Types of Research
- (-) Remove 2010 filter 2010
- (-) Remove 2008 filter 2008
- (-) Remove Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints filter Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints
- (-) Remove 2011 filter 2011
- (-) Remove 2017 filter 2017
- (-) Remove Literature Review filter Literature Review
- (-) Remove Research & Development filter Research & Development
- (-) Remove Health filter Health
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
The share of private sector funding, relative to public sector funding, for drug, vaccine, and diagnostic research & development (R&D) differs considerably across diseases. Private sector investment in overall health R&D exceeds $150 billion annually, but is largely concentrated on non-communicable chronic diseases with only an estimated $5.9 billion focused on "global health", targeting diseases that primarily affect low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We examine the evidence for five specific disincentives to private sector global health R&D investment: scientific uncertainty, weak policy environments, limited revenues and market uncertainty, high fixed and sunk costs, and downstream rents from imperfect markets. Though all five may affect estimates of net returns from an investment decision, they are worth examining separately as each calls for a different intervention or remediation to change behavior.
Cash transfer programs are interventions that directly provide cash to target specific populations with the aim of reducing poverty and supporting a variety of development outcomes. Low- and middle-income countries have increasingly adopted cash transfer programs as central elements of their poverty reduction and social protection strategies. Bastagli et al. (2016) report that around 130 low- and middle-income countries have at least one UCT program, and 63 countries have at least one CCT program (up from 27 countries in 2008). Through a comprehensive review of literature, this report primarily considers the evidence of the long-term impacts of cash transfer programs in low- and lower middle-income countries. A review of 54 reviews that aggregate and summarize findings from multiple studies of cash transfer programs reveals largely positive evidence on long-term outcomes related to general health, reproductive health, nutrition, labor markets, poverty, and gender and intra-household dynamics, though findings vary by context and in many cases overall conclusions on the long-term impacts of cash transfers are mixed. In addition, evidence on long-term impacts for many outcome measures is limited, and few studies explicitly aim to measure long-term impacts distinctly from immediate or short-term impacts of cash transfers.
This research considers how public good characteristics of different types of research and development (R&D) and the motivations of different providers of R&D funding affect the relative advantages of alternative funding sources. We summarize the public good characteristics of R&D for agriculture in general and for commodity and subsistence crops in particular, as well as R&D for health in general and for neglected diseases in particular, with a focus on Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Finally, we present rationales for which funders are predicted to fund which R&D types based on these funder and R&D characteristics. We then compile available statistics on funding for agricultural and health R&D from private, public and philanthropic sources, and compare trends in funding from these sources against expectations. We find private agricultural R&D spending focuses on commodity crops (as expected). However contrary to expectations we find public and philanthropic spending also goes largely towards these same crops rather than staples not targeted by private funds. For health R&D private funders similarly concentrate on diseases with higher potential financial returns. However unlike in agricultural R&D, in health R&D we observe some specialization across funders – especially for neglected diseases R&D - consistent with funders’ expected relative advantages.
The concept of global public goods represents a framework for organizing and financing international cooperation in global health research and development (R&D). Advances in scientific and clinical knowledge produced by biomedical R&D can be considered public goods insofar as they can be used repeatedly (non-rival consumption) and it is difficult or costly to exclude non-payers from gaining access (non-excludable). This paper considers the public good characteristics of biomedical R&D in global health and describes the theoretical and observed factors in the allocation R&D funding by public, private, and philanthropic sources.
Household survey data are a key source of information for policy-makers at all levels. In developing countries, household data are commonly used to target interventions and evaluate progress towards development goals. The World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) are a particularly rich source of nationally-representative panel data for six Sub-Saharan African countries: Ethiopia, Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda. To help understand how these data are used, EPAR reviewed the existing literature referencing the LSMS-ISA and identified 415 publications, working papers, reports, and presentations with primary research based on LSMS-ISA data. We find that use of the LSMS-ISA has been increasing each year since the first survey waves were made available in 2009, with several universities, multilateral organizations, government offices, and research groups across the globe using the data to answer questions on agricultural productivity, farm management, poverty and welfare, nutrition, and several other topics.
