippines Govt's market share (wheat) 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Bangladesh India Philippines Pakistan Page 6
1.3 Differences in market size Market thinness was less of an issue for the Asian GR countries 60.0 Share of cereals consumption (%) 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Southern Asia Eastern Asia Eastern Africa Page 7
2.1 Differences in policies (1) In Asia, policy focus was not only fertilizer and seed In fact, in the early years of green revolution in India, investments in infrastructure was higher than total ag subsidies Similar trends are for Bangladesh. Page 8
2.2 Differences in policies (2) In Bangladesh, spending in ARD continued even when AID declined This spending accelerated after the reintroduction of subsidies in 2007-08 Similar analysis are underway for Pakistan and Indonesia 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Agriculture, RD, Water ( ADP vs. AID) 1991-2009 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 ADP-Agric+RurDev+Institutions AID-Agric+RurDev+Institutions Page 9
2.2 Differences in policies (3) Public spending by sectors in Bangladesh Economic sector 1987-89 1990-92 1993-95 1996-98 1999-01 2002-04 2005-08 Agriculture Rural Dev. Water 11.7 11.1 10.8 11.5 11.5 11.4 14.2 Power development 7.4 5.7 6.8 5.3 5.2 6.1 3.7 Gas, Oil and Natural Resources 2.3 2.8 1.6 2.0 1.4 1.7 0.3 Transportation 4.2 5.9 9.1 8.7 8.6 7.8 4.4 Communication 1.8 2.2 3.4 2.1 3.1 4.2 3.3 Industries 3.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.7 Education and Religion 11.2 12.6 15.8 15.7 15.4 14.4 15.4 Social Welfare, W.A. and Y.D. 5.9 4.9 4.2 1.6 1.0 1.5 2.4 Physical Planning & Housing 1.6 1.9 2.1 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.0 Health & Family Welfare 5.9 6.5 7.0 6.7 6.3 6.1 6.7 OTHERS 44.2 45.5 38.4 42.7 42.5 42.4 46.0 Total Public expenditure 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Page 10
2.2 Differences in policies (4) 18000.0 16000.0 14000.0 Budgetary supports by sector, Bangladesh 12000.0 10000.0 8000.0 6000.0 4000.0 2000.0 0.0 1971-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-04 2005-08 Agriculture Water Resources Power Gas, Oil and Natural Resources Rural Development & Institutions Page 11
2.3 Differences in policies (5) In India, fertilizer subsidy was never about only cereals. The table below shows the average shares of subsidies by crops (2001-2011) Crops Total Fertilizer used ( 000 tons) Total subsidy (Rs. Lakh) % share in total subsidy Per ha fertilizer use (Kg) Paddy 5061.7 367.5 32.2 119.4 Wheat 3189.7 231.6 20.3 130.8 Sugarcane 989.6 71.8 6.3 240.6 Cotton 921 66.9 5.9 110.8 Groundnut 465.9 33.8 3 74.6 Jowar 443.8 32.2 2.8 60 Bajra 304.3 22.1 1.9 29 Maize 258.4 18.8 1.6 55.8 Others 4073.4 295.7 25.9 66.1 All crops 15707.8 1140.4 100 92.6 Page 12
2.3 Differences in policies (6) Input subsidy programs in Asia did not involve price rationing: Prices are determined at the factory gate (or the port if imported) Anyone with a license can market any amount that s profitable to the dealers / traders Crowding out in domestic market is not a serious issue However, cross border trade becomes an issue is the price differences are high between the neighbors It was the case when BD eliminated subsidy It continues to be the case India and Nepal Page 13
3.1 Distribution of subsidy benefits (India) Marginal (<1 ha) Small (1-2 ha) Semi-medium (2:0-4:0) Medium (4-10 ha) Large (>10 ha) All households Fertilizer consumption per hectare of fertilizer area (kg) 1991-92 113.4 104.6 101.3 97 98.1 102.8 1996-97 162.1 131.8 123.9 118.6 113.6 131.1 2001-02 164.7 134.7 122.8 113.3 108.4 131.7 Shares of fertilizer use (%) Total 1991-92 20.6 21.1 24.2 23.9 10.2 100 1996-97 25.6 20.4 23 22.2 8.8 100 2001-02 29.9 22.1 22.1 18.9 7 100 Page 14
4.1 Overall effects on agricultural incentives NRA, agriculture (%) Countries 1965-69 1970-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 India 5.2 12.6-7.4 4.1 67.5 2-2.3 15.4 Pakistan 21.7 9.3-11.8-9.3-5.9-10.2-2.6 1.2 Indonesia -- -3.8 10.4 10.5-1.9-7.5-9.7 13.9 Bangladesh 3.1 3.9 17.4-2.4-8 4 Page 15
SOME EMERGING TRENDS Page 16
5.1. Update 1:Bangladesh 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Subsidy in (Mil USD) Subsidy/tone 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Input subsidies are back in Bangladesh Page 17
5.2 Update 2: Indonesia 5 000 4 500 Major shifts in fertilizer subsidy regime in Indonesia, 1990-2010 20 000 18 000 4 000 16 000 IDR/kg 3 500 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 Fertilizer is subsidized by Elimination of fertilizer subsidy Re-introduction of Fertilizer subsidies 14 000 12 000 10 000 8 000 6 000 4 000 IDR billion 500 2 000 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Expenditure on fertiliser subsidies (right scale) Ceiling price for urea (left scale) International price of urea (left scale) 0 Page 18
Optimal allocation of public spending Marginal returns to seedfertilizer subsidy MR isp MR cinv Marginal returns to complementary investment I 0 PEA opt PEA isp I 1 Total allocation of public spending on agriculture Page 19
Optimal allocation of public spending (2) Decades Top Public Spending Returns Rank Poverty Reduction (per Mill Rs) 1960s Roads/ Rural infrastructure 1272 1 1970s Roads/ Rural infrastructure 1346 1 1980s Roads/ Rural infrastructure 295 1 1990s Roads/ Rural infrastructure 335 2 Returns W.R.T. Ag growth (per Rs Spent) 1960s Roads/ Rural infrastructure 8.79 1 1970s Educational Investment 7.88 1 1980s Agricultural R&D 6.95 1 1990s Agricultural R&D 6.93 1 Page 20
Summary 1. What not to learn from Asia? Lesson #1: Do not increase subsidies following a shocks like global price hikes Costs of such actions can be very high Cite India and Bangladesh examples 2. The implications of endowment differences Lesson #2: Currently, only a small fraction of land in sub- Saharan Africa (0.28%) is irrigated. Potentials must be much larger; and investments in such efforts can have high pay off. 3. The differences in policies Lesson #3 Asia did not achieve productivity growth by focusing only on see and fertilizer. Complementary investments were significant in the early years of GR Page 21
Summary (2) 3. The policy differences Lesson #4: Government do not have to capture very large share of markets in managing price risks Lesson #5: Rationing subsidies can be challenging. While Asian system had its share of problems, but not rationing in the domestic markets, they avoided crowding out, rent seeking, leakage, and other moral hazards Ethiopia is piloting a project to provide input credit and voucher using ICTs. This can potentially address many of the moral hazards problems implicit in smart subsidies 4. The incidence of subsidy (who gets it?) Lesson #6 If the land distribution is not highly skewed, the benefits of subsidy are not very unequally distributed. Page 22