Revised
April 21, 2004
Demand- and Supply-Driven International Agricultural Research: Setting the Agenda for Global Public Goods Dana G. Dalrymple1 “Science must combine with Practice to constitute enlightened and skillful Agriculture” -
Mount Airy Agricultural Institute, 18492
“The alliance of theory with practice must not be broken” -
Henri Poincaré, 19033
Abstract “Demand-Driven” agricultural research is becoming an increasingly popular mantra in the international development arena. It represents not so much an economic as a political approach and is largely focused of the process for setting the agenda for public research. It is essentially a “bottom-up” (user) approach. While it has in part grown out of what has been perceived as too much a “top down” (researcher) approach in some cases in the developing nations in the past, it is not by itself a panacea. Indeed, if taken too far, could represent a narrow and hazardous path, both in terms of getting good applied research and for meeting broader and longer-term needs, particularly in a global context. Other participants and perspectives are needed, especially scientists who can, among other contributions, provide a broader vision of what is possible given the knowledge and techniques available (the “supply” side). The overall challenge, recognized by some over a century ago, is to achieve a more balanced combination of “science with practice”. This leads well beyond economics into a fairly broad, complex, and not wholly traditional array of issues in the allocation of limited public research resources. The topic is examined in the context of a rather wide spectrum of literature and recent experience in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (the CGIAR). 1
Senior Research Advisor and Agricultural Economist, International Research and Biotechnology Team, Office of Environment and Science Policy, Bureau for Economic Development, Agriculture and Trade, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. [
[email protected]]. This paper is an outgrowth of two others on, respectively, agricultural research and scientific knowledge as public goods (Dalrymple, 2003a, 2003b) and is related to a third on impure public goods and agricultural research (Dalrymple, 2003c). The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily those of USAID. 2
From the letterhead and Catalogue (1849) of the Institute, Germantown, Pennsylvania (also see Fletcher, 1955). The statement may have been derived from the motto of the Royal Agricultural Society of England (established in 1838/1840): “Practice with Science” [www.rase.org.uk/centre/science.html]. 3
Poincaré (1910, p. 279); as cited by Galison (2003, p. 50). From a talk at the École Polytechnique, January 25, 1903. His point of reference was the bond between the abstract and the concrete that was an essential feature of the École.
2
I. Introduction
Increasing attention is being given to “Demand–Driven” public agricultural research in international and national fora.4 The recent summary of an FAO e-mail conference on biotechnology, for instance, states that “The agricultural research agenda should be defined using a ‘bottom-up’ approach, based on the needs of local communities in developing countries” (FAO, 2004, p. 1). Similarly, a review of agricultural research in Africa notes that the “old” agenda was supply driven whereas the “new” agenda is demand-driven (Chema, et al., 2003, pp. 11, 49-51). The concept has also played a key role in discussions of reform in extension and research systems.5 Demand in these cases is not to be interpreted in the same way economists usually use the term in a market context – as the amount that will be purchased at a given price at a given time. It is more akin to a dictionary definition of the word: to ask for urgently or firmly; to need or require as useful or necessary (Webster’s II). It represents the demand for a public good or service. Such decisions, as Buchanan (1968, p. 5) puts it, “are made through political, not market institutions, and there is no analog to competitive order that eases the analytical task.” As played out so far in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR),6 use of “Demand-Driven” appears to represent two interrelated desires: (1) for a more geographically decentralized approach to developing the research agenda of the CGIAR; and (2) for farmers, their organizations, and their advocates, to play a larger role in this process. Supply-Driven research is less often mentioned as such, but seems to refer to researcher-initiated or top-down approaches. There is also a third category: Donor-Driven research. In any case, little attention seems to have been given to representation of perhaps the main beneficiary of agricultural research, the consumer. The Demand-Driven approach has evidenced some of the political dimensions alluded to by Buchanan. While it may provide a useful corrective for some sins and omissions in research in the past at the national and local level in developing nations, it needs to be more fully balanced with the supply side in global and international agricultural public
4
The origin of the term “Demand-Driven” research in agriculture is obscure. While there is a considerable amount of literature in the rural development and farming systems area that might point in their direction (e.g. Chambers, 1984, and Collinson, 1999), I have not been able to track down early use of the term itself. Kaimowitz, et al. (1990, pp. 252-253) briefly discussed “Producer-, research- and policy-driven technologies.”
5
For example, a report on “Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural Development” (AKIS/RD), refers to making them more “demand-driven” (FAO, 2000, p. 14). Similarly, a recent article relating to Africa notes an assumption that a more “demand-driven” system “will improve both relevance and effectiveness” (Sumberg, et al., 2004, p. 133).
6
The CGIAR is an informal association of donors that sponsors 15 international agricultural research centers. A wide array of information on the CGIAR is provided can be readily obtained from the group’s web site [www.cgiar.org]. Several other international centers are not members of the CGIAR.
3
goods research of the type carried out by the CGIAR.7 There is danger that what may be true at one level is not equally applicable at another level – a fallacy of composition. Perceptions of the most appropriate way of carrying out priority setting may also vary depending where one sits and are influenced by the subject, the location, time, and time span. Macro and micro variables as well as exogenous and endogenous forces have to be woven together - and rewoven again as perceptions, styles, and strategies shift. Financial and scientific resources will change. So will the roles of the public and private sectors. It is a complicated and dynamic topic. It is also one that is not, as Buchanan suggests, easily captured in a traditional economic framework. I will, therefore, take a broader approach here. On one hand, I look at priority setting in the context of a rather wide range of literature in history, philosophy, business, and other fields. On the other hand, priority setting is viewed in terms of the realities encountered in international agricultural research as drawn from long personal experience with the CGIAR. The result is an interplay of theory and practice. II. Priority Setting for Public Research As background, it may be useful to look at the more general problems and processes of priority setting in public research and then consider some applied examples. A. Differing Perceptions We start with two rather different views of the priority setting process, one by an economist and the other by a philosopher of science. 1. An Economist’s View. A generalized framework for viewing the supply and demand for agricultural innovation, adapted from an earlier diagram by de Janvry, is provided in Figure 1. The categories presented in circles represent the perceptions or actions of individuals or institutions represented by the three boxes. The model is focused at the national level (though Pray, 1983, applied it in a study of the Punjab) and does not explicitly include several of the drivers of research to be discussed in this note, or natural resources, but they could well be added. Moreover, the loop is presented as flowing clockwise; there could well be feedback loops. Thus, while perhaps incomplete for our purposes, the model provides a useful starting point for thinking about the issues be discussed in this note. In presenting the model, de Janvry (1978, pp. 301, 303; also see 1977, pp. 552-556) indicated that the central node is the payoff matrix in the upper right corner that specifies “the net economic gains and losses that any particular set of interest groups expect to result from the implementation of any set of alternative latent public goods (technical and 7
While my comments are ultimately aimed at the global level, it must be noted that the CGIAR is not totally a global enterprise. It focuses on developing nations and contains several centers that basically operate at the regional level and one at the sub-regional level. Moreover, virtually all the centers carry out projects, often special projects supported by restricted funding, at the subregional/national/local level.
