Assessment of the persisting effects of increased public funding for agriculture in Nigeria

Recent economywide forecast studies have identified government funding as essential for agricultural sector development and modernization in Nigeria. However, like many African countries, Nigeria has had challenges in meeting public agricultural expenditure pledges on a consistent basis. Despite volatility in public funding for agriculture from year to year, the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) of 2011–2015, an agricultural policy initiative led by the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, represented a distinct departure from previous agricultural policies because of its multifaceted approach that included both increased expenditures on agricultural programs and other reforms designed to enhance agricultural modernization. The objective of this study was to determine whether there is empirical evidence of persisting effects from implementation of the ATA and to characterize such types of effects. The empirical analysis included both trade and farm household data, and the results showed that imports of seeds (maize and vegetables) and herbicides/pesticides were higher and less variable in the ATA and post-ATA period than in the pre-ATA period. Additionally, higher percentages of farm households purchased fertilizer and seed and used herbicide in the post-ATA period than in the early ATA period.


Introduction
In 2003, African heads of state expressed collective support for revitalization of the agricultural sector as exemplified in an African Union Summit agreement in Maputo, Mozambique that resulted in the establishment of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).Under the inaugural version of CAADP, leaders of 41 African nations, including the focus country of Nigeria, agreed to objectives to achieve a 6% annual average growth for the agricultural sector and committed to increases in public agricultural expenditures on agriculture to reach an annual average of 10% of total government expenditures (Benin 2016).This example of a concerted effort among African policymakers to focus on agricultural development is consistent with the thrust of the World Development Report 2008, which highlighted the key role of the agricultural sector in improving economic productivity and reducing poverty (World Bank 2007).Agricultural sector growth was determined to be particularly crucial for countries such as Nigeria that have relatively high poverty rates, large agricultural rural employment shares, and low agricultural productivity (World Bank 2007).
The usefulness of the African heads of state pledges to increase public expenditures for agriculture in creating an enabling environment for agricultural sector growth is also justified by recent studies that have forecasted economywide growth scenarios for several African countries.A key example is the economywide study of Nigeria by Diao et al. (2012), which estimated that substantial increases in public investment in agricultural programs relative to current levels are needed to achieve agricultural sector growth levels required to achieve poverty and food insecurity reduction goals.
While the role of government funding in agricultural development has been recognized by African heads of state and justified by economic researchers, the status of many African countries as low-income developing countries complicates the decisions of government leaders regarding allocating relatively sparse public funds to a myriad of needs.This challenge can be particularly poignant in oil-producing countries like Nigeria, for which the dilemma of macroeconomic and fiscal management in a manner that reduces the risk of food insecurity has been a key policymaker concern since the 1970s (Collier 1988;Arndt et al. 2018).These challenges have made it difficult for most countries, including Nigeria, to meet their CAADP pledges of 10% of average annual expenditures to the agricultural sector to date (Benin and Yu 2013).
Considering the challenges in sustaining agricultural funding amounts from year to year, the primary objective of this paper is to determine whether agricultural policy initiatives that have substantial increases in agricultural funding but only are implemented for a couple of years can have lasting effects on the broader agricultural economy.Nigeria is the country of focus because its Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) implemented the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) from 2011 to 2015, which represented a distinct shift in increasing policymaker attention on modernizing the Nigerian agricultural sector (FMARD 2012).A key pillar of the ATA was the growth enhancement scheme (GES), which was designed to provide enhanced access to fertilizer and seeds (mainly maize) to farm households by facilitating their purchases at subsidized rates from private farm input dealers (Liverpool-Tasie and Takeshima 2013; Wossen et al. 2017;Benjamin et al. 2021).Implementation of the GES and associated programs from 2012 and 2013 was associated with substantial increases in expenditures on agricultural programs by the Nigerian federal government (see Table 1).To determine whether there is evidence to suggest that effects of the ATA implementation are observable in the agricultural economy in the years following the ATA implementation period, an empirical analysis was implemented that focuses on changes in the importation, purchase, and usage of modern farm inputs.The analysis includes both trade and farm household data and, specifically, measurements of import volumes for key farm inputs (fertilizer, seeds, and herbicides/pesticides) and the percentages of farm households that made purchases and/or used such inputs.The results show evidence of increased and less variable imports of seeds and herbicides/pesticides in the ATA and post-ATA periods compared to the pre-ATA period.Additionally, higher percentages of farm households purchased fertilizer and seed and used herbicide in the post-ATA period (2018)(2019) than in the early part of the ATA period (2012)(2013).These results are important because they demonstrate that despite the volatility of public funding for agricultural programs that is common in sub-Saharan African countries (Table 1), implementation of large, multifaceted policy programs can still have lasting effects and help set a useful path toward enhanced agricultural development and modernization.

