– national, district, and community. The limited pro-poor targeting (or mis-targeting – depending on the resource poverty definition) that does occur is facilitated by community-based targeting, i.e. open forums in which village residents identify beneficiaries in a collective fashion. The evidence suggests that the decentralized approach to targeting that relies heavily on CBT is leading to at least a degree of elite capture. We show that on average, households that are relatively well-off, connected to community leadership, and residing in agro-ecologically favorable locations are more likely to be FISP beneficiaries and receive more input coupons.

Our findings based on the nationally-representative data for the 2009/10 agricultural season are in line with the studies that are referenced above and informed by data collected in selected districts of the country. Since a nationally-representative sample of 3,247 IHS3 households have been selected for re-interview as part of the Integrated Household Panel Survey 2013, future research will replicate the analysis for the 2012/13 agricultural season with additional insights on (i) side payments in redeeming input coupons, (ii) open forum dynamics, specifically on the participation and role of local leaders commonly identified by the MoAFS as facilitators, and (iii) sharing/redistribution arrangements facilitated by community leaders outside open forums.

The conclusion about the lack of targeting is notable given that the program objectives are to improve productivity through access to inputs and enhance household food security through increased production. Improving food security of the poor directly through production is not possible if they are not targeted by the program. An obvious question is whether this is acceptable. While most studies reviewed by Mansuri and Rao (2012) on the relative performance of centralized vs. decentralized targeting mechanisms find support for more pro-poor targeting under decentralized beneficiary identification, the targeting gains resulting from decentralization seem to be small, which is in line with the results presented here. The authors highlight the improvements that could be realized in the local targeting of beneficiaries when central authorities provide stronger incentives for poverty targeting at the local level and control key program features, such as eligibility thresholds. Since the MoAFS exerts limited control over the operationalization of the concept of resource poverty at the local level in the context of the FISP, the gloomy poverty targeting performance of the program is perhaps not surprising.

An alternative to _or_ complement to the way in which CBT is currently implemented could be the use of a proxy means test (PMT) and the identification of beneficiaries through an administrative process, using easily observed and verifiable indicators of household welfare that are intended to proxy for income. A simple PMT could be integrated into the annual process of nation-wide updating of the farming household registry and should at least be considered for piloting, as also advocated by Houssou and Zeller (2011) and Dorward and Chirwa (2013). While a PMT theoretically devalues the relevance of information in identifying beneficiaries at the community level (Mansuri and Rao, 2012), available evidence highlights its superiority over CBT when resource poverty status is based on per capita expenditures (Alatas et al., 2012). Several projects 23