4
institutional innovations).” This is played out through the political-bureaucratic system and process that provides the allocation of public resources to innovation-producing institutions.” “Within these institutions, the store of scientific knowledge and the size of allocation of physical and human capital to basic research will determine the position of the production possibility curve.” Similarly, the amount of “capital allocated to applied research will determine the intensity of the search for new…techniques along the production possibility curve.” “And the resulting actual supply of innovations, through its effect on components of the socioeconomic structure, produces specific actual payoffs for each social group.” 2. A Philosopher’s Approach. Kitcher (2001), a philosopher of science, has explored the problems of determining socially significant research topics and priorities in an effort to reach what he calls “well-ordered science. He identifies three somewhat differing complaints: (1) preferences of large segments of the public are consistently neglected; (2) inquiry is distorted because the untutored preferences of outsiders lead to the neglect of problems of real significance; and (3) the coherent systemization of widely shared preferences would recommend different priorities (p. 127). In the case of (1), however, problems arise when representation of perspectives outside of
science works too well, taking the situation into category (2): “Because the preferences of the vast majority of citizens are untutored, areas of science that depend heavily on public funding can be shaped by governmental decisions that respond to widespread ignorance, with the result that practical projects whose significance can be easily appreciated are overemphasized with concomitant neglect of questions of large epistemic [theoretical] significance” (p. 129). As a possible solution, Kitcher prefers enlightened democracy in which decisions are made by a group that receives tutoring from scientific experts and accepts input from all perspectives that are relatively widespread in society (p. 133). This is a promising approach and deserves further attention. B. Patterns of Farmer Involvement The pattern of farm organization involvement in research planning varies rather sharply between developed and developing countries. Farmers in developed countries are generally well organized and along with the extension services and other agencies advise public authorities of their research needs. In the U.S., this takes place at both the State and Federal levels (in the latter case, very elaborate processes exist [see NRC, 2002, pp. 85-90]).8 Emphasis is given to the identification of problems and to comments on their 8
The USDA process was intensified by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (P.L 105-185). Experience with some aspects of it has been mixed (NAS, 2002): “Important issues have arisen about [1] how to ensure balanced input and [2] how to translate the frequently overwhelming amounts of information and diverse perspectives into focused research priorities.” (pp. 86-87). The report also states that “stakeholder involvement does entail transaction and opportunity costs…”, and “Whether those transactions costs ever outweigh the overall benefits is unclear” (p. 91). The benefits (it is unclear how they were or would be measured) appeared to be greatest in the case of natural resource issues and with stakeholders who are new to agricultural research (p. 91). Further analysis is clearly needed.
5
special or relative importance. The selection of research approaches is normally left to the researchers who may see problems in a larger scientific context and may bring quite new technologies into play.9 Their options, however, may increasingly be constrained by environmental or health concerns (GMOs are a case in point). In general, farmer organizations and extension services are considerably less fullydeveloped in the third world. Farmers’ organizations “may lack the capacity to analyze members constraints, aggregate, and prioritize needs and articulate them” (Spillane, 2000, p. 124). Farmers may, of course, be more interested in the final innovation than the actual research process.10 Still, there are some examples of farmer involvement in decision-making structures of national agricultural research institutions (see Spillane, 2000, pp. 122-124, and Byerlee and Echeverria, eds., 2002). To some extent, non-government organizations (NGOs) and private voluntary organizations (PVOs) have filled the breach. They are, however, a very diverse group: NGOs tend to be very localized, some operate primarily as advocates; PVOs, as defined here, are international in nature (Oxfam, CARE, World vision, Catholic Relief Services, etc.), carry out field programs, and employ well-trained agricultural specialists. The degree to which they contribute to agricultural development and informing the agricultural research process is probably quite variable (assessments tend to vary, sometimes rather sharply; see, for example, Uphoff, 2002, and White and Eicher, 1999).11 Even so, foreign assistance donors have been promoting greater “stakeholder” participation in planning agricultural research and extension. As Sumberg, et al. (2004, p. 133) observe: “A key assumption underlying current reform efforts…is that decentralization and greater stakeholder participation in decision-making and implementation will improve both relevance and effectiveness.” They note that questions have been raised about the validity of this assumption in Africa, the argument being that, “aside from a few relatively well endowed areas in a small number of countries, the conditions do not yet exist in which these reforms can take root” (p. 141). Their conclusion is that “the new reform agenda is unlikely to be an important part of a solution to the problem of rural poverty in Africa” (p. 141).
9
One striking example is controlled atmosphere (CA) storage of fruit, which greatly extends storage life (Dalrymple, 1969). It had a long and international background: the basic concept originated with Bernard, a French chemist in 1820 and much of the early research was done in England starting in 1918. I helped operate one of the experimental CA rooms at Cornell in the early 1950s and a CA storage was later built on our farm.
10
There is a rapidly expanding literature in innovation systems, which extend beyond research to include extension and education (see, for example, FAO 2000).
11
NGOs/PVOs are institutional components of a larger category known as Civil Society (see Kaviraj and Khilnani 2001, and Lewis 2002). Runge, et al. (2003, p. 126) state that “Because of their general focus on participation, NGOs tend to see the proper scale of economic and social organization as local and decentralized, casting them as antagonists to both public and private institutions with global scope.”
6
The question of farmer representation is particularly perplexing at the international level, and especially so for the CGIAR. From the start, half of the members of its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), now the Science Council (SC), has been from developing countries. The CGIAR centers (half of whose board members are also from developing countries) have long relied on feedback from national agricultural research organizations (NROs) and other contacts of various types. There has been extensive interaction at the scientist level and a great deal of collaborative research, which keeps the center scientists in close contact with local conditions. But there are limits as to how far this process can go. And there is uncertainty as to the degree to which extension programs in developing countries provide useful feedback, especially as they have generally grown weaker in recent years.12 NGOs and civil society groups have, on the other hand, grown more active and in some cases more vocal. The degree to which these groups provide a systematic, widespread, and representative reflection of farmer’s needs and views is unclear. All of this has led to interest in a more regional approach to planning in the CGIAR. C. Approaches to Research Planning in the CGIAR The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the CGIAR has, from the outset of the CGIAR in 1972, been concerned with the establishment of priorities and strategies for the system. It has issued assessments roughly every five years. It adopted what was largely a convergence approach in which the importance (value) of the commodity was give primary attention (see TAC 1985 for an example). Over time, as the CGIAR broadened its range of activities to, particularly in the case of natural resources (forestry, agroforestry, fish and water), an associated ecoregional approach, and poverty alleviation, a modified congruence approach was developed (see TAC, 1994, pp. 18-21, 89-131). The modified approach had considerable value, but still did not effectively deal with the above issues, regional considerations, and other topics such as policy and training. Consequently a more consultative approach was developed (see CGIAR, 2002). It has involved the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), regional and sub-regional organizations, and the CGIAR centers to “facilitate regional consultation processes to establish a regional approach to research planning and implementation for the CGIAR and NARS”. Initial emphasis was given to “piloting an experimental bottom-up priority setting approach” in the Central America sub-region. 13 12
Questions have long been raised about the degree to which the presumed feedback process involving extension has worked. Some maintain that the result has been a largely one-way, top-down process, often known as the linear model. Biggs (1990) has examined this situation in terms of central versus multiple sources of innovation.
13
On a different front, a new African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) plans to utilize “a demand-driven, participatory, bottom-up process” to identify constraints. Once priority crops and traits are identified, it will “consult with potential technology providers, in both the public and private sectors, to identify technologies address those priority needs.” AATF, 2002, pp. 8, 10 [www.aftechfound.org]; for a recent more general news account about AATF see Gillis (2003).