Literature review: developing country fiscal policy "shocks" and persisting effects
There are two main strands of academic literature that help motivate the current study.The first set of studies examine the phenomena of general policy "shocks" in which there is a policy change, typically fiscal or monetary, that is a distinct shift from the status quo but is short lasting regarding its length of direct implementation.The second set of studies focus on the implementation agricultural policy and the examination of the effects of such policies after implementation, with the outcome variables being agricultural in nature (e.g., decisions made by farm households).
Before describing the studies in these two subject areas, it is important to distinguish between "policy persistence" and the "persistence of policy effects."Studies such as the seminal paper by Coate and Morris (1999) focus on explaining why policies, once initiated, can be persisting such that they are continually implemented over time.This idea is relevant for many aspects of agricultural policy in sub-Saharan African countries, such as the tendency for subsidies on farm inputs such as fertilizer to remain in place for years after implementation (see Jayne et al. (2013) as an example with a detailed discussion of the government fertilizer subsidy program in Malawi from 2005 to 2010).However, this "policy persistence" concept, while relevant for agricultural policy trends in general, is different from the one pursued in this study.This study focuses on the case of a distinct policy that implemented over a relatively short period (e.g., couple of years) and is then not continued, but that was a large enough initiative to potentially have had a profound effect on the economy for years afterward.
Such short-run policy initiatives that can have dramatic economic effects are analyzed in several studies in a variety of contexts under the general theme of "policy shocks."Hashiguchi et al. (2017) provide a useful definition of an "economic shock" as an event that occurs over a relatively short period (e.g., a few months or years) but is large enough in magnitude that it changes consumer behavior to an extent that final demand adjusts to a different level than before the event.Distinct policy changes, either fiscal (e.g., government spending or taxing) or monetary, can have such "shock" effects by changing aggregate consumption and/or savings/investment behavior.Policy shocks have occurred over time in developing countries (Kandil 2006) including Nigeria (Saibu and Oladeji 2008).
With this idea of a "policy shock" in mind, the next type of studies examines the effects of agricultural policies on farm household behavior.The main study in the sub-Saharan African agriculture context is that by Ricker-Gilbert and Jayne (2017), which analyzed how persistent the effects of fertilizer subsidy policy initiatives were in Malawi on variables including farm household fertilizer demand and productivity.In that policy case, as also described in Jayne et al. ( 2013), the fertilizer subsidy program remained in place for years after initial implementation.
Against this background, the current study ties these ideas of identification of an agricultural "policy shock" and assessment of the effects of policy implementation several years afterward.Specifically, as described next, the policy initiative of focus was only implemented for a couple of years but was large and multi-faceted enough such that it had the potential to change farm household behavior during the implementation period and in the years afterward.

Nigerian agricultural policy goals and fiscal policy decisions
Nigerian fiscal policy relates to the management of obtained government revenue and associated decisions regarding expenditures on government initiatives.The goals for agricultural policy from 2011 to 2020 as described in FMARD policy documents (FMARD 2012;FMARD 2016) are described first.Next, fiscal data on revenues and expenditures are assessed to provide insight regarding the capacity for meeting agricultural policy goals considering the allocated funding.

