Since its earliest years IFPRI has conducted research on food subsidies, concentrating on methods to achieve the social objectives of subsidies without undue distortion of the economy or excessive economic and political costs. Studies have been conducted in eleven countries, several of which have been the site of more than one project. IFPRI research on food subsidies has had, and continues to have, significant impact at the country level. Moreover, the cumulative weight of the research has influenced how the development community regards food subsidy issues.
In The Nigerian Rice Economy the authors assess three options for reducing this dependency - tariffs and other trade policies; increasing domestic rice production; and improving post-harvest rice processing and marketing - and identify improved production and post-harvest activities as the most promising. These options however, will require substantially increased public investments in a variety of areas, including research and development, basic infrastructure (for example, irrigation, feeder roads, and electricity), and rice milling technologies.
This report assesses the impact of the International Food Policy Research Institutes (IFPRI) Global Research Program on Priorities for Public Investment in Agriculture and Rural Areas (GRP-3). Initiated in 1998, the stated objectives of the research program were (1) to increase public investment for rural areas and the agricultural sector given that there is an underspending in the sector and (2) to better target and improve efficiency of public resources to achieve these growth and poverty reduction goals, as well as other development goals. GRP-3 evolved out of research on the impacts of alternative types of public spending on income and poverty outcomes in India and China that was conducted by staff of IFPRIs Environment and Production Technology Division (later the Development Strategy and Governance Division). Those studies indicated that public investments in infrastructurein particular, investments in roads, agricultural research and development (R&D), and educationyielded sizeable marginal benefits in terms of poverty alleviation and income generation in rural areas. This line of research was later expanded to encompass a number of countries in Africa and, to a lesser extent, Southeast Asia and the Middle East. A second major (and ongoing) thrust of the program is to support African governments in establishing public investment priorities and strategies for promoting rural economic growth and poverty alleviation. Major activities undertaken include providing analytical and institutional support to the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and evaluations of individual publicly-funded programs in several African countries. GRP-3 has generated an impressive array of published outputs. The great bulk of these emerged from the research conducted in India and China. A much smaller number of published outputs have been generated by the (more recently conducted) research in Africa; however, a substantial number of papers, book manuscripts, and monographs are in various stages of the publication process. Other important program outputs include a variety of public expenditure databases suitable for assessing the nature and effects of individual countries spending priorities. GRP-3 research has had substantial influence on public expenditure priorities in India and China. Most notably, published research in India played a key role in the institution of the Rural Roads Program that directed huge sums toward construction of roads connecting large numbers of previously unserved villages. Quantitative assessment of the positive impacts from these road investments indicates that IFPRI research can reasonably take substantial credit for lifting tens of thousands of individuals out of poverty and increasing agricultural GDP by billions of rupees. Additionally, in both China and India, GRP-3 research has influenced recent policy conversations that have led to increased spending on agricultural R&D and education. Overall, the program has substantially met its stated objectives in Asia. GRP-3 research in Africa has yet to fully meet the programs objectives, in large part because the policymaking process in the countries where IFPRI has been active are still not far enough advanced for the research outputs to have translated into actual policies. Still, some important outcomes have emerged: The work IFPRI has conducted in support of CAADP has successfully shepherded 19 countries through the Compact process. However, the Compacts are intermediate products; it remains to be seen the extent to which governments follow through on the plans contained within them. IFPRIs compilations of disparate public expenditure data in a large number of countries represent a useful local public good for use by research and practitioner communities outside of IFPRI. In addition, IFPRIs role in guiding the formation and operation of a regional strategic assessment and knowledge support system (ReSAKSS) has boosted, if not created, institutional capacity for future monitoring and evaluation activities. Research on the impact of public investments in the agricultural sector has been useful to the donor community by providing empirical backstopping for ongoing policy dialogues with governments. However, the difficultand often contentiouspolitical environment in which those dialogues occur has meant that policy outcomes are still materializing (and far from certain).
The Global Food Policy Report is IFPRI’s flagship publication. This year’s annual report examines major food policy issues, global and regional developments, and commitments made in 2015, and presents data on key food policy indicators. The report also proposes key policy options for 2016 and beyond to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. In 2015, the global community made major commitments on sustainable development and climate change. The global food system lies at the heart of these commitments—and we will only be able to meet the new goals if we work to transform our food system to be more inclusive, climate-smart, sustainable, efficient, nutrition- and health-driven, and business-friendly.
Women’s participation and empowerment in value chains are goals that concern many development organizations, but there has been limited systematic, rigorous research to track these goals between and within value chains (VCs). We use the survey-based project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI) to measure women’s and men’s empowerment in the abaca, coconut, seaweed, and swine VCs in the Philippines. Results show that most women and men in all four VCs are disempowered, but unlike in many other countries, Filipino women in this sample are generally as empowered as men. Pro-WEAI results suggest that respect within the household and attitudes about gender-based violence (GBV) are the largest sources of disempowerment for both women and men, followed by control over use of income and autonomy in income-related decisions. Excessive workload and lack of group membership are other important sources of disempowerment, with some variation across VCs and nodes along VCs. Across all four VCs, access to community programs is associated with higher women’s empowerment, and access to extension services and education are associated with higher men’s empowerment. Our results show that, despite the egalitarian gender norms in the Philippines, persistent gender stereotypes influence men’s and women’s empowerment and VC participation.
The Million Farmers School (MFS) is an innovative extension program initiated by the Department of Agriculture in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India, in 2017. Twice in a year, the department deploys its entire extension machinery to organize nearly 15,000 training programs for about a million farmers across all districts of the state. Unlike traditional extension services, MFS integrates various facets of agricultural knowledge into a packaged product and delivers through village-level trainings where printed material on the topics of training are also distributed among participants. This study presents early findings of a process evaluation, involving assessments of program design, implementation strategies, and estimation of benefits from program participation. In addition to consultation with public officials and community organizations, a state-level representative survey was conducted on a sample of both participating and non-participating households. The early results based on matching and instrumental variable methods—suggest that knowledge outcomes are significantly better among participants vis-à-vis non-participants. The results are robust to different model specifications. The study also qualitatively assesses various aspects of the program’s design and implementation, highlighting the constraints and challenges it faces and offers implementation advice for greater efficacy in its future course.
