Agricultural Input Subsidy Programmes and Household Welfare in Ghana: An Empirical Assessment

Purpose: This study evaluates smallholder farmers’ participation in Agricultural Input Subsidy Programmes (AISP) and examines the effects of participation on their wellbeing and farm productivity in Ghana. It also assesses whether AISP participation improves livelihood outcomes, particularly income, food security, consumption, and household assets. Design/Methodology/Approach: The study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods research design and a multi-stage sampling technique. The study collected quantitative data from 1,099 smallholder farmers in five regions of Ghana. The study collected data through structured, interviewer-administered questionnaires and qualitative interviews using an interview guide. The study used descriptive statistics, Probit regression, and Endogenous Switching Regression (ESR) to analyse participation and welfare outcomes while accounting for selection and endogeneity. Research Limitation: The cross-sectional design limits the ability to observe long-term changes at the household level, and the findings are conditioned by the assumptions underlying the econometric models and the quality of self-reported farm and welfare data. Findings: The findings indicate that AISP participation is significantly associated with demographic, farm, institutional, and environmental factors. Beneficiary farmers experienced improved livelihood outcomes, including higher income, food security, consumption, and asset accumulation compared with non-beneficiaries. AISP participation also enhanced farm productivity, particularly among farmers producing maize and rice. Qualitative evidence further indicates that timely access to subsidised fertiliser and improved seed is important for realising the programme’s productivity and welfare benefits. Practical Implication: The Ministry of Food and Agriculture should expand programme coverage and strengthen targeting and distribution through a digital database of smallholder farmers. This would improve beneficiary identification, transparency, and the effectiveness of input delivery. Social Limitation: The benefits of the programme may differ across farmers because of differences in gender, education, farm size, access to extension, market conditions, and agro-ecological circumstances. Originality/Value: The study contributes by integrating AISP participation, farm productivity, and household welfare within a sequential explanatory mixed-methods framework. It further addresses selection and endogeneity in programme participation through ESR and an instrumental-variable diagnostic, providing a more context-sensitive assessment of welfare effects.