Agricultural input policies under structural adjustment : their distributional implications

This paper explores the practical and distributional implications of this policy. After an introduction, individual chapters examine: (1) fertilizer availability and distribution, including trends in fertilizer prices and the demand for fertilizer; (2) experiences of the privatization program to date; (3) markets for nonfertilizer inputs (e.g., pesticides, seeds, and machinery); and (4) statistical analyses of the distributional consequences of privatization. A table detailing agricultural input use by gender of household head is also included. The study found that the benefits of the fertilizer subsidy were equally distributed to households across all income levels. However, small, low-income farmers in more remote areas that were more likely to get fertilizer through the official system would stand to lose, in the short-term, from privatization, suggesting the need for special programs to compensate them for their losses. It was also found, however, that the special programs operated by NGO"s to distribute low-cost fertilizer and/or provide cheap credit impeded the development of a private market, as private traders simply could not compete. The Ghanaian experience offers numerous lessons to enlighten the process of privatization for agricultural inputs, as well as for market development in general.