Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
  • Who we are
  • News
  • Events
  • Publications
  • Search

Secondary Menu

  • Independent Science for Development CouncilISDC
    • Who we are
    • News
    • Events
    • Publications
    • Featured Projects
      • Inclusive Innovation
        • Agricultural Systems Special Issue
      • Proposal Reviews
        • 2025-30 Portfolio
        • Reform Advice
      • Foresight & Trade-Offs
        • Megatrends
      • QoR4D
      • Comparative Advantage
  • Standing Panel on Impact AssessmentSPIA
    • About
      • Who We Are
      • Our Mandate
      • Impact Assessment Focal Points
      • SPIA Affiliates Network
    • Our Work
      • Country Studies
        • Community of Practice
        • Bangladesh Study
        • Ethiopia Study
        • Uganda Study
        • Vietnam Study
      • Causal Impact Assessment
        • Call for Expressions of Interest: Accountability and Learning Impact Studies
      • Use of Evidence
      • Cross-Cutting Areas
        • Capacity Strengthening
        • Methods and Measurement
        • Guidance to IDTs
    • Resources
      • Publications
      • Blog Series on Qualitative Methods for Impact Assessment
      • SPIA-emLab Agricultural Interventions Database
    • Activities
      • News
      • Events
      • Webinars
  • Evaluation
    • Who we are
    • News
    • Events
    • Publications
    • Evaluations
      • Science Group Evaluations
      • Platform Evaluations
        • CGIAR Genebank Platform Evaluation
        • CGIAR GENDER Platform Evaluation
        • CGIAR Excellence in Breeding Platform
        • CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture
    • Framework and Policy
      • Evaluation Method Notes Resource Hub
      • Management Engagement and Response Resource Hub
      • Evaluating Quality of Science for Sustainable Development
      • Evaluability Assessments – Enhancing Pathway to Impact
      • Evaluation Guidelines
  • Independent Science for Development CouncilISDC
  • Standing Panel on Impact AssessmentSPIA
  • Evaluation
Back to IAES Main Menu

Secondary Menu

  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Our Mandate
    • Impact Assessment Focal Points
    • SPIA Affiliates Network
  • Our Work
    • Country Studies
      • Community of Practice
      • Bangladesh Study
      • Ethiopia Study
      • Uganda Study
      • Vietnam Study
    • Causal Impact Assessment
      • Call for Expressions of Interest: Accountability and Learning Impact Studies
    • Use of Evidence
    • Cross-Cutting Areas
      • Capacity Strengthening
      • Methods and Measurement
      • Guidance to IDTs
  • Resources
    • Publications
    • Blog Series on Qualitative Methods for Impact Assessment
    • SPIA-emLab Agricultural Interventions Database
  • Activities
    • News
    • Events
    • Webinars
Briefs

Do Tailored Input Recommendations and Flexible Subsidies Increase Uptake and Yields among Maize Farmers in Mexico?

You are here

  • Home
  • Standing Panel on Impact AssessmentSPIA
  • Publications by organization
  • Do Tailored Input Recommendations and Flexible Subsidies Increase Uptake and Yields among Maize Farmers in Mexico?

Abstract

Agricultural productivity remains low among small-scale farmers in developing economies. At the same time, adoption of productivity-improving technologies is often low. A plausible reason is that the technologies do not deliver expected benefits under heterogeneous farming conditions. Maize crops are of particular concern because yields vary widely across the globe—from 1.1 tons per hectare (ha) in Sub-Saharan Africa to more than nine tons per ha in the United States. In Mexico, despite the growth in yields in recent decades, yields are still around three tons per ha and lower still among smallholders.

A randomized controlled trial (RCT)—by researchers from J-PAL, Qué Funciona para el Desarrollo (QFD), UC Berkeley, and World Bank—examined whether providing smallscale maize farmers with input recommendations tailored to their local conditions, other complementary inputs (precision sowing drill, herbicide) as well as extension services (e.g., on dosage and timing of fertilizer application) can improve yields relative to more generic recommendations.

This research was supported by ISPC-SPIA under the grant 'Strengthening Impact Assessment in the CGIAR (SIAC).'

Citation

ISPC. (2019). Do Tailored Input Recommendations and Flexible Subsidies Increase Uptake and Yields among Maize Farmers in Mexico?, Brief N. 75. Rome: Independent Science and Partnership Council.

Share on

Impact SPIA
Issued on 2019
  • Download

Related Publications

cover
Evaluation Reports & Reviews
Impact SPIA
Issued on 2025

Evaluation of SPIA’s 2019-2024 Program of Work: Final report

Briefs
Impact SPIA
Issued on 2025

SPIA Brief Ethiopia Report 2024: Building Resilience to Shocks

Briefs
Impact SPIA
Issued on 2025

SPIA Vietnam Report 2024 (2-Pager Brief)

More publications

Related News

Blog
Impact SPIA
23 Apr 2025

Reflections from Science Week: SPIA’s Latest Insights on Agricultural Innovation and Impact

News
Impact SPIA
15 Apr 2025

SPIA Welcomes New Panel Member

Blog
Impact SPIA
04 Apr 2025

Insights from the SPIA Uganda Report 2025 Launch Event, Kampala, UG.

More News

CGIAR Independent Advisory and Evaluation Service (IAES)

Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT
Via di San Domenico,1
00153 Rome, Italy
  • IAES@cgiar.org
  • (39-06) 61181

Follow Us

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
  • Terms and conditions
  • © CGIAR 2025

IAES provides operational support as the secretariat for the Independent Science for Development Council and the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, and implements CGIAR’s multi-year, independent evaluation plan as approved by the CGIAR’s System Council.