7
A conceptual paper was prepared. The basic objective was to seek complementary actions at several levels. For the national agricultural research systems (NARS) in the region, this meant “seeking at the regional level advantages that they could not derive solely from a national level approach, thus complementing and supplementing the national approach.” “For the CGIAR, it means seeking complementary gains that it could not achieve exclusively through a global or ecoregional approach.” A number of potential advantages, as well as risks and limitations were outlined. Two principal further steps were undertaken: (1) a pilot experiment was carried out in Central America, and regional consultations were carried out elsewhere and (2) papers were prepared on “CGIAR Research and Poverty Reduction”, ”A Regional Approach to Setting Research Priorities and Implementation…”, and two papers on national research performance in Africa. One of the challenges reported to the group in 2001 was the question of “How best to introduce the perspectives of NGOs, farmers associations, and the private sector into the planning process?” The process continues, but as yet has probably not reached the point where overall conclusions can be developed. In initiating a new revision of its periodic Priorities and Strategies paper, the Interim Science Council, the successor of TAC, initiated a virtual (internet) consultative process that was carried out in two stages, the first involving a general expression of needs (April/May 2003) and the second an assessment by the scientific community (October 2003). The exercise included four regional panels and one global panel in both stages (I participated in the global panel in both cases). The second stage also included thematic panels. While this approach has certain limits, it appeared to be a useful, relatively quick, and inexpensive way to engage a wide and international array of opinion.14 III. Demand- and Supply-Driven Research It may be useful to next look at Demand- and Supply-Driven Research in the context of the private, public, and mixed public and private situations. In the private sector, traditional economic market forces might be expected to accentuate the demand component, while in the public sector - in the form of the CGIAR - the political process might influence demand in a somewhat different manner. A. The Private Sector The role of market demand forces or demand-pull in shaping the innovation process, primarily in industry, was initially examined by Schmookler in 1966. He maintained that “demand-side considerations are the major determinant of variations in the allocation of 14
The limitations primarily relate to the sample of individuals involved, the variable nature of their participation, and the process for drawing conclusions. Although an effort was made to develop reasonable balance in the composition of the groups, the degree of participation, especially for those who were traveling, was quite variable. The process required access to a computer over about a month. It also was difficult to get deeply into more complex questions and develop a dialogue in the time available. This placed some limitations on the process of developing or reaching a conclusion. It is probably not a suitable replacement for a face-to-face final decision process, but it could certainly help set the stage. And the technique could improve with practice.
8
inventive effort to specific industries” and regarded “supply side considerations [including science and technology] as relatively subordinate and passive” (Rosenberg, 1974, pp. 92, 93). Rosenberg, in response, stated that “if we want to explain the historical sequence in which different categories of wants have been satisfied via the inventive process, we must pay close attention to a special supply side variable: the growing stock of useful knowledge” (p. 98). Mowry and Rosenberg subsequently examined the role of these forces in the United States (1982). While some individual studies suggested that market forces govern the innovation process, they found that this “is simply not demonstrated by the empirical analyses that have claimed to support the conclusion” (p. 194). Their study, though confined to industry and now somewhat dated, seems to have considerable relevance, in its broad message, to the subject of this paper. Overall, they report: “Our purpose, obviously, is not to deny that market demand plays an indispensable role in the development of successful innovations. Rather, we contend that the role of demand has been overextended and misrepresented, with serious possible consequences for our understanding of the innovative process and of appropriate government policy alternatives to foster innovation. Both the underlying, evolving knowledge base of science and technology, as well as the structure of market demand, play central roles in innovation in an interactive fashion, and neglect of either is bound to lead to faulty conclusions and policies” (pp. 194-195). With respect to demand itself, they state: “In order to retain its analytic content, market demand must be clearly distinguished from the potentially limitless set of human needs (p. 229). Moreover, “To establish the primacy of demand-side factors, one has to show that demand conditions changed in ways more significant or decisive that changes in supply conditions – for example, in cost.” But “…the ‘demand pull’ approach simply ignores or denies, the operation of a complex and diverse set of supply-side mechanisms that are continually altering the structure of production costs” (p. 231). In general, the authors stated that “Rather than viewing either the existence of a market demand or the existence of a technological opportunity as each representing a sufficient condition for innovation to occur, one should consider them each as necessary, but not sufficient, for innovation to result; both must exist simultaneously (p. 231).” General Electric which has recently decided to increase the proportion of its central research activities spent on longer-term projects (Deutsch, 2002) in order to make greater use of “the central lab to study things that require major technological breakthroughs.”15
15
This revives the original ideas of Charles Steinmetz, over 100 years ago. “Steinmetz did not want this lab to worry about next quarter’s product…He wanted it to work on the next big idea, even as [the individual laboratories of] G.E.’s businesses were refining the last one”. For background on corporate research in the U.S. see Dennis (1987), Reich (1985), and Wise (1985).
9
B. The Global Public Sector: CGIAR The CGIAR provides a striking example of the roles of Demand- and Supply-Driven public research at the international level. We will view it in terms of participants, uncertainties, and limitations of each approach. 1. Participants at the International Level. Agricultural research in the CGIAR, as in all applied research organizations, is influenced by the needs of society, political forces, factor endowments and scientific opportunities.16 The players and the process however, are somewhat different at the international level than at the national level. This is largely because of the nature of the CGIAR itself. It is basically a group of rather diverse donors, ranging from international assistance agencies in developed countries to regional and international development agencies and banks to foundations and developing countries themselves. It provides an umbrella and central clearing house for their contributions - of both an unrestricted and restricted nature - to individual centers and programs. Each donor decides on where his funding goes; there is essentially no pooling. In this way, there can be, especially through restricted funding, a Donor-Driven element in addition to the Supply- and Demand-Driven components. Still, the CGIAR sets the basic terms of reference.17 The Technical Advisory Committee (and the subsequent interim Science Council) of the CGIAR has long been the major source of scientific advice to the system. It has been composed of eminent biological and social scientists and research administrators from developed and developing countries. Individual centers have tailored their own approaches within this broader framework, but have also drawn on their own experience and interaction and collaborative research with national and other scientists. More recently, as noted earlier, increasing attention has been given to incorporating feedback at the regional level. Still, this approach might be viewed by some as more top-down than bottom-up, especially when viewed at the local level. A more global perspective might suggest that the real comparative advantage of the CGIAR system is to complement, not to partly replace, national and local research activities. It does this by providing global/international public goods for their adaptation and use (see Dalrymple, 2003a and 2003b). This flow is often referred to as “spillover” by economists (see Alston, 2002). The consultative and collaborative aspects of this process provide a vital source of feedback. Since the focus of the core research programs 16
Factor endowments play a major role in the Induced Innovation view of technological change elucidated by Ruttan and Binswanger (see Ruttan, 2001, pp. 101-118, 188-196 and Binswanger and Ruttan, 1978). It has been suggested that this approach might be considered a macro-economic precursor to the more microeconomic approaches to demand-driven research (e-mail from Jim Ryan, Jan. 1/03).
17
Donor-Driven research can share some characteristics with Supply-Driven and/or Demand-Driven research. In the case of unrestricted funding, inasmuch as it follows the TAC/SC recommendations, it may be closer to Demand-Driven Research; in the case of restricted funding if may be closer to Supply-Driven research. Other forces and/or institutions may also influence the process.
