This study analyzed how Malawi's Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP) affected the food security and incomes of female-headed households (FHHs) compared to male-headed households (MHHs). The researcher found that while all household types benefited from increased maize production due to FISP, FHHs faced more vulnerabilities and produced less maize than MHHs. Specifically, de jure FHHs (those without a spouse) owned less land and livestock, and were older than MHHs. Both FHH groups sold more of their maize output than MHHs but had lower access to formal markets. The study concluded that while FISP helped increase FHH maize

1. Subsidies and Vulnerability:
The Paradox in the Malawi
FISP
Betty Chinyamunyamu

2. Presentation Outline
• Contextual background
• Research objective
• Research methodology
• Findings
• Conclusions
• Policy recommendations

3. Contextual Background
• Since the global food crisis, debates on the role
of Farm Input Subsidies in addressing food
insecurity intensified
• The Malawi FISP has attracted research and
policy interest
• While considered a successful food security
intervention, many questions raised on
efficiency, targeting, graduation etc.
• Questions also on its gender impacts

4. Research Objective
• To analyse how the food security and income
status of female farmers belonging to different
household types have been affected by the FISP
• Particularly relevant because
– Agriculture becoming more feminised (over 95 % of
women in Malawi involved in agric)
– Evidence from previous studies that FHH had lower
access to the FISP and when they did, received
lower volumes than MHHs

5. Research Methodology
• Mixed research methods – triangulation of
quantitative with qualitative methods
• Research areas – Mzimba, Mchinji and Mangochi
– Key maize and groundnuts growing areas
• 540 individual interviews
– De facto Female Headed Households
– De jure Female Headed Households
– Male Headed Households
• 28 key informant interviews
• 18 Focus group discussions (10-15 male and
female farmers)

6. Key Findings
• Demographic factors highlighted the extent of
vulnerability for FHH (esp. de jure FHH) for
agric. Production
– Had less labour (due to missing or absent man)
– Highest illiteracy rates
– Owned less livestock than MHHs
– More de jure FHHs older than 60 years of age
– Owned less land than MHHs

7. Land ownership by household type
Household type Mean N Std. Deviation
De facto FHH 2.00 180 1.28
De jure FHH 2.05 180 1.39
Male HH 2.72 180 1.59
Total 2.26 540 1.46

8. Livestock ownership by household type

9. • Increased maize output for all hholds groups
due to FISP
Avge Maize Prodn output by hhold typeMeanmaizeproduction

10. FHH produced less maize than MHHs
Household type Mean N Std. Deviation
De facto FHH 639.08 180 683.21
De jure FHH 567.50 180 515.53
Male HH 894.19 180 734.32
Total 700.26 540 664.87

11. More de jure FHHs sold a higher proportion
of their maize output

12. • For both groups of FHHs, FISP-recipients sold
more maize than non-recipients, but the
opposite was true for MHH
– De jure FHHs (28 kg vs 8kg)
– De facto FHHs (33 kg vs 21kg)
– MHH (32kg vs 34 kg)

13. FHHs had a lower access to formal
markets than MHHs

14. FHHs had lower production of other
cash crops
Household type Mean N Std. Deviation
De facto FHH 125.38 180 169.01
De jure FHH 123.93 180 145.88
Male HH 171.53 180 183.79
Total 140.28 540 168.11
Groundnuts production by household type

15. MHHs sold a higher proportion of their
groundnuts than FHHs
• Groundnut sales by household type
Household type Mean N Std. Deviation
De facto FHH 49.62 180 97.73
De jure FHH 41.86 180 84.29
Male HH 72.63 180 114.10
Total 54.70 540 100.13

16. More FHHs bought supplementary maize
compared to MHHs

17. Conclusions
• Although at a lower level than MHHs, FISP-
recipient FHHs were also able to benefit from
increased maize production output
• However, their vulnerability leads to different
responses compared to MHHs
• Increased (altho inadequate) maize output
considered a source of much-needed cash
• Result: More FHHs selling maize for cash
– Mainly during the harvest period (low prices)
– Their low output however leads to a need to buy more
maize during the lean months (higher prices)

18. Policy Recommendations
• FISP benefits of increased output are lost due to
lack of reliable and structured markets for maize
and other crops in remote areas
• Need to enforce minimum prices –
– ADMARC to be supported to operate in very remote
areas
– ADMARC to go into the market early to counter
practices of some unscrupulous informal traders
(vendors)
• Need to increase support to other cash crops (soya,
gnuts) to reduce desperate maize sales
• Need for complimentary support in extension
services to increase productivity

19. Thank you for your attention