Agricultural Economic Policies

Senator John Kennedy made a bizarre comment about omelets, but the crux was: “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.” He said it to justify cutting, freezing, or delaying critical government funding, including for farmers—suggesting that short-term pain is just part of the process. But here’s the problem: Farmers aren't eggs. When programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure (RFSI) grants get frozen, it’s not just an inconvenience—it’s livelihoods, businesses, and rural economies at risk. Farmers plan ahead based on promised funding. They take out loans. They make investments in conservation, sustainability, and local food systems. When that support vanishes overnight, the consequences ripple across entire communities. These programs aren’t waste; they improve soil health, boost production efficiency, and strengthen America’s food security. If we truly believe in rural prosperity and economic opportunity, we need policies that support farmers, not undercut them at the worst possible moment. A farm isn’t just another business—it’s a cornerstone of our communities and future. If we let our farmers fail today, who will feed us tomorrow? #RuralAmerica #Farming #Agriculture #FoodSecurity #FarmBill #EconomicOpportunity #SupportFarmers

Direct Income Support for Farmers: Is India Building a New Rural Safety Net? 🇮🇳 Just published a deep-dive analysis on one of the most important policy shifts in Indian agriculture: the rise of Direct Income Support (DIS) schemes such as Rythu Bandhu, PM-KISAN, KALIA, YSR Rythu Bharosa, RGKNY, and Krishak Bandhu. These programs have already delivered over ₹4 lakh crore to farming households and are reshaping how India supports its cultivators—moving away from subsidies and loan waivers toward cash transfers that households can actually use. 🔍 What the article explores: ✔ Why states began adopting income support after 2018 ✔ What the evidence says about impacts on farm investment, debt, and welfare ✔ Who benefits—and who gets left out (especially tenant farmers) ✔ Why how much we pay matters, and why current payments lack a scientific basis ✔ A clear comparison of the per-acre vs per-household models ✔ Lessons from global income support systems and UBI pilots ✔ What a future Farmer Basic Income Framework for India should look like 👩🌾👨🌾 With climate risks rising, incomes stagnating, and input costs soaring, income support is more than a welfare scheme—it’s becoming a pillar of rural resilience. If designed right—with indexed payments, tenant inclusion, and a hybrid national–state model—India can build a modern safety net that is fair, efficient, and financially sustainable. #FarmerIncomeSupport #AgriculturePolicy #RuralDevelopment #RythuBandhu #PMKISAN #KALIA #FarmEconomy #PublicPolicy #RuralIndia #CashTransfers #BasicIncome #UBI #AgricultureReforms #IndianEconomy #DevelopmentStudies #PolicyResearch #LinkedInWriters #EconomicsForAll Centre for Sustainable Agriculture Deccan Development Society Grameen Academy Sahaja Aharam for more articles read http://www.ramoo.in

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬? Last week, I attended a lecture by Prof. Johan Rockström entitled “𝘈 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘵, 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵: 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦” As always, his message was both unsettling and inspiring. One thing is clear: the majority of our impact on Earth’s planetary boundaries is driven by food. And the warning signs are already visible. Land is losing its ability to absorb carbon. Ocean temperatures are rising rapidly. The Earth’s resilience is being pushed to its limits. So, 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 “𝐧𝐨 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐭”? Changing our diets is part of the answer—but it’s far from enough. We must fundamentally transform how food is produced. And that requires a full value chain approach—from farm to fork (and beyond). But here’s the reality we don’t talk about enough 👇 • For large food companies, most impact sits upstream—with thousands of farmers • Those farmers aren’t thinking about LCA—they’re focused on yields and fair prices for their crops So when we say “just collect better data,” we’re missing the point. Farmers operate under intense pressure: high volumes, low prices, and little room for risk. If we don’t change the incentives, we won’t change the outcomes. What actually works? Aligning incentives with impact. Take FrieslandCampina: by paying farmers more for lower-footprint milk, they triggered real change. Suddenly, farmers had a reason to ask: how can we improve? This is where transformation happens—not in spreadsheets, but in supply chains. And for LCA practitioners, the message is clear: 👉 Supplier data doesn’t come for free—it requires supplier enablement 👉 Real impact means working closely with procurement to redesign incentives 👉 Otherwise, we remain stuck with generic data—and no way to differentiate in a rapidly evolving policy landscape 💬 Curious to hear your perspective: 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬—𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲?

