Several countries have made targeted input subsidy programs an integral part of their policies
for improving food security. Given the programs’ often centralized structure and targeting of
private goods nation-wide, these may also serve as instruments for garnering electoral support. I
investigate to what extent distributions from such a program was altered leading up to the 2009
Malawian presidential election, comparing the allocations of fertilizer vouchers in the last season
prior to this relative to other seasons. I do not find evidence of targeting at the incumbent’s core
supporters, whereas swing supporters receive on average more fertilizer vouchers in the 2008/09
season relative to other seasons. This increase comes at the expense of the main opponents’ core
supporters, whom receive on average fewer vouchers. These findings add to the broader set of
questions of whether targeted subsidies is the right approach for improving food security, and if
so how.