10
of the centers should generally be on issues of widespread importance, some selectivity and priority setting is needed, particularly as the CGIAR system accounts for less that five percent of all the funding for research in the developing countries. This guidance has been well provided by TAC/ISC, but not always followed by donors (OED, 2003, p. 24). The principal constraint is restricted Donor-Driven funding, which is usually destined for more narrowly defined projects in terms of geography and time, and that may have a larger development component. These projects are classified as restricted funding and are largely beyond the purview of the Science Council. Where they represent a shift in funding from core support, they diminish the resources available for longer-term and more globally-oriented research. A recent review of the CGIAR stated that this shift has transformed “the CGIAR’s authorizing environment from being science-driven to being donor-driven, and a shift in the System from producing global and regional public goods toward providing national and local services” (World Bank, 2003, p. 3).18 2. Uncertainties in International Research. It is true, of course, that not every research program at every center has turned out quite as expected or even as successful as anticipated or desired. As Evans (1993, p. 367) has observed, a common feature of agricultural research is “that its eventual benefits turn out to be quite different from those foreseen or intended.” This is not necessarily bad, and, is a basic characteristic of all research everywhere.19 Whether this general situation would have been, on balance, materially changed for the better in the case of the CGIAR if there had been a greater “Demand-Driven” element is uncertain, because of possible tradeoffs. A number of factors – some not normally considered - may influence the outcome. Three examples drawn from the CGIAR follow. - While some products of research may not find immediate acceptance, the demand for them may change over time. One such case is high quality protein maize (QPM). While based on a promising discovery in 1963, many years of research were needed by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) to work out a number of practical problems (NRC, 1988). This process was completed by the mid-1980s, but the product – which was of value to both humans and livestock - did not take off in terms of usage, in part because of problems in funding and carrying out field tests on humans and the economics of livestock feed. Active research was largely discontinued by CIMMYT in the mid-1990s. At the end of the decade, however, adoption began to pick up and in 2000 the CIMMYT researchers were awarded the World Food Prize. In that year, QPM
18
Perhaps partly in response to this statement, it appears that the shift toward restricted funding was arrested in 2003, and the proportion of unrestricted funding increased from 42% in 2002 to about 44% (preliminary data provided by Shey Tata, CGIAR Secretariat, World Bank, Washington. D.C., April 7/04). Whether this is a temporary situation remains to be seen (restricted funding is also variable). But in any case, the unrestricted level is much too low, and should probably be at least in the 50% to 60% range.
19
As Polanyi (1946, p. 17) puts it: “The propositions of science [hypotheses] thus appear to be in the nature of guesses.” Or, in Ziman’s words (1976, p. 338): “Who can know the outcome of an experiment? If the result could be predicted, then the experiment would be unnecessary.”
11
was reported planted on over one million hectares (2.5 million acres) in 11 countries and released in seven others (CIMMYT, 2000; CGIAR, 2004).20 - Differing types of research may require a differing amount of interaction in development than others. A vivid example was provided in a recent study, conducted at the International Price Research (IRRI), of four mechanical technologies involved in rice production and harvesting (Douthwaite, Keatinge and Park, 2001).21 The major conclusion was that “…as technology and system complexity increase, so does the need for interaction between the originating R&D team and the key stakeholders (those who will directly gain and lose from the innovation) when the latter first replicate and use the new technology.” (p. 819). The key question was the degree to which the technologies required major changes in the ways farmers did things. Obviously, those that require a considerable amount of interaction over several years might better involve an intermediary body at the national level rather than further stretch already limited CGIAR center staff and funding. 22 - The nature of the technology may change over time in response to farmer-researcher interaction and the need to adapt to local conditions. A striking example is provided by Alley Cropping. As originally conceived by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), this technology involved continuous cultivation of annual crops within hedgerows formed by leguminous trees and shrubs. The latter were periodically pruned and their biomass applied as mulch to the annual crops or fed to livestock (in which case it is known as Alley Farming). Although there was some adoption, which continues, the technology did not live up to expectations, in part because of heavy labor requirements. Over time, however, the practice was – following considerable researcherfarmer interaction - substantially modified to better meet a wider range of cultural conditions and economic realities. This process has gone so far in some areas, involving dropping the leguminous hedgerows, that it could be characterized as a different technology. (Adesina and Chianu, 2002; Douthwaite, et al., 2002a; e-mails from Peter Hartmann, IITA, Jan./03 and Dyno Keatinge, ICRISAT, Jan./Feb./03.)
20
A variant of this situation, which also involved CIMMYT, is provided by triticale, a cross between wheat and rye, which draws plant hardiness from rye. It was first developed in 1876 but several plant and grain quality problems hindered its use. CIMMYT first took up research in 1964 and made a number of important improvements (NAS, 1989). By the early 1990s, it was grown on about 4.2 million acres (1.7 million ha.) worldwide, but most of this was in transition and developed nations (Bertram, 1993, p. 14). CIMMYT has continued a minimal research program, but even that has come under question except as a special project (e-mail from M. Morris, CIMMYT, April 15/04). Situations such as this present difficult policy choices. [Awaiting further information on present status in developing countries.]
21
Some of the issues they examined were anticipated in a more general way by Kaimowitz, et al. (1990, pp. 248-260). Also see Pingali, et al. (2001, pp. 594-597).
22
Similar questions might be raised about the degree to which CGIAR centers should be involved in participatory research (see Bellon and Morris, 2002, for a summary review and Thiele, et al., 2001, and Gladwin, et al., 2002, for case studies; more general and varied views are provided in: Conway, 1997; Conway and Toenniessen, 2003; Sumberg, et al., 2003 and 2004; and Uphoff, 2002).
12
3. Limitations of Supply- or Demand-Driven Public Research. Each approach has its limitations. These have long been voiced in the case of Supply-Driven research. The limitations of the Demand-Driven approach have received less focused attention, particularly in an international context. Criticism of the Supply-Driven or top down approach started centuries ago. The Paris Academy of Sciences, established in 1666, had for years “been attacked as self-appointed elitists who disparaged popular inventors and thinkers” (Alder, 2002, p. 99; also see Hahn, 1971). In 1943, Sir Albert Howard, an agronomist and proponent of a more organic approach to agriculture, lamented the bureaucratic complexities and gap between science and practice in the British and colonial research structure (pp.181-191) as well as the baleful influence of economists (p. 198). More recently, Chambers (1984, p. 101) urged “outsider professionals, the bearers of modern scientific knowledge, to step off their pedestals, and sit down, listen, and learn.” Scott (1998, p. 305) has referred to the “unscientific scorn [of scientists] for practical knowledge.” Within the CGIAR, QPM and Alley Cropping might be considered as examples of initially Supply-Driven approaches to public research which followed different paths, and illustrate some of the limitations (as well as ultimate possible benefits) of that approach. On the other hand, a Demand-Driven approach to public research also has some inherent limitations, especially at the international level. A review of literature suggests six of primary importance: • Farmers, influenced by their immediate and highly visible needs, are more apt to have a shorter-term outlook about their research needs. They are less likely to be concerned with or aware of the opportunities likely to flow from longer-term research programs (see Merrill, 1962, pp. 431-432; Kaimowitz, et al., 1990, pp. 252-253; Pingali, et al., 2000, p. 605; and Spillane, 2002, p. 124). • Producers are, in economic terms, more likely to favor research that provides producers surplus, research that benefits them, rather than consumers surplus, research that benefits consumers (de Gorter and Zilberman, 1990, p. 136; Roseboom, 2002, pp. 173-174).23 • Within rural societies in developing nations, rural elites can dominate these processes (de Janvry, et al., 1989, pp. 377-379; Sims and Leonard, 1990, pp. 46-47, 70; Ryan, 2002, p. 17; Chema, et al., 2003, p. 50; and Sumberg, et al., 2004, p. 141). • The “demand” perspective is essentially limited to farmers: the views of consumers, as noted earlier, are much less likely to be represented. • These and other constraints become accentuated as the geographic scope is broadened, and it is increasingly difficult to know what voices to listen to and how to weigh them. 24 23
Farmers are, of course, consumers as well; it is the off-farm consumption dimension that gets overlooked.
