Cost-Effectiveness Comparison on Different Assistance Approaches

Hua Guo, Yuansheng Jiang

College of Economics and Management, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.

DOI: 10.4236/ti.2012.33027                

Abstract

The Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (UNFAO) adopted two assistance approaches which named the Direct Inputs Distribution (DID) and Agricultural Inputs Voucher (AIV) to assist the disaster affected farmers after the Wenchuan massive earthquake in Sichuan, China (Jiang, Guo, 2010) [1]. After carrying out 1) the beneficiaries’ field survey targeted on the earthquake affected households including both assistance recipients and non-recipients, and 2) the focus group interview of the administrative personnel in FAO Chengdu office, Department of Agriculture (DoA), Bureau of Agriculture (BoA), dealers participated in the program, the paper analyzed the total cost and effectiveness of those two approaches, by comparing the mean E:C ratios, which were 1.564 and 1.206 respectively. The results indicated that the AIV programs were more effective in assisting agriculture rehabilitation as compared to the DID programs.

Keywords

Assistance; Cost; Effectiveness

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Y. S. Jiang and H. Guo, “Innovation of International Agricultural Assistance to the Wenchuan Earthquake Areas,” FAO Working Paper, FAO, 2010.
[2]	N. Minot and T. Benson, “Fertilizer Subsidies in Africa—Are Vouchers the Answers,” IFPRI Issue Brief 60, IFPRI, Washington DC, 2009.
[3]	C. Longley, R. Kachule, et al., “Agricultural Input Vouchers in Southern Africa: Synthesis of Research Findings from Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia,” FANRPAN Working Paper, FANRPAN, Pretoria, 2008.
[4]	A. Dorward, “Evaluation of the 2006/7 Agricultural Input Subsidy Programme,” Malawi Final Report, School of Oriental and African Studies, Malawi, 2008.