Are we overestimating the negative impact of higher food prices? Evidence from Ghana

Most studies of the welfare impact of higher food prices adopt Deaton's approach, based on the first‐order effect of prices changes using income and expenditure survey data. This paper explores the impact of higher maize and food prices in Ghana and considers the sensitivity of results to changes in several assumptions. If second‐order effects are included, incorporating household response to price changes, the welfare impact of food price increases is more positive, but only modestly so. However, if we assume that marketing margins are constant in real terms rather than proportional to prices, the welfare impact is substantially more positive. These findings highlight the need for more research on the behavior of marketing margins under volatile prices.     

Re‐evaluating the Harbinson Proposal – Prospects for the EU25: A Note

In this study, we use the Harbinson Proposal and July Framework to compare a ‘likely’ Doha scenario with a realistic baseline. The novelty of this study is that we focus exclusively on the trade‐led welfare impacts in selected EU member states. The important features of this note are the: (i) usage of the latest Global Trade Analysis Project (version 6) data; (ii) focus on EU25 regions incorporating all major Common Agricultural Policy instruments and reforms; and (iii) inclusion of binding tariff overhangs into the Harbinson tariff reductions. Results show the damping effects of tariff‐binding overhangs on welfare outcomes. This and other factors which limit the gains to liberalisation mean that the EU25 only realises 10% of its long‐run welfare gain potential, as defined by complete liberalisation.     

Does a nutritious diet cost more in food deserts?

Food deserts and their potential effects on diet and nutrition have received much attention from policymakers. While some research has found a correlation between food deserts and consumer outcomes, it is unclear whether food deserts truly affect consumer choices. In this article, we compare food prices in food deserts, defined as low‐income, low‐access census tracts, and nonfood deserts to observe whether and to what extent consumers face higher prices for a complete diet in food deserts. If a nutritionally complete diet costs significantly more in food deserts, resident consumers may be constrained from consuming healthier foods. We use store‐level scanner data from a nationally representative sample and calculate a census‐tract level Exact Price Index (EPI) based on a food basket defined by the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP). The EPI addresses potential biases from both product heterogeneity and variety availability. We find that the overall price impact of living in a food desert is small; low‐access areas have only 3.5% higher EPI than high‐access counterparts. However, consumers who are constrained to shop within their own census tracts face a much higher EPI than high‐access counterparts (9.2%). The higher EPI primarily comes from lower variety availability in food deserts.     

Finding default? Understanding the drivers of default on contracts with farmers’ organizations under the World Food Programme Purchase for progress pilot

During the past two decades, food assistance policy has shifted toward local or regional food purchases and away from purchases from donor countries. Although most local and regional procurement occurs through hard tendering processes open to large‐scale firms and farms, there is growing interest in identifying how and whether to procure from smallholder farmer organizations (FOs). To date, little is known about the drivers of successful contracting with FOs. We utilize data from the United Nations World Food Programme Purchase for Progress pilot in three East African countries to predict defaults on contracts. We examine four possible explanations: country contexts, FO characteristics, prior experience with contracts, and contract modalities and their relationship to local spot market prices. The single most important predictor of default is the increase in market prices between contract approval and delivery. Yet, although increases in market prices are linked to increases in default, this relationship is decreasing in contract size, indicating search costs associated with breaking contracts. Our findings yield both generalizable and context‐specific insights about whether—and when—procuring from smallholder farmers can be successfully integrated into the food assistance toolkit.