24
This was, as mentioned earlier (fn. 14) a problem in the recent ISC electronic exercise in priority setting. The CGIAR helped sponsor the establishment of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), noted earlier. This group, however, is primarily composed of representatives of national agricultural research organizations in developing nations. The difficulty is in reaching beyond this group.
13
• Finally, as Ryan (2002, p. 17) has noted: “Demand-driven approaches are limited in their ability to guide macro priority setting because of the wide diversity of their clientele and the complexity of their systems.” In addition, this approach entails some costs, both of a direct budgetary nature and indirectly in terms of other opportunities forgone. Both assume increased importance in periods of stagnant or declining research budgets. The producer/consumer balance comes up in two of these points and might be worth further mention as it is also relevant to Supply-Driven research. Normally the benefit of research to producers is greatest for early adopters of technology and fades away for late adopters due to price reductions associated with increased supply.25 On the other hand, the benefit to domestic consumers through lower prices is of widespread and continuing importance (except in the case of exports). 26 Benefits to intermediate groups, such as laborers and marketers of inputs and outputs, are not usually considered in assessments of producer and consumer surplus. Thus in setting priorities for publicly-funded research, attention should be extended beyond the farm level. The lesson to be drawn from this is that each approach, Supply- and Demand-driven, has limitations as an approach to priority setting in agricultural research in the public sector. Each may overlook critical social factors: neither is a panacea. The challenge is to develop a mechanism that combines the best and most appropriate aspects of each, in a way that provides the greatest public good. C. A Mixed Public and Private Case. So far, we have discussed the private and the public sectors (private and public goods) separately. The real world is more of a mixture and the result is a predominance of impure public goods (see Dalrymple, 2003c). A useful example of the latter is provided by the introduction of zero (ZT) tillage in Brazil (Ekboir, 2003; also see Ekboir and Parellada, 2002). This proved to be a very prolonged process and ultimately had many actors from many sectors and levels. It started with the development of a science-based herbicide by the private sector, but also involved an initially reluctant public sector and technology developments at the farm level without an understanding of the scientific process behind them. The early development of ZT was supply-driven and showed that “public research programs based only on technical demands [from the farm sector] may be too narrow because researchers have the best understanding of potential uses for their research outputs. Establishment of research priorities should consider supply as well as demand components ((Ekboir, 2003, p. 585).” It was also noted (p. 584) that the tendency to 25
Where there is a segmented and persistent gain to producers from research, they might be expected to – and often do in developed countries – help pay for it through an industry-wide cess or tax (see Byerlee and Echeverria, eds., 2002 and Spillane, 2002, pp. 122-124). It may, however, be difficult to determine the proportion that should be paid by producers.
26
For a detailed recent assessment of the effects of the Green Revolution, see Evenson and Gollin (2003a, 2003b).
14
centralize priority setting in public institutions and to manage by objectives has meant that it is increasingly difficult for individual researchers “to follow lines of research that are not officially recognized,” with the inevitable result that “they discourage creativity and risk-taking by researchers.” There could be many more examples of public-private interaction, particularly in the plant breeding and biotechnology spheres. This is an area that will undoubtedly be of increasing importance and raises interesting and complex issues of priority setting. Who leads and who follows? How is the public good to be balanced against the private good? How are the needs of the poor to be adequately represented and implemented? How are local interests to be weighted against global interests? How are intellectual property issues to be resolved? The list could, and will likely, go on. IV. Finding an Appropriate Balance at the Global Level Obviously, from the perspective of this paper, some sort of balance is needed between Demand and Supply dimensions in public research at the international level.27 Few research programs can afford to have their researchers completely follow their instincts.28 But equally, there is a danger if global research organizations, such as the CGIAR, totally focus on localized and short-term market demands. The challenge is to obtain the most useful and productive combination of theory and practice both at the global and the local levels and in the short and long run. On one side is the siren call of relatively pure science. As Popper (1972, pp. 135, 280), one of the most famous philosophers of science, has written: “The aim of science - the growth of knowledge - can be identified with the growth of the content of our theories.” “Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought, are our only means for interpreting nature….” The importance of this process is underlined by Callon (1994, p. 416), who goes on to state that “If we want to grasp the real economic significance of science, we need to recognize it as a source of variety…. It causes new states of the world to proliferate.” Or, as Lawrence Summers, then Chief Economist at the World Bank put it more pragmatically in 1991 (p. 14): “In a world that is short on money, ideas are important – and it takes research to generate ideas.” Ideas can range from very theoretical to very practical. The CGIAR focuses on applied research. Scientists at IRRI conceived of a new plant type and saw the potential of the semi-dwarf varieties which were at the heart of the Green Revolution. The same was true of the early work of Norman Borlaug on semi-dwarf wheat, first for the Rockefeller
27
This general point was made previously by Byerlee (2000, p. 429) and may well have been recognized by others. He wrote, in the context of a policy for targeting poverty, “This will involve a combination of supply- and demand-driven approaches to priority setting at different levels in the research system that will enhance both the efficiency and poverty alleviation impacts of research.”
28
James Conant, a former president of Harvard, once stated: “To advance scientific knowledge, pick a man of genius, give him money, and let him alone” (Conant, 2002, prefatory notes).
15
Foundation and then at CIMMYT.29 A former WARDA (West Africa Rice Development Association) scientist will share the 2004 World Food Prize for combining the best qualities of African and Asian rice varieties into a New Rice for Africa (NERICA), which is still in its early adoption stage. Some products of research, such as the QPM or Alley Cropping examples cited earlier, may not initially find widespread adoption, but come into favor as conditions and attitudes change.30 Other examples might well multiply in the future as developments in higher science open up new worlds in agricultural research. The ability to generate new ideas is certainly not limited to scientists, but they have the knowledge and tools to see possibilities that would not be visible to laypersons. This is a precious resource. On the other hand, local forms of knowledge can aid and abet the scientific process. The NGO Committee of the CGIAR and other groups have rightly drawn attention to the importance of indigenous knowledge at the farm level (whether it is indigenous science as was mentioned in one Committee statement, is more uncertain). By itself, such knowledge – largely obtained by trial and error – cannot be easily scaled up.31 But centers can and do utilize such knowledge in fashioning their own programs, such as in recent research by IRRI on intercropping (IRRI, 2002). Another way of looking at this goes back, curiously, to the brownian ratchets of physics and to Darwin and might be termed a “random-generation/natural selection model”.32 The basic idea of “generating order by ‘selecting’ from random variations is hardly new – it is the fundamental idea of Darwin’s theory of natural selection” (Oster, 2002, p. 25). In the research context, one variant could refer to accidental discoveries - serendipity - both by scientists and farmers. These discoveries can set the stage for further such findings, which, depending on where they occur, could appear to be supply- or demand-driven. The key is to encourage variety (as suggested by Callon above) and then both scientists and farmers would make their choices – a “user-chosen” scenario. And these two groups could in turn interact, stimulating further variety and choice. 29
On the other hand, Borlaug and others initially encountered considerable conservatism among some scientists in developing countries who were “reluctant to think in strategic terms about the country’s needs” (Wortman and Cummings, 1978, p. 336). 30
Such situations provide a particular challenge to the research community. As Arthur (1989, pp. 127-128) put it: “a central authority could underwrite adoption and exploration along promising but less popular technological paths. But where eventual returns to a technology are hard to ascertain…the authority then faces…a problem of choosing which technologies to bet on. An early run of disappointing results…from a potentially superior technology may cause it perfectly rationally to abandon this technology in favor of other possibilities.”
31
Scott (1998, pp. 304-305), a proponent of such knowledge, acknowledges that “They [farmers] are also limited by what they observe; microprocesses only visible in the laboratory necessarily escape them. Nor is it clear that the ecological logic that seems to work well on a single farm over the long haul will at the same time produce sustainable aggregate results for an entire region.”
32
This term, the general idea, and the following citation, were suggested to me by William Masters (e-mail, 5/23/03). He was thinking primarily of the farmer or demand-driven side, but it seemed to me that it could apply equally well to the scientist or supply-driven side.
16
Research drawing on and tempered by experience, and experience tempered by research, can make a powerful combination. As David and Foray (2002, p. 18) have written “The sectors where knowledge creation has occurred at an extremely rapid pace are those in which the relationships between science and technology are especially close and intense.” Both elements are needed, but generally neither should totally dominate. The big challenge is to develop an appropriate balance for the particular level of research involved and a relatively efficient way of coming to a decision. V. Concluding Remarks The vital point to come out of all of this is by now evident: the successful identification and resolution of scientific problems in the public sphere in agriculture, especially for global public goods, cannot best be handled by a simplistic approach to priority setting derived solely, or even largely, by either Demand- or Supply-Driven manifestos. Neither approach is, by itself, a very good way of guiding applied research.33 A blend is required to provide the needed fusion of theory and practice emphasized by Poincaré (1910, p. 279), Bernal (1969, vol. 4, pp. 1223-1224, 1295), and others. The challenge is to find the appropriate balance, and this will likely be different at the global, regional and national levels. In the case of the CGIAR, this may be somewhat different for the system as a whole than for individual centers. Moreover, the process should to take a larger and longer-term view of the research agenda, one that more adequately deals with the broader and longer-term needs of society. This is difficult because we are dealing with a variety of needs, often of an immediate nature, that are expressed through the political process. And as Buchanan said: “there is no analog to competitive order that eases the analytical task” (1968, p. 5). The analytical dimension is particularly difficult at the international and global level where there are many voices expressing many needs, but where there is no public funding or decision-making mechanism comparable to those at the national level. Perhaps some version of the “enlightened democracy” concept suggested earlier by Kitcher (2001, p. 133) would be worthy of exploration. At the global level, this might take the form of a “demand-informed” but “supply-led” approach to research priority setting.34 For the CGIAR, it is fairly easy to identify the organizational sources of “supply-led” dimension at the system level: the new Science Council and the scientific staff of the individual centers, drawing on others. Organization of the “demand 33
Galison (2003, p. 328) concludes, in a different context (the simultaneous measurement of time and the development of the science of relativity) that in recent years “it has become commonplace to pit bottom-up against top-down explanations” and that “neither will do.” He then goes on to cite a medieval expression that “In looking down we see up; in looking up we seen down. That vision of knowledge serves us well.”
34
This approach, suggested by two reviewers, is only a partial step towards Kitcher’s formulation in that it does not embody an intermediate group to receive tutoring from scientists and to accept input from all perspectives. It differs from past practice in the CGIAR in that it more specifically incorporates a demandinformed dimension. Involvement of an intermediate body would be difficult to do at the global level.
17
informed” dimension is more challenging, but might build on work carried out by the Interim Science Council and noted earlier. Expansion of the approach to regional, national, and local levels could be more complex and might require different players and different balances between the “supply” and “demand” dimensions. In any case, there is a certain element of research - often a very useful one - which cannot be totally planned, either from the top or the bottom. It may arise from individual initiative or hunches. Or it may arise from synergism. As Lord Acton (1834-1902) recognized: “There is nothing more necessary to the man of science than…the use of hypothesis, of imagination, the mode of testing” (cited by Popper, 1972, p. 14). To provide room for this creative dimension, or to more actively encourage it, some flexibility must be built into the overall scientific effort.35 These issues and ideas are relatively easy to state. Finding the way to strike an appropriate balance between a fuller range of “Demand” and “Supply” factors in an under-funded and overloaded work environment at the global level, such as in the CGIAR, is a much more difficult task. But it is vital to do so in order to maintain an innovative and productive research system that has the capacity and the flexibility to meet longer-term global challenges. Indeed, the critical need is to combine scientific knowledge with responsible action to provide the public goods needed by global society, both now and in the future. **** Annex: Research and Knowledge Flows in Agriculture Some of the major components of the preceding discussion may be represented in graphic form. I have tried to do so, in the context of knowledge flows and participants in Figure 2, which is cast in the form of a quadrant.36 The horizontal axis refers to the geographic scope of research, from local to international and global. The vertical axis is the two-way flow of information, from formal scientific knowledge at one end to indigenous knowledge at the other end.37 Knowledge also, and this is vital in terms of spillovers, moves horizontally. Where these horizontal and vertical effects are combined, there may be diagonal shifts. The four quadrants refer to the major participants in the processes. The upper two (1 & 2) represent the more formal research sectors and the bottom two (3 & 4) the less formal 35
Still, some structure is needed: not all scientists are equally creative, and in those cases, “Their capacities may well be put to best use in routine tasks within an organized scheme” (Ziman, p. 338).
36
There could be a third dimension, possibly reflecting, for instance, the extent of involvement by the private sector.
37
The balance between the magnitude of the relative knowledge flows, in this case suggested by the thickness of the arrows, could well vary as one moves from the left to the right (up-flows perhaps gaining in importance with shifts to the left and down-flows with shifts to the right).
18
and more development-oriented sectors. There is, in reality, considerable overlap between the quadrants. From an organizational point of view, the IARCs (quadrant 2) are also active in quadrant 4; the same may be true of some of the institutions listed in quadrant 3. Some PVOs (quadrant 4) may, on the other hand, have activities that fall into quadrant 2. Overlap can also occur in the case of (1) genetic resources (vertical and horizontal) and (2) participatory research (vertical). Biological and political barriers, may affect the flow of embodied knowledge in both directions. Within the CGIAR, some attention has sometimes been given to the possible devolution of certain research programs from the international centers to strong national research programs (a move to the left on the diagram), with an appropriate transfer of funds. 38 This has not occurred to any appreciable extent because of a host of practical problems (handling funding; national constraints on interaction with, or germplasm flow to, certain countries; lack of international status). Varying national attitudes toward biotechnology, especially genetic modification, might further complicate the process today. It could, of course, be done by the centers on a specific contractual basis, but has limitations as a general tool. Other actions – some intended, some not - shift the locus or focus of research to the left and down – “downstream.” The substantial increase in the proportion of restricted funding in the CGIAR, noted in the text, usually involves research is of a more limited geographic scope and time horizon. Where this reflects a shift from unrestricted funding, the result can be relatively less research of a more fundamental and/or long-term nature. Some NGO advocacy groups tend to think in terms of regional rather than global research (e.g., NGO, 2002) Yet many of the scientific opportunities as well as the opportunities for synergies and spillovers lie in moving the CGIAR centers to the right and up - “upstream” toward higher and more globally-oriented science. This is where the comparative advantage of the CGIAR Centers lies. To the extent that they are able to make this shift, the centers can help elevate, through collaborative efforts, the research capacity of national programs. Thus there may be both synergies and tensions, complementarities and competition, between “upstream” and “downstream” research efforts. ****
Acknowledgements Helpful review comments provided by many individuals. I would particularly like to mention, without implicating, Robert Evenson, Elon Gilbert, Hans Gregersen, Timothy Kelley, William Masters, John Mellor, Vernon Ruttan, Jim Ryan, and James Sumberg.