Nigerian agricultural policy goals, 2011-2020
The FMARD is the agricultural policy implementing agency at the federal level.In 2011, when the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) was initiated, agriculture was identified by Nigerian policymakers as the economic sector that has the greatest potential to simultaneously enhance economic diversification, reduce poverty, reduce food imports, grow agricultural product exports, and increase foreign exchange (FMARD 2012).Hatzenbuehler et al. (2023) describe how the ATA included distinct policies such as a nationwide fertilizer and seed subsidy program (described in detail by Liverpool-Tasie and Takeshima (2013) and Benjamin et al. (2021)) and other market development activities such as facilitating increased investment in food processing.There were direct (e.g., increased public expenditures on agriculture) and indirect effects (e.g., greater availability of farm inputs) of implementation of the ATA over the period of 2011-2015 (Hatzenbuehler et al. 2023).The Agriculture Promotion Policy (APP) initiative of 2016-2020 continued many programs initiated under the ATA but with several reforms and scaled back the GES program that allocated funds for subsidized fertilizer and seeds (FMARD 2016).The APP also included new initiatives such as programs aimed to provide farm households enhanced access to finance (Adesugba and Mavrotas 2020).

Fiscal management and agricultural expenditures in Nigeria, 2011-2016
To provide insights regarding the changes in Nigerian government revenues, expenditures, and expenditures specifically for agricultural programs during the ATA period, data on these variables were assessed for 2011-2016.The data included in the investigation are annual world oil prices from the World Bank, which are the annual average crude oil prices in US dollars per barrel (USD/b) (World Bank 2020); federal government revenues and expenditures from International Monetary Fund Article IV Consultation Staff Reports (IMF 2019); and total federal government expenditures and expenditures on agriculture from Appropriations Budgets enacted by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (National Assembly 2019).
Included in Table 1 are the levels and changes in these variables over the observation period.The data show that federal government revenues do move directionally with the global oil price, although the magnitudes of the changes are not as large for revenues as for the oil price.This difference in volatility between the oil price and federal government revenue can be attributed to revenue being obtained from petroleum industry profits, which are composed of several variables in addition to the oil price.The inter-annual changes in revenue over the observation period were sizable, with an average year-to-year change of 1008 billion naira and a range of-2039-535 billion naira.Except for 2015, expenditure changes were not as pronounced, with average inter-annual changes of 276 billion naira and a range of-425-1392 billion naira.The average percentage changes in consolidated government revenue and federal government expenditures were similar because of the large increase in expenditures in response to sharp declines in the oil price and consolidated government revenue in 2015 and 2016.The increase in government expenditures in response to the revenue declines is evidence of successful counter-cyclical fiscal management by the Nigerian federal government during the observation period.This implies that the federal government of Nigeria has demonstrated a capacity to smooth expenditures to some degree in recent years, which has provided a needed buffer to support economic activity during periods of low oil sector profits (Arndt et al. 2018).
The data pertaining to public agricultural expenditures by the FMARD for the same observation period show that the countercyclical expenditure patterns observed for the overall federal government do not apply to public agricultural expenditures.On the contrary, agricultural expenditures increased from year to year at the beginning part of the ATA period (2011-2013), but then declined from 2014 to 2015 as the oil price also declined.Additionally, there were sizable inter-annual fluctuations, with percentage changes near or above 20 percent in most years.Public agricultural expenditures were higher in 2016 than 2014 and 2015, which demonstrates a tendency to have intermittent large increases after a years of low expenditure levels.

Research question and hypotheses
Within this context of substantial volatility in Nigerian government revenues, general expenditures, and agricultural expenditures, a primary goal of this paper is to answer the following research question: Did the increased expenditures by the Nigerian FMARD during the ATA period of 2011-2015 have persisting effects on agricultural input (inclusive of fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, and herbicides) imports, purchases, and/or usage?Due to the multi-pronged ATA policy strategy, which had both direct effects and indirect effects on agricultural input and output markets (Hatzenbuehler et al. 2023), we hypothesize that the increased expenditures to initiate major programs such as the GES had persistent effects.However, due to different market structures for the fertilizer, seed, pesticide/herbicide, and other farm input markets (e.g., machinery), we also hypothesize that there was heterogeneity in the relative persistence of effects across farm input types.
Figure 1 includes a diagram to help clarify these hypotheses.The diagram has two panels.Each panel has the total purchases (volume) of a farm input i, where i is fertilizer, seed, pesticide/herbicide, and others, on the y-axis and time on the x-axis.There are 3 distinct time periods: pre-ATA (before 2011), ATA (2011ATA ( -2015)), and post-AGA (after 2015).The panel on the left side reflects the scenario of "strongly persistent effects" of the ATA policy.In the "strongly persistent effects" case, the volume of total purchases of input i is higher in the post-ATA period than in the pre-ATA period ( V post > V pre ).That is, even though the increased agricultural expenditures were not continued in the post-ATA period, the other market reforms and initiatives allowed the private sector to facilitate the purchases of farm inputs and to a greater degree than in the pre-ATA period.The right-side panel is case of "weakly persistent effects," in which the ATA policies were implemented, but the effects quickly dissipated such that the volume of total purchases of input i is not higher in the post-ATA period than in the pre-ATA period ( V post ≯V pre ).