Agricultural productivity growth has been empirically linked to poverty reduction across a range of measures for both staple and export crops. Many public and private organizations have thus made it a priority to increase farm productivity, and have invested billions toward this end.This report compiles measures commonly used to track agricultural productivity and discusses the ways in which they are subject to error, bias, and other data limitations. Though each measure has limitations, choosing the measure(s) most appropriate to the goals of an analysis and understanding the sources of variation allows for more effective and closely targeted investments and policy and program recommendations, particularly when measures suggest different drivers of productivity growth and links to poverty reduction.
This presentation summarizes the biotic (insects, viruses, fungi, bacteria, weeds, and post-harvest pests) and abiotic (drought and soil nutrients) stresses that may be addressed or countered in order to improve crop yield in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Data is sourced from FAOSTAT, GAEZ, a series of academic papers by Waddington & Dixon, and IMPACT model estimates. Slides compare area harvested, yield, and yield gap percentage with total calories per year, the 2005 value of production, and projected growth between 2005-2030.
This report combines analyses from four previous EPAR briefs on the effects of climate change on maize, rice, wheat, sorghum, and millet production in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In addition, this brief presents new analysis of the projected impact of climate changes in SSA. We include comparisons of the importance of each crop, of their vulnerability to climate change, and of the research and policy resources dedicated to each. Especially with respect to climatic susceptibility, these rankings provide a comparative summary based upon the analysis conducted in the four previous EPAR briefs, statistical analyses of historical yield and climate data, and future climate model predictions. According to the indicators analyzed, our research suggests that maize leads the cereal crops in terms of importance within SSA and in terms of research and policy attention. Our analysis of climate conditions and the crop’s physical requirements suggests that many maize-growing areas are likely to move outside the range of ideal temperature and precipitation conditions for maize production. Rice is the third most important crop in terms of consumption dependency, fourth in terms of production, but second only to maize in terms of research funding and FTEs. Sorghum and millet rank second and third in production importance and second and fifth in consumption importance, but rank below maize and rice in terms of FTE researchers. Their role is complicated by the fact that they are often considered inferior goods; SSA consumers often substitute away from sorghum and millet consumption if they are able to do so. Wheat is the least-produced crop of the five, and the second to last in terms of consumption importance. However, it still ranks above millet in terms of FTE researchers.
This report provides an overview of past, current, and projected future trends in agricultural productivity growth. It is difficult to measure productivity and while there are many robust empirical studies contributing to the productivity literature, there is no methodological consensus and each methodology used carries its own set of biases. This review looks at recent assessments of total factor productivity (TFP) and partial factor productivity (PFP) growth measures of land and labor productivity and crop and livestock yields, which offer multiple indicators with mixed evidence for global trends in agricultural productivity growth. We find that TFP and PFP measures of agricultural productivity lend different strengths to an analysis of trends over time. While TFP is theoretically a better measure of an economy’s overall efficiency, methodological debates yield a wide range of estimates. PFP measures are simpler to estimate, however since they fail to account for all inputs, partial measures are more limited in their ability to explain productivity changes over time.
This report provides a summary of Tanzania’s agriculture sector, crop production, agricultural productivity and yield levels, risks, and policies and reforms. This review uses resources found on the University of Washington Libraries system and Google Scholar, as well as the websites of the Government of Tanzania, FAO, and World Bank. We find that Tanzanian agriculture workers comprise 80% of the population and farm a wide variety of crops, ranging from staple crops such as maize, cassava, and rice, to export crops such as coffee, cotton, tobacco, tea, and sugar. Smallholder farmers face increasing risks from climate change, pests, diseases, and land degradation, among others. While they have some resources available, such as farmer groups and limited access to ICTs, they lack important resources such as credit and inputs. We find that Tanzania’s land tenure and agriculture policies may further complicate the lives of smallholders through increased taxes and administrative processes. Through the Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP) reform, however, the Government of Tanzania hopes to empower farmers and improve service delivery.