The African Development Bank Group has approved a US$25M grant to Zimbabwe, targeting drought prone rural communities under the Agricultural Climate Resilient and Vulnerability Reduction (ACRES) programme running from 2026 to 2030. (It's not a loan, Zimbabwe will not have to pay it back) Here’s a clear breakdown of what this means: What it is about • A climate focused agricultural programme designed to help rural communities adapt to drought and unpredictable weather • Focused on strengthening both crop and livestock systems, not just short term production Where it will be implemented • Matabeleland South (Gwanda, Matobo, Mangwe, Bulilima) • Masvingo Province (Gutu) These are some of Zimbabwe’s most drought-affected regions, where livelihoods depend heavily on agriculture and livestock Who benefits • Around 92,500 smallholder farmers directly • At least 50% women and 20% youth • An estimated 200,000+ people indirectly through households and local economies What will be done on the ground • Development and rehabilitation of irrigation systems and water infrastructure • Strengthening livestock production and grazing systems • Training farmers in climate-smart agriculture • Improving access to more reliable and sustainable farming practices This is about building resilience into rural economies. If implemented effectively, this could: • Reduce the impact of drought on farming communities • Improve food security at both household and national levels • Strengthen rural incomes and economic stability • Create conditions for private sector participation in agriculture At its core, this initiative is about shifting agriculture from high risk survival to more stable, productive systems.

Can an integrated program of cash, inputs and training support better production and better lives for highly vulnerable farmers? Our latest impact evaluation of an FAO-implemented project in Mozambique tries to answer this question. The project targeted rural households who were exiting the government's public works scheme, Programa de Acção Social Produtiva (PASP), with a livelihood support package made up of  unconditional cash transfers, e-vouchers for agricultural inputs, and Farmer Field School (FFS) training. Our evaluation found that this intervention led to: - An increase in the adoption of improved agricultural practices (0.62 SD) - Greater diversification of crop and vegetables (0.32 SD). - A 15 percent increase in the value of crops produced - A 26 percent increase in agricultural income.  The take home message is that as households transition off of social assistance programmes, the right kind of support can make a huge difference in helping them to create new and better economic opportunities. Find out more by accessing the report below: https://lnkd.in/dz5qyjbF

Carbon Incentives for Rice: Monetising Groundwater Destruction under Climate Accounting — Ecological Damage is Financially Rewarded. Intensive rice cultivation in Punjab and Haryana is hydrologically unnatural. Climate change may amplify stress, but it is not the primary driver. The crisis is the outcome of assured procurement, free or subsidised power, and input incentives that override agro-ecological logic. The situation is now at risk of further deterioration with the introduction of carbon incentives for rice. Carbon credits linked to paddy cultivation risk monetising groundwater destruction under climate accounting, creating a perverse outcome where ecological damage is financially rewarded. Rice in Punjab–Haryana may be a food policy success, but it is unequivocally a water and climate failure. Groundwater depletion here is not a tragedy of nature; it is a tragedy of incentives. The policy question India can no longer avoid. Should India correct this distortion now—or continue business as usual at an irreversible ecological cost? The warning signs are no longer academic. The Supreme Court of India has explicitly cautioned against promoting paddy cultivation in Punjab, emphasising the urgent need to phase it out to arrest groundwater depletion. In the Court’s words: “…..We don’t want another desert there…..” https://lnkd.in/gkh5-Sjp What could more a relevant observation and message to policy makers given by Supreme Court to save agriculture ecosystem in an agricultural country! This is not a call to abandon farmers. It is a call to realign incentives with agro-climatic reality, protect groundwater resources, and secure the long-term viability of Indian agriculture. My recent article: “Political Subsidies, Ecological Costs — The Agricultural Decline of Punjab and Haryana” Mukti Sadhan Basu, Ph.D | Jan 22, 2026 https://lnkd.in/gD9zY2sV The solution is not to improve rice in the wrong place, but to move the right crops to the right places—using policy, procurement, and carbon finance together. Dr. M S Basu, MD SBSF Consultancy, Formerly, Director ICAR; Visiting Scientist ICRISAT; UNIDO International Consultant (Africa) & Independent Consultant BPD-NAIP (World Bank Funded). muktisadhan@gmail.com

