Effective Public Investments to Improve Food Security

The document reviews 87 cases of agricultural interventions, finding that nearly 70% had a positive impact on food security. It emphasizes that success depends more on local context and implementation—such as addressing wealth inequality and combining interventions—than on the specific type of investment. Key analyzed areas include input subsidies, value chain development, and extension services, with recommendations for using direct food security indicators and rigorous baseline assessments in future planning.

• A systematic review of 87 agricultural interventions in low-income and lower-middle-income countries showed that approximately 69% had a positive impact on food security, 24% had no measurable impact, and 7% had a negative impact.
• The effectiveness of agricultural interventions is driven more by the specific implementation context and local conditions than by the type of intervention used. Failures are often linked to a lack of consideration for gender inequality, wealth inequity, and broader community challenges.
• Input subsidies are most effective when farmers already possess productive assets like land, machinery, and irrigation. While they can increase yields and income, they may have mixed effects on food security if farmers lack storage capacity or if equity effects offset overall yield gains.
• Combining input subsidies with other supports, such as cash transfers for the poorest households or extension services, improves outcomes. Extension services can provide long-term benefits by teaching farmers techniques that do not rely on external inputs.
• Value chain interventions generally increase food availability and quality, particularly when focusing on diverse locally consumed crops, but they primarily benefit those who already have access to productive assets.
• Extension services showed no negative impacts in the studied sample and were most successful when they employed collaborative approaches, directly addressed food security, and considered community challenges like credit access.
• Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2) would require an average additional public spending of USD 11 billion per year between 2015 and 2030, with USD 4 billion from donors and USD 7 billion from poor countries.

APA

Bizikova, L., Jungcurt, S., McDougal, K., & Smaller, C. (2017). Effective Public Investments to Improve Food Security. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/effective-public-investments-improve-food-security.pdf

Chicago

Bizikova, Livia, Stefan Jungcurt, Kieran McDougal, and Carin Smaller. Effective Public Investments to Improve Food Security. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2017. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/effective-public-investments-improve-food-security.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Bizikova |first1=Livia |last2=Jungcurt |first2=Stefan |last3=McDougal |first3=Kieran |last4=Smaller |first4=Carin |title=Effective Public Investments to Improve Food Security |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=December 2017 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/effective-public-investments-improve-food-security.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{bizikova2017effective, author = {Bizikova, Livia and Jungcurt, Stefan and McDougal, Kieran and Smaller, Carin}, title = {{Effective Public Investments to Improve Food Security}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2017}, month = dec, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/effective-public-investments-improve-food-security.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }