Types of Research
- (-) Remove Research & Development filter Research & Development
- (-) Remove Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints filter Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints
- (-) Remove Global & Regional Public Goods filter Global & Regional Public Goods
- (-) Remove Aid & Other Development Finance filter Aid & Other Development Finance
- (-) Remove Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management
Aid donors are interested in the arguments for allocating aid via bilateral versus multilateral channels, and specifically in understanding which channel is more “effective” at supporting positive development and social outcomes. We contribute to the literature on this subject by summarizing recent OECD data on aid flows and reviewing the theoretical arguments from the aid literature on the different characteristics supporting effectiveness of bilateral versus multilateral aid. We then review the empirical literature, analyzing 40 papers that study the effectiveness of different aid channels on various outcomes. Many studies do not directly compare the effectiveness of aid channels, and the studies vary in how aid channels are defined, measured, and evaluated. Further, these studies do not directly test the hypothesized advantages of one channel of aid versus another; rather they test bilateral versus multilateral aid flows associations with development outcomes, assuming some causal mechanism is at work to explain differences in impact. We evaluate studies reporting the impacts of aid on GDP growth, governance, government investment spending, health, the HDI, poverty, and private investment, and find no consistent evidence that either bilateral or multilateral aid is more effective. The lack of conclusive evidence supporting either aid channel is likely related to differences in the methodologies of the studies included in this review, but may also be due to differences in how the theoretical arguments for the effectiveness of either channel apply in different circumstances.
Cassava production is prone to many constraints throughout the production cycle, including biotic, abiotic, and management constraints. This brief reviews the literature on the production impacts of two key cassava stressors: cassava bacterial blight (CBB) and postharvest physiological deterioration (PPD). We summarize available estimates of the frequency and magnitude of these constraints relative to other drivers of cassava production losses that affect smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), review the control strategies proposed in the literature, report on the views of several experts in the field, and identify research gaps where relatively little appears to be known about CBB or PPD yield impacts or best practices for CBB or PPD management.
This report draws on past and present peer-reviewed articles and published reports by institutions including the World Health Organization (WHO), the UK Department for International Development (DFID), and others to provide a scoping summary of the household-level spillovers and broader impacts of a select group of health initiatives. Rather than focusing on estimates of the direct health impacts of investments (e.g., reductions in mortality from vaccine delivery), we focus on estimates of the less-often reported spillover effects of specific health investments on household welfare or the broader economy. The brief is designed to give a concise overview of major theories linking health improvements to broader social and economic outcomes, followed by more in-depth summaries of available local- and country-level estimates of broader impacts, defined as project spillovers offering local, regional and national social and economic benefits not typically reported in project evaluations.
This report summarizes current trends in the application of Development Finance Institution (DFI)-based returnable capital finance in developing countries, with an emphasis on “pro-poor” development initiatives. We begin by reviewing the financial instruments used by DFIs. We then review the major DFI providers of returnable-capital based finance, drawing on past and present peer-reviewed articles and published reports exploring trends in the uses of different returnable capital instruments over time. Finally, we conclude by further examining recent efforts to use returnable capital to finance development initiatives explicitly targeting the poor.
This poster presentation summarizes research on changes in crop planting decisions on the extensive and intensive margin in Tanzania, with regards to changes in agricultural land that a farmer has available and area planted in the context of smallholders and farming systems. We use household survey data from the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS), part of the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study–Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS – ISA) to test how much the agricultural land available to households changes, how much farmers change the proportion of land decidated to growing priority crops, and how crop area changes vary with changes in landholding. We find that almost half of households had a change of agricultural land area of at least half a hectare from 2008-2010. Smallholder farmers on average decreased the amount of available land between 2008 and 2010, while non-smallholder farmers increased agricultural land area during that time period, but that smallholder households planted a greater proportion of their agricultural land than nonsmallholders. Eighty percent of households changed crop proportions from 2008 to 2010, yet aggregate level indicators mask household level changes.
This brief draws on recent reports by the OECD, the World Bank, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and others to provide an overview of climate finance in developing countries. The brief is divided into three sections: (i) sources of global climate finance; (ii) country-level flows of climate finance; and (iii) applications of climate finance in developing countries. The brief is designed to give a concise overview of financial flows directed at climate change mitigation and adaptation globally and in developing countries, with an introduction to climate finance accounting such that climate financial flow volumes can be compared to aid volumes in other sectors. Total global climate finance flows were approximately USD $364 billion in 2011 (Buchner et al., 2012) and $359 billion in 2012. However the vast majority of these flows - 76%, or $275 billion - was finance generated and spent within a country’s own borders (domestic finance) (Buchner et al., 2013). The “Fast-Start Finance” period from 2010-2012 saw $35 billion in new aid mobilized for climate finance in developing countries. Developed countries have recently committed to mobilize an additional $100 billion per year by 2020.
Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) is a widely-grown staple food in the tropical and subtropical regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In this brief we examine the environmental constraints to, and impacts of, smallholder cassava production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia (SA), noting where the analysis applies to only one of these regions. We highlight crop-environment interactions at three stages of the cassava value chain: pre-production (e.g., land clearing), production (e.g., soil, water, and input use), and post-production (e.g., crop storage). At each stage we emphasize environmental constraints on production (poor soil quality, water scarcity, crop pests, etc.) and also environmental impacts of crop production (e.g., soil erosion, water depletion and pesticide contamination). We then highlight good practices for overcoming environmental constraints and minimizing environmental impacts in smallholder cassava production systems. Evidence on environmental issues in smallholder cassava production is relatively thin, and unevenly distributed across regions. The literature on cassava in South Asian smallholder systems is limited, reflecting a crop of secondary importance (though it is widely found elsewhere in Asia such as South East Asia), in comparison to cassava in much of SSA. The majority of the research summarized in this brief is from SSA. The last row of Table 1 summarizes good practices currently identified in the literature. However, the appropriate strategy in a given situation will vary widely based on contextual factors, such as local environmental conditions, market access, cultural preferences, production practices and the policy environment.
This overview introduces a series of EPAR briefs in the Agriculture-Environment Series that examine crop-environment interactions for a range of crops in smallholder food production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia (SA). The briefs cover the following important food crops in those regions; rice (#208), maize (#218), sorghum/millets (#213), sweet potato/yam (#225), and cassava (#228).
Drawing on the academic literature and the field expertise of crop scientists, these briefs highlight crop-environment interactions at three stages of the crop value chain: pre-production (e.g., land clearing and tilling), production (such as water, nutrient and other input use), and post-production (e.g., waste disposal and crop storage). At each stage we emphasize environmental constraints on crop yields (including poor soils, water scarcity, crop pests) and impacts of crop production on the environment (such as soil erosion, water depletion and pest resistance). We then highlight best practices from the literature and from expert experience for minimizing negative environmental impacts in smallholder crop production systems.
This overview (along with the accompanying detailed crop briefs) seeks to provide a framework for stimulating across-crop discussions and informed debates on the full range of crop-environment interactions in agricultural development initiatives.
The purpose of this analysis is to provide a measure of marketable surplus of maize in Tanzania. We proxy marketable surplus with national-level estimates of total maize sold, presumably the surplus for maize producing and consuming households. We also provide national level estimates of total maize produced and estimate “average prices” for Tanzania which allows this quantity to be expressed as an estimate of the value of marketable surplus. The analysis uses the Tanzanian National Panel Survey (TNPS) LSMS – ISA which is a nationally representative panel survey, for the years 2008/2009 and 2010/2011. A spreadsheet provides our estimates for different subsets of the sample and using different approaches to data cleaning and weighting. The total number of households for Tanzania was estimated with linear extrapolation based on the Tanzanian National Bureau of Statistics for the years 2002 and 2012. The weighted proportions of maize-producing and maize-selling households were multiplied to the national estimate of total households. This estimate of total Tanzanian maize-selling and maize-producing households was then multiplied by the average amount sold and by the average amount produced respectively to obtain national level estimates of total maize sold and total maize produced in 2009 and 2011.
The FAO defines a farming system as “a population of individual farm systems that have broadly similar resource bases, enterprise patterns, household livelihoods and constraints, and for which similar development strategies and interventions would be appropriate. Depending on the scale of the analysis, a farming system can encompass a few dozen or many millions of households.” We use the farming systems as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for Sub-Saharan Africa. The FAO identifies eight main farming systems in Tanzania 1) maize mixed, 2) root crop, 3) coastal artisanal fishing, 4) highland perennial, 5) agro-pastoral millet/sorghum, 6) tree crop, 7) highland temperate mixed, and 8) pastoral. This analysis uses data from the Tanzanian National Panel Survey (TZNPS) LSMS – ISA to provide a comparison of farming systems throughout Tanzania. The TZNPS is a nationally-representative panel survey that includes households from seven of the eight FAO farming systems with only the smallest farming system, pastoral, lacking any representation.