38
This is sometimes cast in terms of subsidiarity, a World Bank and European Union term. The key question is whether the functions can be performed as efficiently and effectively. Few, if any, guidelines are provided for making this determination.
19
References Alston, Julian, “Spillovers,” 2002. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 43, no. 3 (September), pp. 315-346. Adesina, Akinwumi and Jonas Chianu, 2002. “Farmers’ Use and Adoption of Alley Farming in Nigeria,” in C. B. Barrett, Frank Place, and A. A. Aboud (eds.), Natural Resource Management in African Agriculture: Understanding and Improving Current Practices, CABI Publishing, New York, pp. 51-64. AATF (“African Agricultural Technology Foundation: A Public-Private Partnership to Serve the Needs of Smallholder Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa”), 2002. Washington, D.C. (brochure). Also see: [www.aftechfound.org]. Alder, Ken, 2002. The Measure of All Things. The Free Press, New York. Arthur, W. B., 1989. “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events,” The Economic Journal, vol. 99, pp. 116-131. Bellon, Mauricio and Michael Morris, 2002. Linking Global and Local Approaches to Agricultural Technology Development: The Role of Participatory Plant Breeding Research in the CGIAR. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico, D. F., Economics Working Paper 02-03, 22 pp. Bernal, J. D., 1969. Science in History. The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge (4 vols.). Bertram, Robert B., 1993. “New Crops and the International Agricultural Research Centers,” in Jules Janick and James Simon (eds.), New Crops, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 11-22. Biggs, Stephen, 1990. “A Multiple Source of Innovation Model of Agricultural Research and Technology Promotion,” World Development, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1481-1499. Binswanger, H. P. and V. W. Ruttan (eds.), 1978. Induced Innovation: Technology, Institutions and Development. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Buchanan, James, 1968. The Demand and Supply of Public Goods. Rand McNalley & Co., Chicago. Byerlee, Derek, 2000. “Targeting Poverty Alleviation in Priority Setting for Agricultural Research,” Food Policy, vol. 25, pp. 429-445. Byerlee, Derek and Ruben Echeverria (eds.), 2002. Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
20
Callon, Michel, 1994. “Is Science a Public Good?” Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 19, pp. 395-424. Catalogue, 1849. “Catalogue of the Mount Airy Agricultural Institute, Germantown, Pa.”. Collins Printers, Philadelphia, 8 pp. (Provided by the McLean Library, Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, Philadelphia.) Chambers, Robert, 1984. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman, London and New York. Chema, Sam, Elon Gilbert, and Johannes Roseboom, 2003. A Review of Key Issues and Recent Experiences in Reforming Agricultural Research in Africa, International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, Research Report 24, December, 70 pp. Collinson, M. (ed.), 1999. A History of Farming Systems Research. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. Conant, Jennet, 2002. Tuxedo Park. Simon & Schuster, New York. Conway, Gordon, 1997. The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the Twenty-first Century. Penguin Books, London, pp. 185-204. Conway, Gordon and Gary Toenniessen, 2003. “Science for African Food Security,” Science, February 21, vol. 299, pp. 1187-1188. CGIAR, 2002. “Progress Report on Regional Approach to Research.” Interim Science Council, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, October (prepared for AGM02), 25 pp. CGIAR, 2004. Snapshot of CGIAR Impacts, CGIAR Secretariat, World Bank, Washington, D. C., February. CIMMYT, 2000. “35 Years in the Making…Scientists Receive World Food Prize…,” International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico City, September, 4 pp. [www.cimmyt.org/research/maize/world_food_prize_qpm/qpm_wfp.htm] Dalrymple, Dana, 1969. “The Development of an Agricultural Technology: Controlled Atmosphere Storage of Fruit,” Technology and Culture, vol. 10, no. 1 (January), pp. 3548. Dalrymple, Dana, 2003a. “International Agricultural Research as a Global Public Good: A Review of Concepts, Experience, and Policy Issues.” U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Economic Growth, Development and Trade, Office of Environment and Science Policy (hereafter USAID/EGAT/ESP), Washington, D. C., July, 30 pp.
21
Dalrymple, Dana, 2003b. “Scientific Knowledge as a Global Public Good: Contributions to Innovation and the Economy,” The Role of Scientific Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a Symposium. National Academies Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 35-51. On line at [www.nap.edu/catalog/10785.html]. Dalrymple, Dana, 2003c. “Impure Public Goods and Agricultural Research: Some Concepts, Views, and Issues,” USAID/EGAT/ESP, Washington, D. C., November, 14 pp. David, Paul and Dominique Foray, 2002. “An Introduction to the Economy of the Knowledge Society,” International Social Science Journal, vol. 54, issue 171 (March) pp. 9-23. de Gorter, Harry and David Zilberman, 1990. “On the Political Economy of Public Goods Inputs in Agriculture,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 72, pp. 131-137. de Janvry, Alain, 1977. “Inducement of Technological and Institutional Innovations: An Interpretative Framework,” in T.M. Arndt, D.G. Dalrymple, and V.W. Ruttan (eds.), Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research, University of Minnesota Press, St. Paul, pp. 551-563. de Janvry, Alain, 1978. “Social Structure and Biased Technical Change in Argentine Agriculture,” in Hans Binswanger and Vernon Ruttan (eds.), Induced Innovation: Technology, Institutions and Development. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. de Janvry, Alain, Elisabeth Sadoulet, and Marcel Fafchamps, 1989. “Agrarian Structure, Technological Innovations, and the State,” in Pranab Bardham (ed.), The Economic Theory of Agrarian Institutions, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 356-382. Dennis, Michael, 1987. “Accounting for Research: New Histories of Corporate Laboratories and the Social History of American Science,” Social Studies of Science, vol. 17, pp. 479-518. Deutsch, Claudia, 2002. “G.E. Research Returns to Roots,” New York Times, December 26, pp. C1, C4. Douthwaite, B., J.D.H. Keatinge and J.R. Park, 2001. “Why Promising Technologies Fail: The Neglected Role of User Innovation During Adoption,” Research Policy, vol. 30, pp. 819-836. Douthwaite, B., V.M. Manyong, J.D.H. Keatinge, and J. Chianu, 2002a. “The Adoption of Alley Cropping and Mucuna: Lessons for Research Development and Extension,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 56, pp. 193-202.
