Implementation Processes and Mediating Factors in Agricultural Support Programmes: Evidence from Zambia's Transition from FISP to CASP
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67221/paa8bd42Keywords:
Farmer Input Support Programme, e-voucher, Zambia, food security, programme implementation, smallholder agricultureAbstract
Background: Agricultural input subsidy programmes remain central to food security policy in sub-Saharan Africa, yet persistent implementation failures undermine their effectiveness. Zambia's Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP), a major intervention reaching over one million smallholder households, has faced chronic challenges in timely delivery, equitable targeting, and digital access through its e-voucher system. As Zambia transitions from FISP to the Comprehensive Agriculture Support Programme (CASP), understanding these implementation barriers is critical for designing more effective support. This article examines the implementation processes of FISP in a remote rural context and identifies the institutional, socio-economic, and environmental factors that mediate programme effectiveness.
Methods: The study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design. Quantitative data were collected from 300 households (150 FISP beneficiaries and 150 non-beneficiaries) in Kawimbe ward, Mbala District, Northern Province, using structured questionnaires measuring e-voucher functionality, input timeliness, accessibility, targeting fairness, and mediating factors. Qualitative data were gathered through 15 key informant interviews with agricultural officers, agro-dealers, traditional leaders, and cooperative leaders, and 12 focus group discussions stratified by gender and beneficiary status. Data were analysed using logistic regression, hierarchical regression, mediation analysis, and thematic analysis.
Results: Implementation failures were pervasive. Only 34% of beneficiaries received inputs on time, with mean delays of 3.4 weeks. E-voucher functionality challenges affected 52% of beneficiaries, and agro-dealer stock-outs affected 55%. Female-headed households comprised only 14% of beneficiaries despite constituting 22% of farming households. Geographic location (distance to agro-dealer) and female-headed household status were significant predictors of late delivery (AOR=1.15 per km, p=0.003; AOR=2.84, p=0.006, respectively). Cooperative membership was protective (AOR=0.42, p=0.014). Thematic analysis revealed five major themes: "The Digital Entitlement Gap," "The Proximity Penalty," "Gendered Exclusion," "Elite Capture and Political Interference," and "The Timeliness-Yield Connection."
Conclusion: Implementation failures in FISP reflect systemic transfer entitlement failures that disproportionately affect remote and female-headed households. These findings provide critical evidence for designing CASP with decentralised logistics, multiple delivery channels, gender-sensitive targeting, mobile distribution points, and strengthened community oversight. Addressing these mediating factors is essential for ensuring that agricultural support programmes achieve their intended food security outcomes in remote rural contexts.
References
Aker, J. C., & Ksoll, C. (2023). Digital agricultural services and the transformation of food systems in Africa. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 15(1), 215-238.
Appiah, R., Weobong, B., & Raviola, G. (2025). Bridging ethics and culture: A co-created, culturally sensitive informed consent framework for research in Bimoba and Mamprusi communities in Ghana. BMC Medical Ethics.
Arslan, A., Cavatassi, R., Alfani, F., & Winters, P. (2023). Climate shocks, resilience and food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Global Food Security, 36, 100683.
Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2021). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43-50.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Devereux, S. (2022). Sen's entitlement theory: A critical reappraisal after 40 years. In K. Roelen, C. Shaffer, & S. Devereux (Eds.), Rethinking food systems: Structural challenges, new directions (pp. 45-68). Palgrave Macmillan.
District Agricultural Coordinator's Office. (2025). Kawimbe ward FISP beneficiary register, 2025/26 season. Ministry of Agriculture, Mbala District, Zambia.
District Health Office. (2026). Kawimbe ward population and household census data. Ministry of Health, Mbala District, Zambia.
Doss, C. R., & Quisumbing, A. R. (2024). Intra-household decision-making and agricultural interventions: A methodological review. Feminist Economics, 30(1), 1-29.
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2023). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 58(1), 210-224.
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., et al. (2022). Survey methodology (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Guetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., & Creswell, J. W. (2021). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554-561.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2021). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Jayne, T. S., & Rashid, S. (2022). Input subsidy programs in sub-Saharan Africa: A synthesis of recent evidence. Agricultural Economics, 53(1), 21-44.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: A guide to conducting a semi-structured interview study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 30(2), 255-265.
Kansanga, M. M., Bezner Kerr, R., & Lupafya, E. (2023). The political ecology of input subsidies: A case study from Malawi. Journal of Peasant Studies, 50(3), 987-1012.
