Suchergebnisse

Building on the work of earlier studies that looked at trends in and returns to federal public expenditures on agriculture in Nigeria, this paper explores spending patterns at the sub-national state level over a nine-year period, as well as trends in agricultural and economic performance and indicators of household welfare. Our examination focuses on two groupings of states – the full 37 state units of Nigeria (the 36 states, plus the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja); and the seven states that are the focus in Nigeria of the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) of the United States Agency for International Development. Sub-national agricultural spending as a share of aggregate agricultural spending in Nigeria is large, given the stronger role for sub-national governments in agriculture than is the case in other sectors. However, we find that the share of state-level expenditures on agriculture as a share of aggregate state-level expenditures is still relatively low, an average of 3.86 percent over the period 2007 to 2015. While the prioritization of agriculture spending varies greatly year by year, the variation over time does not have a discernible long-run upwards or downwards trend. We also find that agricultural expenditures are more capital intensive than are overall public expenditures at state level, but that capital expenditures as a share of total agriculture spending has decline over the last decade, as is the case overall in Nigeria's industrial sectors. We conclude that efforts to strengthen state-level agricultural spending in Nigeria merits greater attention, while putting in place measures to ensure improved effectiveness in any such spending. ; Non-PR ; NSSP; DCA; Feed the Future Nigeria Agricultural Policy Project; IFPRI1; CRP2; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies ; DSGD; PIM ; CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on households' income, jobs, and food security have continued despite perceptible reductions in transmission and lifting of restrictive policy measures in several countries. To assess these effects on Nigerian households, we collected household data in the initial three months after the outbreak of the pandemic (July 2020). To track the changes since the first survey, we conducted a follow-up phone survey with the same households a year later (July 2021). We undertook a comparative analysis between the two surveys focusing on key variables such as income loss, job loss, food security, and dietary diversity. The study also investigated how changes in income, wealth/endowments, social capital, safety net programs, and recurrent conflicts affected the severity of food insecurity amid the pandemic. We found that both income and jobs have rebounded significantly (by 50 percentage points) compared to the baseline results. In terms of food insecurity, households with "severely food insecure" situations dropped from 73 percent in the first survey to 65 percent in the follow-up survey. We also found a 5-percentage point improvement in the household dietary diversity scale in the follow-up survey. However, households reported an increase of more than 70 percent in conflicts or insecurity threats amid the pandemic. This affected farm investment decisions in 44 percent of smallholder farmers surveyed. While income loss significantly worsened households' food insecurity; livestock ownership and social capital cushioned households from falling into a more severe food insecurity situation. However, safety net programs provided by the government and NGOs did not significantly protect households from falling into severe food insecurity amid the pandemic. We suggest four policy propositions: prioritize investment in job creation to curb income loss; enable households to build their wealth base (e.g., land tenure security or livestock) to enhance resilience to shocks; revisit targeting approaches of safety net programs to enhance effectiveness of such programs; and finally, devise and implement conflict resolutions to induce investment and enhance productivity. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; CRP2; Feed the Future Nigeria Agricultural Policy Project; 2 Promoting Healthy Diets and Nutrition for all; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; Capacity Strengthening; NSSP ; DSGD; PIM ; CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

Public expenditures (PE) are critical for key public sector functions that contribute to development and welfare improvements, including the provisions of necessary public goods and the mitigation of market failures. PE in social sectors, such as health, education, and social welfare, and in agriculture have been increasingly recognized as potentially important for income growth, poverty reduction, fostering increased private investment, improved nutritional outcomes, and greater economic resilience. Furthermore, the importance of the impact of subnational PE on these outcomes has also been recognized, as appropriately decentralized PE systems can potentially achieve greater effectiveness by enabling public sector support that is tailored more to local needs. However, direct evidence of these developmental effects of decentralized PE in developing countries like Nigeria has been relatively limited. This study attempts to fill this knowledge gap by estimating the effects of shares of total subnational PE for agriculture, health, education, and social welfare, as well as PE size, on household-level outcomes using nationally-representative panel household data and both local government area and higher state-level PE data for Nigeria. We find that greater shares of total PE for agriculture, health, and social welfare, conditional on PE size, generally have positive effects on consumption, poverty reduction, and non-farm business capital investments. A greater share of total PE for agriculture benefits a broader range of outcomes than do greater shares of total PE for health and social welfare. These include improving certain nutritional outcomes, like household dietary diversity across seasons, and economic flexibility between farm and non-farm activities, which may be particularly important for building resilience in today's rapidly changing socioeconomic environment due to shocks, including COVID19. Such multi-dimensional benefits of greater PE for agriculture are particularly worthy of attention in countries like ...

