A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Assessing Socio-Economic Impacts of Agricultural Subsidies: A Case Study from Bhutan
As an agrarian nation, Bhutan’s agricultural policies prioritize agricultural subsidies to boost agricultural production, rural incomes, improve food security, and reduce income poverty, especially among the rural poor. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of such policy interventions remains unknown. Based on semi-structured interviews with heads of households from six blocks representing two districts, expert consultation with agricultural policymakers and extension agents, we attempted to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidy programs including co-payments. The study found that while over 90% of the households received at least one form of subsidy, except for agricultural machineries and piglets, the non-poor population has greater access to the subsidies compared to the poor. For instance, only 35% of the poor received seed and sapling subsidies compared to 52% seeds and 39% sapling subsidies received by the non-poor population. Furthermore, none of the poor received Jersey cow or biogas subsidies due to their inability to co-pay. Additionally, the agriculture machinery subsidy was found to be counterproductive to the lower income groups (
Assessing Socio-Economic Impacts of Agricultural Subsidies: A Case Study from Bhutan
As an agrarian nation, Bhutan’s agricultural policies prioritize agricultural subsidies to boost agricultural production, rural incomes, improve food security, and reduce income poverty, especially among the rural poor. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of such policy interventions remains unknown. Based on semi-structured interviews with heads of households from six blocks representing two districts, expert consultation with agricultural policymakers and extension agents, we attempted to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of agricultural subsidy programs including co-payments. The study found that while over 90% of the households received at least one form of subsidy, except for agricultural machineries and piglets, the non-poor population has greater access to the subsidies compared to the poor. For instance, only 35% of the poor received seed and sapling subsidies compared to 52% seeds and 39% sapling subsidies received by the non-poor population. Furthermore, none of the poor received Jersey cow or biogas subsidies due to their inability to co-pay. Additionally, the agriculture machinery subsidy was found to be counterproductive to the lower income groups (
Assessing Socio-Economic Impacts of Agricultural Subsidies: A Case Study from Bhutan
Sonam Wangyel Wang (author) / Belay Manjur (author) / Jeong-Gyu Kim (author) / Woo-Kyun Lee (author)
2019
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
Assessing socio-economic impacts of wave overtopping: An institutional perspective
| Online Contents | 2009
Assessing socio-economic impacts of wave overtopping: An institutional perspective
| Online Contents | 2009
Assessing socio-economic impacts of wave overtopping: An institutional perspective
| British Library Online Contents | 2009
| Online Contents | 2003
Assessing the Socio-Economic Impacts of Rural Infrastructure Projects on Community Development
| DOAJ | 2022