Kling, J. R., Liebman, J. B., & Katz, L. F. (2021). Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects. Econometrica, 75(1), 83-119.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Kumar, S., Barolia, R., Petrucka, P., & Ali, A. A. (2025). Rigor: The assessment of trustworthiness. Kashf Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(1), 1-12.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Liverpool-Tasie, L. S. O., & Takeshima, H. (2021). Input subsidy programs and agricultural input markets: Evidence from Nigeria. Food Policy, 98, 101876.
Manda, J., Khonje, M. G., & Alene, A. D. (2025). Beyond access: Evaluating the impact and counterfactual outcomes of input subsidy programmes on smallholder maize farmers' yield and income in Zambia. New Medit, 24(1), 45-62.
Martínez-Barón, D., et al. (2024). Climate-Smart Agriculture and livelihood vulnerability: Evidence from Guatemala, Honduras, and Colombia. World Development, 165, 106204.
Ministry of Agriculture. (2025). Comprehensive Agriculture Support Programme (CASP): Programme framework and implementation guidelines. Government of the Republic of Zambia.
Mofya-Mukuka, R., & Hichaambwa, M. (2023). The political economy of Zambia's farmer input support programme: Institutions, interests, and implementation gaps. World Development Perspectives, 30, 100488.
Morgan, D. L. (2019). Basic and advanced focus groups. SAGE Publications.
Mulenga, B. P., & Tembo, S. (2024). Digital vouchers and gender equity in Zambia's Farmer Input Support Programme. Journal of Development Studies, 60(2), 245-263.
Ngoma, H., Mulenga, B. P., & Snyder, J. (2023). The food security-nutrition disconnect: Evidence from Zambia's Farmer Input Support Programme. World Development, 162, 106138.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544.
Parliament of Zambia. (2023). Report of the Committee on Agriculture on the Performance Audit Report on the Implementation of the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) 2018-2022. National Assembly of Zambia.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Resnick, D. (2023). The political economy of agricultural input subsidies in Africa: A comparative analysis. World Development, 165, 106204.
Ricker-Gilbert, J., & Mason, N. M. (2023). The impact of input subsidy programs on smallholder welfare: A systematic review. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 15(1), 189-214.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72.
Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford University Press.
Sitko, N. J., & Chapoto, A. (2021). Targeting efficiency in Zambia's Farmer Input Support Programme: A panel data analysis. Food Policy, 98, 101958.
Sitko, N. J., Chapoto, A., & Banda, D. (2021). The changing face of agriculture in Zambia: Trends, challenges and opportunities. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute.
Steinert, J., et al. (2025). Ethics and equity: Addressing violations of the Belmont Report principles for research staff. World Development Perspectives.
Valliant, R., Dever, J. A., & Kreuter, F. (2021). Practical tools for designing and weighting survey samples (2nd ed.). Springer.
Zambia Integrated Agriculture Management Information System. (2024). Farmer registration database: Northern Province. Ministry of Agriculture, Lusaka, Zambia.
Zambia National Health Research Authority. (2021). National guidelines for research involving human participants in Zambia. Ministry of Health, Lusaka.
Zemba, C., Prah, S., & Ng'ombe, J. N. (2025). Agricultural cooperatives boost food security through input subsidies in rural Zambia. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 13(1), 100234.
Zulu-Mbata, O., Chapoto, A., & Hichaambwa, M. (2022). The e-voucher experiment in Zambia: Early evidence and emerging lessons. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute Policy Brief, No. 112.
Zulu-Mbata, O., & Hichaambwa, M. (2023). Private sector participation in Zambia's agricultural input markets: The role of subsidy programs. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 13(2), 245-263.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 FREDRICK CHIMANGA , Tembo Scott (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Open Access Licensing Policy
International Journal of Development and Innovation Studies (IJDIS)
Published by DisJournals.org
IJDIS is an open-access journal committed to the free dissemination of scholarly knowledge.
All articles published in IJDIS are licensed under:
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0)
Under the CC BY 4.0 licence, readers are permitted to:
- share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format;
- adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial purposes;
provided that appropriate credit is given to:
- the original author(s);
- the article title;
- IJDIS as the original publication source;
- the DOI link of the published article.
The licence requires users to provide appropriate attribution and indicate if changes were made.
The CC BY 4.0 licence supports maximum visibility, accessibility, and reuse of research outputs while protecting authors' intellectual contributions.
Full licence information is available at:
