Assessing socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidies: A case study from Bhutan

Sonam Wangyel Wang, Belay Manjur, Jeong-Gyu Kim, Woo-Kyun Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

As an agrarian nation, Bhutan's agricultural policies prioritize agricultural subsidies to boost agricultural production, rural incomes, improve food security, and reduce income poverty, especially among the rural poor. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of such policy interventions remains unknown. Based on semi-structured interviews with heads of households from six blocks representing two districts, expert consultation with agricultural policymakers and extension agents, we attempted to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidy programs including co-payments. The study found that while over 90% of the households received at least one form of subsidy, except for agricultural machineries and piglets, the non-poor population has greater access to the subsidies compared to the poor. For instance, only 35% of the poor received seed and sapling subsidies compared to 52% seeds and 39% sapling subsidies received by the non-poor population. Furthermore, none of the poor received Jersey cow or biogas subsidies due to their inability to co-pay. Additionally, the agriculture machinery subsidy was found to be counterproductive to the lower income groups ( < US$153.85) and beneficial to the higher income groups. However, 14.5% of the households who received a poultry subsidy experienced 3 times more income (at a mean income change of 634.31 US$) compared to those who did not, indicating that this subsidy has larger potential to improve income for the poor. To efficiently achieve the objectives of increasing rural income and reducing poverty, we recommend agricultural subsidy programs and projects be provided as a package to poor small holders, where inputs are given based on existing capacity, availability of technical support, and market accessibility.

Original languageEnglish
Article number3266
JournalSustainability (Switzerland)
Volume11
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Bhutan
economic impact
subsidy
Economics
Seed
income
Poultry
Biogas
Agriculture
Machinery
Availability
sapling
poverty
socioeconomics
seed
agricultural policy
smallholder
agricultural production
poultry
food security

Keywords

  • Agriculture
  • Bhutan
  • Co-payments
  • Farm machinery
  • Poverty
  • Subsidy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Assessing socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidies : A case study from Bhutan. / Wang, Sonam Wangyel; Manjur, Belay; Kim, Jeong-Gyu; Lee, Woo-Kyun.

In: Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11, No. 12, 3266, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6e18c66b6d85493d8f10b057b12a4e34,
title = "Assessing socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidies: A case study from Bhutan",
abstract = "As an agrarian nation, Bhutan's agricultural policies prioritize agricultural subsidies to boost agricultural production, rural incomes, improve food security, and reduce income poverty, especially among the rural poor. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of such policy interventions remains unknown. Based on semi-structured interviews with heads of households from six blocks representing two districts, expert consultation with agricultural policymakers and extension agents, we attempted to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidy programs including co-payments. The study found that while over 90{\%} of the households received at least one form of subsidy, except for agricultural machineries and piglets, the non-poor population has greater access to the subsidies compared to the poor. For instance, only 35{\%} of the poor received seed and sapling subsidies compared to 52{\%} seeds and 39{\%} sapling subsidies received by the non-poor population. Furthermore, none of the poor received Jersey cow or biogas subsidies due to their inability to co-pay. Additionally, the agriculture machinery subsidy was found to be counterproductive to the lower income groups ( < US$153.85) and beneficial to the higher income groups. However, 14.5{\%} of the households who received a poultry subsidy experienced 3 times more income (at a mean income change of 634.31 US$) compared to those who did not, indicating that this subsidy has larger potential to improve income for the poor. To efficiently achieve the objectives of increasing rural income and reducing poverty, we recommend agricultural subsidy programs and projects be provided as a package to poor small holders, where inputs are given based on existing capacity, availability of technical support, and market accessibility.",
keywords = "Agriculture, Bhutan, Co-payments, Farm machinery, Poverty, Subsidy",
author = "Wang, {Sonam Wangyel} and Belay Manjur and Jeong-Gyu Kim and Woo-Kyun Lee",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3390/SU11123266",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
journal = "Sustainability",
issn = "2071-1050",
publisher = "MDPI AG",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidies

T2 - A case study from Bhutan

AU - Wang, Sonam Wangyel

AU - Manjur, Belay

AU - Kim, Jeong-Gyu

AU - Lee, Woo-Kyun

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - As an agrarian nation, Bhutan's agricultural policies prioritize agricultural subsidies to boost agricultural production, rural incomes, improve food security, and reduce income poverty, especially among the rural poor. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of such policy interventions remains unknown. Based on semi-structured interviews with heads of households from six blocks representing two districts, expert consultation with agricultural policymakers and extension agents, we attempted to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidy programs including co-payments. The study found that while over 90% of the households received at least one form of subsidy, except for agricultural machineries and piglets, the non-poor population has greater access to the subsidies compared to the poor. For instance, only 35% of the poor received seed and sapling subsidies compared to 52% seeds and 39% sapling subsidies received by the non-poor population. Furthermore, none of the poor received Jersey cow or biogas subsidies due to their inability to co-pay. Additionally, the agriculture machinery subsidy was found to be counterproductive to the lower income groups ( < US$153.85) and beneficial to the higher income groups. However, 14.5% of the households who received a poultry subsidy experienced 3 times more income (at a mean income change of 634.31 US$) compared to those who did not, indicating that this subsidy has larger potential to improve income for the poor. To efficiently achieve the objectives of increasing rural income and reducing poverty, we recommend agricultural subsidy programs and projects be provided as a package to poor small holders, where inputs are given based on existing capacity, availability of technical support, and market accessibility.

AB - As an agrarian nation, Bhutan's agricultural policies prioritize agricultural subsidies to boost agricultural production, rural incomes, improve food security, and reduce income poverty, especially among the rural poor. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of such policy interventions remains unknown. Based on semi-structured interviews with heads of households from six blocks representing two districts, expert consultation with agricultural policymakers and extension agents, we attempted to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidy programs including co-payments. The study found that while over 90% of the households received at least one form of subsidy, except for agricultural machineries and piglets, the non-poor population has greater access to the subsidies compared to the poor. For instance, only 35% of the poor received seed and sapling subsidies compared to 52% seeds and 39% sapling subsidies received by the non-poor population. Furthermore, none of the poor received Jersey cow or biogas subsidies due to their inability to co-pay. Additionally, the agriculture machinery subsidy was found to be counterproductive to the lower income groups ( < US$153.85) and beneficial to the higher income groups. However, 14.5% of the households who received a poultry subsidy experienced 3 times more income (at a mean income change of 634.31 US$) compared to those who did not, indicating that this subsidy has larger potential to improve income for the poor. To efficiently achieve the objectives of increasing rural income and reducing poverty, we recommend agricultural subsidy programs and projects be provided as a package to poor small holders, where inputs are given based on existing capacity, availability of technical support, and market accessibility.

KW - Agriculture

KW - Bhutan

KW - Co-payments

KW - Farm machinery

KW - Poverty

KW - Subsidy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069810302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85069810302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3390/SU11123266

DO - 10.3390/SU11123266

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85069810302

VL - 11

JO - Sustainability

JF - Sustainability

SN - 2071-1050

IS - 12

M1 - 3266

ER -