Data and methods
To investigate the hypotheses, trade data on imports and farm household survey data on purchase or usage of select farm inputs were analyzed.There are benefits and challenges with analyzing each type of data.The benefits of trade data are that they have been gathered Fig. 1 Diagram of persisting effects of substantial increases in public agricultural funding on farm input purchases.Source: Authors Abbreviation: ATA: Agricultural Transformation Agenda (FMARD 2012).Note: Farm input i is inclusive of fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, herbicides, and others annually by the United Nations (UN) Statistics Division for decades, and so they provide the potential for identifying changes and trends in particular periods.However, they only represent one aspect of markets, which is the import or export of a good, and which is only one portion of the total supply or demand (as explained well for the Nigerian fertilizer market by Liverpool-Tasie and Takeshima 2013).Additionally, trade policy tends to change over time, such as the imposition or removal of trade bans and tariffs for different goods.In the Nigeria case, several types of fertilizers were banned from importation in 2020 to support domestic producers (Nash 2020).While such actions can be tracked in media reports, it is difficult to know for certain when and whether such bans are enforced.These issues make it a challenge to ascribe shifts in trade data volumes to changes in policy and/or general purchase behavior adjustments made by importers.Farm household survey data are clearer than trade data in many regards in that they are representative of actual purchases and/or intentions.However, they are more costly to gather and so there are typically fewer observation years in most household survey datasets.

Data
With these benefits and challenges in mind, the empirical analysis was based on both trade and farm household survey data.The trade data were obtained from the UN Statistics Division UN COMTRADE database and for the observation period of 1996-2021 (UN COMTRADE 2024).Thus, the observation period is inclusive of the ATA period of 2011-2015, as well as pre-ATA and post-ATA periods.Trade data were obtained for fertilizer (NPK and urea), seeds (maize and vegetables), and a composite measure of pesticides that is inclusive of insecticides, herbicides, and others.The farm household data were obtained from the Nigeria National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (ISA) dataset.These LSMS-ISA data were obtained for 3 waves, implemented in 2012-2013, 2015-2016, and 2018-2019, respectively (Nigeria National Bureau of Statistics & World Bank (2019)).Data from an earlier wave implemented in 2010-2011 were excluded due to their questionnaires not aligning as consistently as the other three waves did with each other.This implies that the analyzed farm household data are representative of the ATA period of 2011-2015 and the years afterward, but there are no household data available for the pre-ATA period.

Methods
The trade data were analyzed by breaking the historical data into three periods representing the pre-ATA (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010), ATA (2011ATA ( -2015)), and post-ATA (2016-2021) periods.For each of these periods, the volumes (in metric tons) of imports were used to calculate the mean, standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (CV) for each period.Calculation of the CV allows for comparison of the relative extent of variability of a single variable over time and across variables with different means for the same period.
The analysis of the household data focused on determining whether a farm household had engaged in either the purchase or usage of a farm input.The farm inputs included in the analysis were fertilizer (inorganic), seeds, herbicides, and pesticides.Within the LSMS-ISA data, the questions were commonly designed such that the household would answer a series of questions related to farm input purchases and/or usage for each crop that they grow.For example, they would first be asked which crops they grew or plan to grow and then asked a sequential set of questions for each crop (e.g., "did you buy seed for this crop?").Given this survey structure, to avoid double counting, first all the households that answered "yes" to a farm input purchase or usage question for any crop were identified.Then, of these, the duplicates for who had answered "yes" for multiple of the same variable were deleted such that there was a maximum of one affirmative answer per household.This number of households with a "yes" response was then summed to obtain a total value of "yes" responses.This total number of households with "yes" responses was then divided by the total number of households that answered any questions in the associated portion of the questionnaire to obtain a percentage of farm households who had purchased or used a given input.