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗔𝗴𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀 I’ve seen this happen over and over again in the field: Millions of dollars enter the agricultural sector every year in the form of grants, interventions, and development programs, yet the average smallholder farmer remains stuck with the same challenges: ▪️ Poor access to inputs ▪️ Bad roads and broken supply chains ▪️ Post-harvest losses ▪️ Limited market access ▪️ Zero extension support ▪️ Outdated farming practices So why don’t most agricultural grants create real impact? Here are the hard truths we don’t talk about enough: 1️⃣ 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗮𝗿𝗺𝘀 Many grant programs are written by people who have never visited a rural community, crossed a river in a canoe, or watched a farmer struggle to move goods. The farmers’ real problems rarely make it into the final design. 2️⃣ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀 Most programs measure success as: ▪️ “Money disbursed” ▪️ “Inputs distributed” ▪️ “Workshops conducted” But farmers measure success as: ▪️ “Better yield” ▪️ “Lower cost” ▪️ “Access to market” ▪️ “More profit” Two different worlds. Two different outcomes. 3️⃣ 𝗡𝗼 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝗨𝗽 𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 Many projects end the moment the grant money finishes. ▪️ No monitoring. ▪️ No evaluation. ▪️ No post-project support. ▪️ No sustainability plan. Farmers are left holding tools they can’t maintain or seeds they can’t afford to buy again. 4️⃣ 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝘅 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀 You can give seeds and fertilizers… …but if the road to the market is bad, the produce will still rot. …if middlemen still dictate prices, farmers will still be broke. …if logistics remain poor, post-harvest losses will continue. Grants often treat symptoms, not systems. 5️⃣ 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗙𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗡𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗹 The distribution process is often political, complex, or full of bottlenecks. The people who need the support the most rarely receive it. 6️⃣ 𝗪𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 Some grants arrive after the planting season, or during harvest, or when farmers can’t even apply the solutions properly. Agriculture is seasonal, money and interventions must respect timing. 7️⃣ 𝗟𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗘𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 You can’t hand out equipment without training. You can’t provide chemicals without proper usage knowledge. You can’t give loans without record-keeping support. Without education, interventions collapse. To truly transform agriculture, grants should: ▪️ Begin with farmer needs assessments ▪️ Fix supply chain and infrastructure gaps ▪️ Strengthen extension and advisory services ▪️ Provide market access, not just inputs ▪️ Focus on skills, not only subsidies ▪️ Support sustainable, long-term systems

