Types of Research
- (-) Remove Research & Development filter Research & Development
- (-) Remove Aid & Other Development Finance filter Aid & Other Development Finance
- (-) Remove Political Economy & Governance filter Political Economy & Governance
- (-) Remove Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management
- (-) Remove Market & Value Chain Analysis filter Market & Value Chain Analysis
- (-) Remove 2010 filter 2010
- (-) Remove Global filter Global
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
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.
How development organizations, NGOs, and governments can best allocate scarce resources to those in need has long been debated. As opposed to universal allocation of resources, a more targeted approach attempts to minimize program costs while maximizing benefits among those with the greatest need or market opportunity. Many international development organizations strategically target clients based on geographic location (e.g., community, region, country) or socio-economic indicators, such as the World Bank’s “$1 a day” poverty line. Drawing on literature from several sectors, this brief presents additional methods of beneficiary targeting that international development organizations might consider. We find that beneficiary targeting/segmentation has the potential to make organizational and program efforts more equitable and efficient. With limited resources, smaller organizations have tended to use single robust indicators or simple heuristics, whereas agribusinesses and private sector firms have used more data-intensive marketing tools to position their products. Technological innovation and better access to data have made targeting more prevalent and potentially more affordable in agricultural development. However, creating valid and reliable target segments remains the most significant challenge.
This report presents data on selected agricultural commodities for the fourth quarter of 2009 (October through December 2009) and the months of January and February 2010, where available. More specifically, this report provides a summary of recent changes and trends in prices, demand, supply, and market conditions for key agricultural commodities. We find that agricultural commodity prices declined significantly in 2009 from peak 2008 levels. At the end of 2009, however, commodity prices began to rebound, which contributed to concerns over a possible return to high prices. In January and February, gains in the value of the U.S. Dollar helped keep agricultural commodity prices subdued.