Results
The empirical results for the analysis of data on total imports of farm inputs into Nigeria over the period of 1996-2021 are included in Table 2. Since the Nigerian fertilizer market is complex with both imports and domestic production (Liverpool-Tasie and Takeshima 2013), it is not surprising that the import data on NPK and urea are more difficult to interpret regarding their calculated mean and CV values for the sub-periods of analysis than the other farm inputs.For NPK, the mean values fluctuated across the observation period such that they were higher in both the pre-ATA and post-ATA periods than in the ATA period.However, the CV was lowest during the ATA period, indicating more consistent import volumes during that period than before or afterward.For urea, the mean import volumes were consecutively lower from the pre-ATA through the post-ATA periods, and the variation continually increased over this period as reflected in higher CVs for each sub-period.Of note, both fertilizer variables had missing data and were influenced by the import ban instituted in 2020 (Nash 2020).With the import ban firmly in place by 2020, the declining trend across the sub-periods of observation is not surprising.
The results for seeds (maize and vegetables) and "pesticides, herbicides, and similar" are more indicative of increasing and persistent imports than was the case with fertilizer.Although these categories also had issues of missing years of observations, they were not subject to the import bans.For maize seeds, the mean import volumes consecutively increased from the pre-ATA through the post-ATA periods.Additionally, the CVs were lowest in the post-ATA period and highest in the pre-ATA period.Similarly for vegetable seeds, the mean import volumes were highest in the post-ATA period and lowest in the pre-ATA period.The lowest calculated CV was that associated with ATA period, but the post-ATA period was only marginally higher than that value and both were less than 5 times lower than that in the pre-ATA period.Lastly, for "pesticides, herbicides, and similar," for which data were not sufficient to make calculations for the pre-ATA period, the mean imported volumes were substantially higher and the associated CVs were considerably lower in the post-ATA period than the ATA period.Overall, for the seed (maize and vegetable) and "pesticides, herbicides, and similar" categories, the import trends broadly were increasing in volumes and decreasing in volatility from the pre-ATA to the post-ATA periods.These results suggest that, for at least these farm inputs, imported supplies were more abundant and consistently available for farm households after the ATA was implemented than before.
The analyzed farm household survey data on purchases (fertilizer and seed) and usage (herbicide and pesticide) across waves 2-4 of the LSMS-ISA datasets are included in Table 3.For fertilizer, the results show that 42% of farm households had purchased  1996-1997, 2004-2008, 2015-2016 (missing data) 2004-2005, 2008, 2014-2017 (missing data) 1996-2008, 2017 (missing data) fertilizer in the 2012-2013 period, and a similar 41% had done so in the 2015-2016 period.However, the share of households who had purchased fertilizer increased to 56% by the 2018-2019 period.The patterns for purchases and usage of seed and herbicide are like each other and show a more consistent increase across the survey waves than was observed for fertilizer.The 29-percentage point increase between the 2015-2016 and 2018-2019 period was particularly notable for herbicide usage.Pesticide usage was a bit of an outlier among the farm inputs, with the share of households using them ranging between 19 and 25% across the observation period, which suggests that usage was not much different from 2012 to 2019.Broadly, these farm household survey data show that farm household purchases and usage of farm inputs, at least for fertilizer, seed, and herbicide, was much more widely spread across the farm household population in the post-ATA period than the ATA implementation period of 2011-2015.In summary, the evidence of persistence of the effects of the ATA policy implementation for the trade import data was strongest for maize seeds and "pesticides, herbicides, and similar," such that they both had higher mean volumes and lower CVs for the post-ATA period than both the pre-ATA and ATA periods.Similarly supportive evidence was found in the farm household data analysis for purchases of fertilizer and seed and usage of herbicide, such that there were over 20 percentage point increases in the number of farm households affirming their purchase or usage of them from the first analyzed survey wave in 2012-2013 to the last one in 2018-2019.