Growing agriculture remains important for countries like Nigeria where, despite economic transformation at sectoral levels, a significant share of employment still originates from the agricultural sector. The question has continued to be debated of whether increasing Public Expenditures on Agriculture (PEA) is the way to grow agriculture. The needed evidence-base for this debate, while gradually growing, has remained insufficient in African countries, including Nigeria. This has been particularly the case as regards to evidence on the effects of PEA at household levels. This study attempted to partially fill this gap, using state and local government area (LGA)-level PEA figures and household data in Nigeria. The findings suggest that PEA has positive effects on household-level agricultural outcomes in various dimensions, including overall production levels, profits, access to public extension services or subsidized fertilizer, as well as private investments and, in some cases, agricultural mechanization. These patterns generally underscore the hypothesis that increasing direct support to the agricultural sector is likely to have greater effects on agricultural outcomes, compared to alternative strategies of developing agriculture indirectly through the support of other social-sectors like education, health, social safety-nets, among others. Increasing PEA by increasing the agricultural share of public expenditures (PE), while keeping the overall size of PE constant, is found to be particularly effective, compared to alternative approaches of increasing the overall size of PE while keeping agricultural share unchanged. Such patterns may suggest that Ricardian Equivalence partly holds. Furthermore, different agricultural outcomes are found to respond to PEA from different sources (e.g., LGA or State), and types (e.g., recurrent or capital spending). Enhancing research capacity to identify appropriate sources and types of PEA for particular agricultural outcomes remains important. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; CRP2; NSSP; ...

Agricultural development has long been considered an important driver of overall economic development in developing countries such as Nigeria. Whether increasing public expenditures on agriculture (PEA) can directly improve broad dimensions of household well-being has continued to be debated. In addition, there has been growing interest in the economic flexibility of households to switch between nonfarm and farming activities. Such flexibility can potentially enhance the resilience of households to shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic in today's rapidly changing socioeconomic environments. Direct evidence of the impact of PEA on broad development outcomes is also important in informing regional initiatives aiming to use PEA as an instrument for overall food security enhancement and poverty reduction in Africa. Using state- and local government area (LGA)-level PEA figures and household data in Nigeria, this study aims to provide initial evidence at the household level in Nigeria. The findings suggest that greater PEA shares have positive effects on various development outcomes at the household level, including consumption, poverty reduction, nonfarm capital investments, and household dietary diversity. The findings also suggest that greater PEA shares are likely to help farm households enhance their economic flexibility. These findings are consistent with the hypotheses of positive linkages between PEA and agricultural outcomes, and linkages between agricultural and nonagricultural outcomes, often advocated in the literature. PEA should be increased by increasing its share of total public expenditures through conscious efforts to reallocate existing resources, rather than trying to increase it by increasing the overall size of public expenditures. Furthermore, it remains important to identify the appropriate sources (for example, spending by LGA or state) and types of PEA (for example, recurrent or capital spending) for particular development outcomes. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; CRP2; Feed the Future Nigeria Agricultural ...

The Government's policy measures such as travel restrictions, lockdowns, and restrictions on economic and social activities, aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19, had affected the livelihoods and food security of smallholders in Nigeria. Using data collected from sample households from four Nigerian states, this study investigated the effects of COVID-19 pandemic policies on the incomes, employment, and food security situation of smallholder farming households. Results show that 88 percent of the households reported that they lost about 50 percent of their income due to the pandemic. As a result, about 66 percent of respondents reported they reduced food consumption. Travel and movement restrictions caused disruptions in agricultural activities and supply chains, as 29 percent of respondents reported planting fewer crops, 24 percent reduced cropping area, and 24 percent reduced fertilizer application. In terms of household's food security, results show that COVID-19 significantly worsened the food security situation of many households in Nigeria, especially poorer households. More than 80 percent of respondents worried about not having enough food and 77 percent ate less food than they thought they should. Survey households also reported a significant reduction of consumption of proteins (eggs, meat, and dairy products) and fruits since the pandemic struck. Increases in food prices are felt by most households (85 percent). We suggest three key policy priorities: support vulnerable households to mitigate the impacts of income loss through cash transfer or improved credit access; interventions to improve agricultural inputs supply chains to ease the pandemic's impact on agricultural production; and support food insecure households through direct food distribution. ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; Feed the Future Nigeria Agricultural Policy Project; CRP2; DCA; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; 4 Transforming Agricultural and Rural Economies; 5 Strengthening Institutions and Governance; G Cross-cutting gender theme; Capacity Strengthening; NSSP ; DSGD; PIM ; CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)