Interesting to hear that youāve been working on fertilizer management for such a long time. The points youāre adding seem very useful for a better understanding of the topic ā they certainly provided more nuance to my own thinking about fertilizers. I agree that āincreasing returns from fertilizerā might indeed be a better framing and that working on the issue from multiple angles could be more productive.
Regarding your point about fertilizers subsidy spending taking away money from other causes, I think this is not per se an argument against fertilizer subsidies ā it would be if the causes from which spending is subtracted would be more cost-effective (but I have no idea if this is the case). I do wonder though why fertilizer subsidies are politicized in South Asian countries. Because of fertilizersā role in environmental pollution?
Lastly, just to make things clear, while I spent 12 hours on the research itself, I spent an equal amount of time writing up my findings.
Fertilizer subsidy cost-effectiveness: I agreeāfertilizer subsidies could be cost-effective in principle. I guess I see reducing subsidy costs as more of a potential co-benefit of increasing returns from fertilizer. Specifically, growing more food with less fertilizer could alleviate the need for food and fertilizer subsidies (improving the cost-effectiveness and political feasibility of redirecting resources to other government services)
Why subsidies politicized: I guess a large part is the proportion of voters employed in agriculture (in South Asian democracies compared to western democracies). Also, South Asian governments commonly resist foreigners influencing government policies (partially because of colonization). This paper provides a neat introduction to fertilizer subsidies and their politicization in South Asia
Thanks for your detailed comment, Sam!
Interesting to hear that youāve been working on fertilizer management for such a long time. The points youāre adding seem very useful for a better understanding of the topic ā they certainly provided more nuance to my own thinking about fertilizers. I agree that āincreasing returns from fertilizerā might indeed be a better framing and that working on the issue from multiple angles could be more productive.
Regarding your point about fertilizers subsidy spending taking away money from other causes, I think this is not per se an argument against fertilizer subsidies ā it would be if the causes from which spending is subtracted would be more cost-effective (but I have no idea if this is the case). I do wonder though why fertilizer subsidies are politicized in South Asian countries. Because of fertilizersā role in environmental pollution?
Lastly, just to make things clear, while I spent 12 hours on the research itself, I spent an equal amount of time writing up my findings.
Cheers Helene!
Fertilizer subsidy cost-effectiveness: I agreeāfertilizer subsidies could be cost-effective in principle. I guess I see reducing subsidy costs as more of a potential co-benefit of increasing returns from fertilizer. Specifically, growing more food with less fertilizer could alleviate the need for food and fertilizer subsidies (improving the cost-effectiveness and political feasibility of redirecting resources to other government services)
Why subsidies politicized: I guess a large part is the proportion of voters employed in agriculture (in South Asian democracies compared to western democracies). Also, South Asian governments commonly resist foreigners influencing government policies (partially because of colonization). This paper provides a neat introduction to fertilizer subsidies and their politicization in South Asia