Populations

EPAR Technical Report #329
Funding of Agricultural and Health R&D Public Goods
Publication Date: 05/31/2017
Type: Literature Review
Abstract

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.

Presentation Slides - ICABR 2017, Technical Report - ICABR 2017
EPAR Research Brief #325
Review of Global Public Goods
Publication Date: 01/30/2016
Type: Literature Review
Abstract

This brief reviews the various definitions of global public goods (GPGs) and regional public goods (RPGs) found in the literature and provides examples of each in six frequently discussed sectors: environment, health, knowledge, security, governance, and infrastructure. We identify multiple alternative definitions that have gained some traction in the literature, but GPGs are generally agreed to exhibit publicness in consumption, distribution of benefits, and decision-making. Because policy choices determine what is and what is not a GPG, there cannot be a fixed list of such goods; some always have the property of global publicness, while others have over time changed from being local or national to being global in terms of benefits and costs. GPGs are thus redefined as goods that are in the global public domain. GPG and RPG financing mechanisms include payments by users and beneficiaries, taxes, fees, and levies, private funding by non-profit corporations, profit-making firms, and philanthropic individuals and organizations, national and international public resources, and partnerships between several sources of financing. We conclude with an analysis of trends in GPG and RPG financing through Official Development Assistance (ODA) using time series data from the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System and other sources. We find that 14% of ODA in 2014 was allocated to sub-sectors labelled by Reiner et al. as GPGs, while 15% of ODA was allocated to RPGs, and that GPG and RPG spending has steadily increased from 2002-2014.

Full Report
EPAR Technical Report #283
Self-Help Groups in Development: A Review of Evidence from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa
Publication Date: 12/11/2014
Type: Literature Review
Abstract

Donors and governments are increasingly seeking to implement development projects through self-help groups (SHGs) in the belief that such institutional arrangements will enhance development outcomes, encourage sustainability, and foster capacity in local civil society – all at lower cost to coffers. But little is known about the effectiveness of such institutional arrangements or the potential harm that might be caused by using SHGs as ‘vehicles’ for the delivery of development aid.  This report synthesizes available evidence on the effectiveness of Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in promoting health, finance, agriculture, and empowerment objectives in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Our findings are intended to inform strategic decisions about how to best use scarce resources to leverage existing SHG interventions in various geographies and to better understand how local institutions such as SHGs can serve as platforms to enhance investments. 

Suggested Citation:

Anderson, C. L., Gugerty, M. K., Biscaye, P., True, Z., Clark, C., & Harris, K. P. (2014). Self-Help Groups in Development: A Review of Evidence from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. EPAR Technical Report #283. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington. Retrieved <Day Month Year> from https://epar.evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/epar_283_shg_evidence_review_brief_10.23.20.pdf

Full Report, Presentation Slides, Results Coding, Published Paper
EPAR Research Brief #242
Marketable Surplus Background
Publication Date: 01/08/2014
Type: Data Analysis
Abstract

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.

Full Brief, Results Coding