This thesis compares agricultural input subsidies and social cash transfers as alternative policy
levers for addressing vulnerability to hunger in Malawi. Input subsidies stimulate yield growth
in agriculture, and can improve the food security of food-deficit small farmers both directly and
indirectly. Social cash transfers directly support the immediate consumption needs of
populations at risk of missing minimum food entitlements. The two policies interact both as
livelihood complements and as competitors for fiscal space. Research to date has provided little
comparative evidence on such interactions and their effects. The thesis objective is to gain a
deeper understanding than hitherto available of these policy options, which in Malawi are
characterised by confusion concerning their roles in achieving a sustainable reduction in
vulnerability and deprivation.
In Malawi both policies were introduced in 2005/06, following five years of recurrent national
food crises. The input subsidy programme (ISP) is a national programme targeting over 50 per
cent of Malawi’s 3.2 million farm families every year. Social cash transfers, in contrast, are
pilot schemes in seven of the 28 districts, and aim to cover the 10 per cent of households
identified as ultra poor and labour constrained. The research involved the use of secondary data
sources combined with a fieldwork in Mchinji district, which was the first pilot site for social
cash transfers in 2006.
The research demonstrates the difficulty in Malawi of constructing a policy environment that
can enduringly reduce the proneness of the rural population to hunger and deprivation. The ISP
appears to have more than doubled maize output according to official figures but caution is
indicated regarding the true magnitude of output gains realised. For social cash transfers,
evidence suggests positive food security and livelihood impacts but important caveats are
identified. Overall, the thesis contributes to the growing awareness that one strategy on its own
cannot be relied upon to achieve sustainable vulnerability reduction; a portfolio of instruments
that address differing needs is advised, while carefully considering complementarities and tradeoffs
between them.