Types of Research
- (-) Remove Global & Regional Public Goods filter Global & Regional Public Goods
- (-) Remove Labor & Time Use filter Labor & Time Use
- (-) Remove FAOSTAT filter FAOSTAT
- (-) Remove Farmer First filter Farmer First
- (-) Remove Other Datasets filter Other Datasets
An ongoing stream of EPAR 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. For this project, we seek to summarize the key public good characteristics of R&D investment for agriculture in general and for different subsets of crops, and hypothesize how these characteristics might be expected to affect public, private, or philanthropic funders’ investment decisions.
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.
There is a wide gap between realized and potential yields for many crops in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Experts identify poor soil quality as a primary constraint to increased agricultural productivity. Therefore, increasing agricultural productivity by improving soil quality is seen as a viable strategy to enhance food security. Yet adoption rates of programs focused on improving soil quality have generally been lower than expected. We explore a seldom considered factor that may limit farmers’ demand for improved soil quality, namely, whether farmers’ self-assessments of their soil quality match soil scientists’ assessments. In this paper, using Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS) data, part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA), we compare farmers’ own assessments of soil quality with scientific measurements of soil quality from the Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD). We find a considerable “mismatch” and most notably, that 11.5 percent of survey households that reported having “good” soil quality are measured by scientific standards to have severely constrained nutrient availability. Mismatches between scientific measurements and farmer assessments of soil quality may highlight a potential barrier for programs seeking to encourage farmers to adopt soil quality improvement activities.
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 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.