Types of Research
- (-) Remove Household Well-Being & Equity filter Household Well-Being & Equity
- (-) Remove Global & Regional Public Goods filter Global & Regional Public Goods
- (-) Remove South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter South Asia Region and Selected Countries
- (-) Remove Market & Value Chain Analysis filter Market & Value Chain Analysis
- (-) Remove Research & Development filter Research & Development
- (-) Remove Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management
- (-) Remove Global filter Global
- (-) Remove 2011 filter 2011
- (-) Remove Health filter Health
- (-) 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.
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.
This research brief synthesizes evidence on the effects of policy incentives on agricultural productivity. The evidence discussed is primarily drawn from documents provided to EPAR by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We review the role of policy and institutions in the Asian Green Revolution, a detailed case study on how policy changes have removed smallholder productivity constraints and contributed to growth, and the theory on the connection of policy incentives to productivity growth.
The purpose of this literature review is to provide qualitative and quantitative examples of technologies, constraints and incentives for efficient waste treatment and reuse in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. We present relevant case studies and expert observations and experiences on the nutrient content in urine and feces, contaminants frequently found in untreated sludge and wastewater, waste treatment technologies that may be relevant for low-income countries, risks associated with waste reuse, benefits to resource recovery in agriculture. We further discuss reasons for waste treatment failures, including urbanization, observations on challenges with market-driven reuse in less developed countries, and examples of net-positive energy facilities in Europe and the United States. Much of the evidence presented in the literature relates to wastewater treatment processes or the sludge produced from wastewater treatment as opposed to untreated fecal sludge. However, examples of risks, failures, and opportunities for raw sludge treatment and reuse are discussed when available. In some cases, empirical evidence or case studies were not available for developing countries and alternatives are presented. Overall we found the empirical evidence on waste treatment and reuse in developing countries is quite thin.