<mark>combine the price information with detailed data on the location of these markets as well as the road network connecting these markets in order to measure the travel-time between each potential market pair. In order to account for changes in maize harvest per capita, we use annual maize production and population data during 1960–2018 and deviation of maize harvest levels from the long-term average in these four countries. Using data on households’ maize production, consumption, and sales patterns from the Integrated</mark> Household Surveys (HIS), we assess the welfare effects of export bans.

<mark>Information on trade restrictions is compiled from government and media reports. During the study period, Malawi had imposed and lifted maize export bans three times. Zambia and Tanzania also imposed similar bans for varying periods, and we account for the policy regimes in the neighboring countries in the analysis. The effects of export bans on relative prices are likely to be heterogeneous across years and over seasons. For example, given the structure of the grain market in Malawi, where farmers typically sell their produce immediately after harvest, the impact of the export ban could be different during harvest time and lean seasons of a given year. The impacts are also likely to vary between good and bad harvest years. The monthly panel structure of the data, along with the variation in the export policy regimes, allows us to</mark> examine the heterogeneous effects of export bans across years and over seasons.

<mark>The results suggest that export bans, in the short run, are associated with lower domestic prices, lower relative prices, and less seasonality in prices in Malawi, after accounting for harvest levels and the existence of trade restrictions in neighboring countries. The welfare analysis we undertake suggests that the majority of Malawian households’ gain, albeit small in magnitude, from low maize prices due to export bans. Even though most of the net-buyers enjoyed gains, net-selling farmers experienced losses due to lower maize prices. On average, Malawians receive a welfare gain equivalent to just 0.81 percent of their total household consumption as a result of lower maize prices from export bans alone. That is equivalent to an annual transfer of around MK1,690 ($2.3) per person, or MK7,607 ($10.4) per household. Net sellers of maize, on the other hand, experience a welfare loss equivalent to 0.88 percent of their total consumption as a result of the drop in prices. The poverty reduction attributable to these welfare gains is also small. Around 51.5 percent of Malawi’s population is moderately poor, and a further 20.1 percent is ultra-poor. The welfare analysis suggests that the decrease in maize prices brought about by bans reduces these rates by just 0.55</mark> and 0.64 percentage points, respectively.

<mark>Though small in magnitude, these short-run effects of the export bans may help explain why policymakers and politicians are likely to engage in the use of such policies. However, given the long-run distortionary effects of trade restrictions, policymakers could address market failures and achieve the food security objectives by investing in storage, improving access to finance, and investing in rural infrastructure (road, market information, and other infrastructure).</mark> We present a background of trade policies in Malawi and neighboring countries, and a summary of relevant literature in the next section. Following this, we discuss the data and methodology. The subsequent section presents the results of the analysis, and we conclude with a discussion and policy implications in the final section.

3