Conclusions
The primary objective of this paper was to determine whether major agricultural policy initiatives that include sizable increases in expenditures on agricultural programs can have persisting effects that are observable in empirical data the years that follow implementation.Public agricultural expenditures were of focus because since the early 2000s African policymakers have galvanized efforts to increase agricultural productivity (Benin and Yu 2013) after decades of productivity growth that was far below potential (Fuglie and Rada 2013).The period of observation for the empirical analysis of this study encompassed a key period of 2011-2015, which was when Nigerian policymakers implemented the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA).The ATA was a key initiative that aimed to modernize the Nigerian agricultural sector (FMARD 2012) and was associated with relatively high public expenditures on agricultural programs (Table 1).
The empirical investigation relied on assessment of both trade and farm household data relating farm inputs.The trade data analysis investigated trends and variation in imports of fertilizer, seeds, and pesticides/herbicides in the pre-ATA, ATA, and post-ATA periods, and the household data analysis focused on determining whether the number of households that purchased fertilizer and seed and/or used herbicides and pesticides had changed across survey periods that corresponded with ATA implementation.For the trade data, increased annual mean and lower associated CV for import volumes from before to after the ATA period were described as indicative of "persistence" of the effects of the ATA initiative.Similarly, for the farm household data, an increased likelihood that farm households would purchase fertilizer and seed and use herbicides and pesticides was viewed as evidence of such persistence effects.
While the results for the trade import data on fertilizer were complex due to complications such as the imposition of an import ban during the observation period (2020-2021) (Nash 2020), mean import volumes of maize and vegetable seeds, and pesticides, herbicides were higher and less variable in the ATA and post-ATA periods than in the pre-ATA period.This suggests that those involved in the agricultural sector have continued their usage of key imported farm inputs such as seed and pesticides/herbicides in the years following the ATA implementation.Additionally, the farm household data show that the percentage of farm households that purchased fertilizer, seeds, and herbicides increased by 14, 21, and 29 percentage points, respectively, from 2012-2013 to 2018-2019.Such increases in usage were not observed for pesticides.
Despite this evidence of persisting effects from implementation of the ATA in 2011-2015, several points deserve discussion regarding attribution to the specific policy and assessment of the types of observed effects.First, while the ATA represented a distinct shift in Nigerian agricultural policy from the years preceding it, the subsequent policy strategy of the FMARD Agriculture Promotion Policy (APP) of 2016-2020 was designed to continue to efforts of the ATA but with reforms.After a substantial reduction in spending on agricultural programs in 2015, likely due to changes in federal government administration, public agricultural funding levels returned to near ATA levels by 2016.Thus, FMARD administrators of both the ATA and APP deserve credit for persisting effects of the returned focus on rejuvenating the agricultural sector that began with ATA implementation.Second, while this study examined changes in behavior, there was not a quantification of the effects of such behavior changes on outcomes such as productivity and welfare.This is a worthwhile endeavor for future research.Lastly, while it is encouraging to determine that large agricultural initiatives can have lasting effects due to volatile public agricultural funding levels being common among sub-Saharan African governments, it does not follow that such volatility is optimal for achieving and sustaining agricultural productivity gains over the long run.This is especially the case for implementation of programs such as seed breeding, which require sustained public funding allocations over many years (see Chigeza et al. (2012) for the example of sunflower seed breeding in South Africa).Thus, efforts to enhance the implementation of Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), which, as described in Benin (2016), is a collective African government led effort that encourages African governments to sustain levels of public funding for agriculture over time remain worthwhile.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Table 1
Levels and changes in the global oil price and Nigerian government revenue and federal government expenditures onAgriculture, 2011-2016.Sources Δ is value in year t minus value in year t − 1. Units for oil price are dollars per barrel, and for revenue and expenditures are billions of naira.Revenue is "consolidated" revenue that is gathered by and distributed among both the federal government and state governments.Agricultural expenditures are for the federal government only

Table 3
Farm household survey responses regarding their purchase or usage of fertilizer, seeds, herbicides, and pesticides, 2012-2019.Source