22
Douthwaite, Boru, 2002b. Enabling Innovation: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Fostering Technological Change. Zed Books, London, pp. 1-43. Ekboir, Javier, 2003. “Research and Technology Policies in Innovation Systems,” Research Policy, vol. 32, no. 4 (April), pp. 573-586. Ekboir, Javier and Gabriel Parellada, 2002. “Public-Private Interactions and Technology Policy in Innovation Processes for Zero Tillage in Argentina,” in Byerlee and Echeverra, (eds.), pp. 137-154. Evans, L. T., 1993. Crop Evolution, Adaptation, and Yield. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Evenson, R.E. and D. Gollin (eds.), 2003a. Crop Variety Improvement and its Effect on Productivity. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 522 pp. Evenson, R.E. and D. Gollin, 2003b. “Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000,” Science, vol. 3000 (May 2), pp. 758-762. FAO, 2000. Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural Development (AKIS/RD): Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (with the World Bank), Rome, 21 pp. [www.fao.org/sd/exdirect/exre0027.htm] FAO, 2004. “Summary Document of the FAO e-mail conference: ‘What should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries?’” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, February 20, p. 1 [www.fao.org/biotech/logs/C8/summary.htm]. Fletcher, Stevenson, 1955. Pennsylvania Agriculture and Country Life, 1840-1940, pp. 480-481. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Galison, Peter, 2003. Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’s Maps: Empires of Time. W. W. Norton & Co., New York and London. Gillis, Justin, 2003. “To Feed Hungry Africans, Firms Plant Seeds of Science,” Washington Post, March 11, pp. A1 and A18. GFAR, 2002. “Strengthening the Participation of Farmer’s Organizations and of NGOs in Global Research for Development,” Global Forum on Agricultural Research, c/o Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, February, 13 pp. (distributed at CGIAR AGM02). Gladwin, Christina and Jennifer Peterson, 2002. “The Quality of Science in Participatory Research: A Case Study from Eastern Zambia,” World Development, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 523-543.
23
Hahn, Roger, 1971. The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution: The Paris Academy of Sciences, 1666-1803. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Howard, Albert, 1943. An Agricultural Testament. Oxford University Press, New York and London (reprinted by Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pa.,1972). IRRI, 2002. “Rice Science for a Better World.” International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, October, 32 pp. Kaimowitz, David, Monteze Snyder and Paul Engel, 1990. “A Conceptual Framework for Studying the Links Between Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing countries,” in David Kaimowitz (ed.), Making the Link: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries. Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 227-269. Kaviraj, Sudipta and Sunil Khilnani (eds.), 2001. Civil Society: History and Possibilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kitcher, Philip, 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford University Press, New York. Lewis, David, 2002. “Civil Society in African Contexts: Reflections of the Usefulness of a Concept,” Development and Change, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 569-586. Merrill, Robert, 1962. “Some Society-Wide Research and Development Institutions,” in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Mowery, David and Nathan Rosenberg, 1982. “The Influence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies,” in Nathan Rosenberg, Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. NRC, 1988. Quality-Protein Maize (A Report of the Board on Science and Technology for International Development in Cooperation with the Board on Agriculture, National Research Council). National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 100 pp. NRC, 1989. Triticale: A Promising Addition to the World’s Cereal Grains (A Report…Ibid.), National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 103 pp. NRC, 2002. Frontiers in Agricultural Research: Food, Health, Environment, and Communities (A Report of the National Research Council of the National Academies). National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
24
NGO, 2002. “Statement by the NGO Committee of the CGIAR,” CGIAR AGM02, October 30. OED, 2003. The CGIAR at 31: An Independent Meta-Evaluation of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank, Washington, D. C., Vol. 1, Overview Report. Oster, George, 2002. “Darwin’s Motors,” Nature, vol. 417, no. 6884 (May 2), p. 25. Pingali, Prabhu, Scott Rozelle, and Roberta Gerpacio, 2000. “The Farmer’s Voice in Priority Setting: A Cross-Country Experiment in Eliciting Technological Preferences,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 49, no. 3 (April), pp. 591-609. Poincaré, Henri, 1910. “Les Polytechniciens,” in Poincaré, Savants et Écrivains. Flammarion, Paris, pp. 265-279. Polanyi, Michael, 1946. Science, Faith and Society. Oxford University Press, London. Popper, Karl, 1972. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London. Pray, Carl, 1983. “Underinvestment and the Demand for Agricultural Research: A Case Study of the Punjab,” Food Research Institute Studies, vol. 14, pp. 51-79. Reich, Leonard, 1985. The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876-1926. Cambridge University Press, New York Roseboom, Johannes, 2002. Essays on Agricultural Research Investment. Ph.D. dissertation, privately printed, Wageningen, September. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1974. “Science, Invention and Economic Growth,” The Economic Journal, vol. 84 (March), pp. 90-108. Ruttan, Vernon, 2001. Technology, Growth, and Development: An Induced Innovation Perspective. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. Runge, C. Ford, Benjamin Senaur, Philip Parder, and Mark Rosegrant, 2003. Ending Hunger in Our Lifetime: Food Security and Globalization. Johns Hopkins University Press (for the International Food Policy Research Institute), Baltimore. Ryan, Jim, 2002. “Agricultural Research and Poverty Alleviation: Some International Perspectives”. Australian National University, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Canberra. Schmookler, Jacob, 1996. Invention and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
25
Scott, James, 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press, New Haven. Simms, Holly and David Leonard, 1990. “The Political Economy of the Development and Transfer of Agricultural Technologies,” in David Kaimowitz (ed.), Making the Link: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries. Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 43-73. Spillane, Charles, 2002. “Agricultural Biodiversity and Developing Countries: Proprietary Knowledge and Diffusion of Benefits,” in Timothy Swanson (ed.), Biotechnology, Agriculture and the Developing World: The Distributional Implications of Technological Change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northhampton, pp. 67-134. Sumberg, James, Christine Okali, and David Reece, 2003. “Agricultural Research in the Face of Diversity, Local Knowledge and the Participation Imperative: Theoretical Considerations,” Agricultural Systems, vol. 76, pp. 739-753. Sumberg, James, Elon Gilbert, and Malcolm Blackie, 2004. “Income Diversity, Technology Choice and Agricultural Research Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Development Research Policy, vol. 22, no. 2 (March), pp. 131-146. Summers, Lawrence, 1991. “Knowledge for Effective Action.” Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 1991, World Bank, Washington, D. C., pp. 7-14. TAC, 1987. Priorities and Future Strategies. TAC Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, August 1987, 246 pp. TAC, 1994. Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. TAC Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, December 1994, 229 pp. Thiele, Graham, Elske van de Fliert and Dindo Campilan, 2001. “What Happened to Participatory Research and the International Potato Center?” Agriculture and Human Values, vol. 18, pp. 429-446. Uphoff, Norman (ed.), 2002. Agroecological Innovations: Increasing Food Production With Participatory Development. Earthscan, London and Sterling (Va.). White, Robert, and Carl Eicher, 1999. “NGO’s and the African Farmer: A Skeptical Perspective.” Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, East Lansing, Staff Paper No. 99-01, January. Wise, George, 1985. Willis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the Origins of U.S. Industrial Research. Columbia University Press, New York.
26
World Bank, 2003. “The CGIAR at 31: Celebrating Its Achievements, Facing Its Challenges.” Précis, World Bank, Operations Evaluation Department, Washington, D.C., No. 232, Spring. Wortman, Sterling and Ralph Cummings Jr., 1978. To Feed This World: The Challenge and the Strategy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Ziman, John, 1976. The Force of Knowledge: The Scientific Dimension of Society. Cambridge University Press, London and New York.