Our Agricultural Productivity Flagship takes a deep look at 25 years of data across 17 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, to better understand the relationship between agricultural policies and agricultural productivity. Below, a summary of its conclusions: 1. Market Price Support (MPS): Most support in the region comes from price distortions. The analysis shows that MPS is negatively associated with total factor productivity (TFP), discouraging efficiency and competitiveness. Simply put: distorting prices doesn’t raise productivity. 2. Direct support: potential when it avoids distortions Targeted transfers, technology and environmental incentives, and risk-management tools can help producers improve their productivity. But their case-by-case impact depends on good design, transparency, and a clear focus on long-run objectives. 3. GSSE: public goods that drive productivity There are investments in general services support (GSSE) like rural infrastructure, R&D, extension, sanitary systems, and agricultural information. These public goods are positively associated with TFP growth, yet their impacts are only evident in the long-run. Therefore, investments need to be stable and sustained across political cycles. 4. R&D: a special case for long-term growth Countries that invest consistently in R&D enjoy higher productivity growth over the long term. Research requires stable funding, strong institutions, and protection from “stop-and-go” cycles. Bottom line: The region’s productivity challenges need more and better investments. Gradually redirecting support away from market distortive instruments and toward targeted direct support, innovation, research, data, and other public goods is essential to unlock a more competitive, resilient, and sustainable agriculture. #AgriculturalProductivity #PublicPolicy #RuralDevelopment #SustainableAgriculture #Competitiveness #AgPolicy #AgResearch #Agrimonitor https://lnkd.in/dWK-eHgZ

How can we make agricultural subsidies both productive and fair? Across Africa, crop yields have remained largely flat—despite billions spent on fertilizer and input subsidies. In Mozambique, the government once offered a full subsidy on a fixed package of inputs—with little effect on productivity. Together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Paul Christian who leads our work on agriculture at the World Bank Group Development Impact, and coauthors designed a crossover experiment to test a new approach: flexible e-vouchers that let farmers choose what to buy. The results were striking. The farmers who could tailor their choices and selected larger input packages, boosted their yields by 35% and profits by 66%. That evidence reshaped national policy—and is now inspiring neighboring countries to rethink how to deliver smarter subsidies for farmers. In the latest episode of the Backstory podcast, Precious Fasikin speaks with Paul Christian about balancing equity and efficiency in agricultural subsidies—and what it takes to design experiments that are rigorous, relevant, and open to the unexpected. Listen here: Backstory: Paul Christian on Balancing Equity and Efficiency in Agricultural Subsidies https://lnkd.in/eUqUMmNK #LEADS #ImpactEvaluation #Agriculture #Mozambique #DevelopmentImpact #WorldBankGroup #EvidenceToPolicy #ImpactAI

The Double Impact of SNAP Cuts: How 42 Million Americans and Employers Face New Economic Challenges Recent government cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have created a ripple effect across multiple sectors of our economy. With 42 million Americans now facing reduced food assistance benefits, the consequences extend far beyond individual households. The Hidden Business Impact: Federal Employer Tax Credits at Risk Many employers aren't recognizing how these SNAP cuts directly affect their bottom line. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) provides businesses with up to $9,600 per eligible employee hired from certain target groups - including SNAP recipients. As fewer individuals qualify for SNAP benefits, businesses lose access to this significant tax advantage that has helped offset labor costs while promoting inclusive hiring practices. Agricultural Sector Facing Severe Disruption The farming industry has been particularly hard hit. USDA data confirms that farm establishments received 24.3 cents of every food dollar spent through SNAP in 2023. With the 2025 funding cuts, agricultural producers are reporting a 37% decline in federal procurement compared to 2024 levels. This translates to billions in lost revenue across the agricultural supply chain. Compounding Challenges This policy shift creates a troubling economic cycle: - Reduced SNAP participation means fewer WOTC-eligible workers - Employers face higher effective labor costs as tax credits diminish - Decreased SNAP spending reduces demand for agricultural products - Farmers face market contraction at a time of already-thin margins - Rural communities experience decreased economic activity The timing is particularly problematic as the WOTC program itself is set to expire on December 31, 2025, removing an important hiring incentive just when economic pressure is mounting. Will policymakers recognize these interconnected economic impacts before irreversible damage occurs to both vulnerable communities and the businesses that serve them? #SNAPCuts #EmployerTaxCredit #FarmersImpact #FoodSecurity #AgricultureEconomy #WorkforceIncentives #EconomicPolicy #RuralEconomy