Myths and realities about input subsidies in sub‐Saharan Africa

Using a recent public expenditure dataset, this article proposes a ‘reality check’ of the level and composition of input subsidies in nine African countries between 2006 and 2013. Results show that input subsidies (1) received close to 35% of agricultural-specific expenditure on average and (2) cover a variety of interventions, including investments in capital, such as on-farm irrigation, and in on-farm services, such as inspection or training. Further, the figures show that input subsidies tended to become entrenched in agricultural budgets over time, leading to sub-optimal execution rates, and were primarily funded by the national taxpayer, while donors invested more in public goods. Findings confirm that input subsidies crowded out other spending categories likely to be more supportive of long-term agricultural development objectives. The article concludes that the political economy of input subsidies should be directed to making more concrete efforts to attain a better balance of public expenditure on agriculture. Furthermore, policy-makers should aim to increase the efficiency and policy coherence of input subsidies, since merely abolishing them is likely to be unfeasible in the short term.