What is it about?
The papers tests whether government food and cash transfers to vulnerable groups in Botswana affect their decisions to participate in subsistence crop production. The findings are that publically provided pensions do not affect participation decisions while government food transfers discourage participation in crop production.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
It is important because it adds to the policy debate on whether public transfers (cash and food) are a disincentive to crop production. It will also help the government in Botswana to design transfers programs with the view to managing production disincentives.
Perspectives
The paper adds to the growing and mixed literature on work and production disincentive effects of cash and food transfer programs in the developing world. The results show that, where food transfers are sizable, consistent and regular ( such as in Botswana where they are provided monthly for many years), they have the potential to discourage crop production. This may be also because, unlike cash, food is directly substitutable for crop production and is not readily convertible into cash for further investment in productive economic activities.
Dr Tebogo Bruce Seleka
Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Public Transfers and Participation Decisions in Botswana's Subsistence Economy, Review of Development Economics, July 2016, Wiley,
DOI: 10.1111/rode.12275.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
