Soil,Striga, or subsidies? Determinants of maize productivity in northern Ghana

High yield gaps persist in sub‐Saharan Africa and increased fertilizer use is considered among the crucial measures to increase productivity. Despite high government investments, particularly in fertilizer subsidy programs (FSPs), overwhelming evidence has revealed their inefficiency. This study employs a multidisciplinary approach to identify the determinants of low maize yields in the Guinea savanna zone of Ghana. We conducted a socioeconomic household survey and analyzed plot‐specific soil samples. Econometric models were estimated based on both socioeconomic and soil variables. The results show that a common parasitic weed, Striga, and labile soil structure have significant effects on yield in the study region. Plot sizes were recorded both from farmers’ direct elicitation and using GPS devices. Considerable discrepancies were detected between self‐reported and GPS‐measured plot sizes. Fertilizer samples from randomly selected agro‐input shops were analyzed to control for adulterated or fake inputs. The measured nutrient contents of the samples reflected the composition indicated on the package labels. Findings underline the need of site‐specific data collection, supported by laboratory‐based soil test results, to efficiently address low productivity. Although there are no signs of fertilizer adulteration, governance challenges persist in targeting, timing, and elite capture in the distribution system of the subsidy program. The study shows that the FSP has not been an effective standalone measure. Rather, the government needs to invest in capacity building and extension services to address the site‐specific problems through comprehensive soil fertility management techniques and weed control. Promoting soil carbon management, minimum mechanical stress, crop rotation, and permanent soil cover should be further investigated as options for the region.     

Do Not‐For‐Profits Need Their Own Conceptual Framework?

This paper raises the issue of whether not‐for‐profit (NFP) oganisations require a conceptual framework that acknowledges their mission imperative and enables them to discharge their broader accountability. Relying on publicly available documentation and literature, it suggests the current Conceptual Frameworks for the for‐profit and public sectors are inadequate in meeting the accountability needs of NFPs. A NFP‐specific conceptual framework would allow the demonstration of broader NFP‐specific accountability and the formulation of NFP‐appropriate reporting practice, including the provision of financial and non‐financial reporting. The paper thus theoretically challenges existing financial reporting arrangements and invites debate on their future direction.     

Public or Private Orientation of Pension Systems in the Light of the Recent Financial Crisis

This paper studies the appropriateness of a public or private orientation of pension systems in the light of the recent financial crisis, which has underscored the difficulties and contradictions associated with each system. The different institutional arrangements, in which public or private pension systems are embedded, are key components when assessing their responses to the crisis. Particularly, private pension systems are intertwined with financial markets, while social insurance-based pension systems are linked to the labour market mechanisms. This paper compares the British and French pension systems, as “archetypes” of private-oriented and public-oriented systems, respectively, the first relying on the market and private pension schemes, and the second on mandatory social insurance. This paper shows that the crisis has upheld the founding principles of the public (French) and private (British) pension systems to maintain the existing institutional configurations. At the same time, both systems have strengthened the role played by means-tested benefits and minimum pensions for low-income groups to offset the weaknesses of one or the other system, as emphasised by the crisis.     

Between X and Y: how process tracing contributes to opening the black box of causality

ABSTRACT

This article maps the methodological debate on process tracing and discusses the diverse variants of process tracing in order to highlight the commonalities beyond diversity and disagreements. Today most authors agree that process tracing is aimed at unpacking causal and temporal mechanisms. The article distinguishes two main types of use for process tracing. Some are more inductive, aimed at theory building (i.e. at uncovering and specifying causal mechanisms) while others are more deductive, aimed at theory testing (and refining). The paper summarizes the main added value and drawbacks of process tracing. It ends by providing ten guidelines for when and how to apply process tracing.     

Focusing on volatility information instead of portfolio weights as an aid to investor decisions

When faced with the challenge of forming a portfolio containing a risky and a risk-free asset, investors tend to apply the same portfolio weights independently of the volatility of the risky asset. This “percentage heuristic” can lead to different levels of portfolio risk when the same investor is presented with a more or a less risky asset. Using four experiments, we show that asking investors to choose the return distribution for their portfolio while keeping the exact portfolio weights unknown leads to greater similarity in levels of portfolio volatility (across different levels of risk of the risky asset) than asking investors to choose this distribution while additionally facing the portfolio weights. Higher consistency in risk taking is obtained both between and within test subjects.