This paper reports on an ex-post assessment of IFPRI’s research on High-Value Agriculture (HVA) over 1994–2010. HVA is defined to include perishable agricultural commodities produced for the market that yield high returns to land, labor, or both. IFPRI’s research on HVA has been housed mainly in GRP27 (Participation in high value agricultural markets). Questions for the study included whether IFPRI had the right research strategy for this topic; was focused on the right issues; was a leader in the field; used the most relevant approaches and methods; and was successful in sensitizing/influ-encing the policies of governments, agribusiness, academia, civil society, and the international donor community. Finally, what has been the impact of the HVA policies that IFPRI influenced?
IFPRI’s Poverty, Health, and Nutrition Division (PHND) and the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) have conducted research since 2003 on the critical links between nutrition, health, and agriculture. This evaluation considers the impact of the work carried out through 2016, looking at the research strategy, engagement, capacity building, and impact on programs and policies and global dialogue. Findings suggest that the Diet Quality and Health of the Poor program has been successful in developing and sharing valuable research, knowledge, and data, and has brought new issues and approaches to partners and stakeholders. Through a range of projects, the program has effectively engaged with stakeholders, partners, and governments to support capacity enhancement and to help shape national interventions to improve nutrition.
This study uses country-level panel data on 57 countries in Africa and Asia from 1981 to 2014 to assess the relationships between IFPRI’s in-country presence (as measured by staff present) and various policy and outcome indicators in those countries. An econometric model with country fixed-effects, year fixed-effects, and country-specific time trends is used, controlling for several factors deemed to affect the different policy and outcome indicators such as the country’s research capacity, production environment and resources, political economy and institutions, and complementary investments.
Marking IFPRI’s 40th year, this report draws on external sources of evidence to review the Institute’s policy influence and impact to date and provides recommendations to improve. The external evidence includes citations data, external program and management reviews commissioned by CGIAR, and a series of independently conducted impact assessment studies of many of IFPRI’s research programs and projects between 1995 and 2015. The report also reviews recommendations as to how IFPRI might improve its impact.
In 2015, IFPRI commemorated its 40th anniversary. For the past four decades, the Institute has worked tirelessly to provide research-based policy solutions to bring an end to hunger and malnutrition. The impact of IFPRI’s research travels far beyond its walls. This past year witnessed substantial gains in food and nutrition security on the global stage, and IFPRI was proud to contribute to these shared global achievements.
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has undertaken research programs on agricultural STI policy since 1995. This study assesses the impact of this body of research outputs and support services in terms of three complementary analyses: (1) an evaluation of the potential impact of the complete body of research using implicit or explicit impact pathways, (2) two case studies that assess the actual impact of particular research outputs, and (3) a more traditional bibliometric analysis. Movement along the impact pathway, in turn, requires different types of research products—evolving from problem framing to methodology development, then to case studies, and finally to context-specific policy recommendations—all within the logical stages of the impact pathway. How far IFPRI operates along this impact pathway produces a basic tension between the CGIAR’s mandate to produce international public goods (IPGs) and the increasing focus on accountability through impact in the use of international public funds.
Methods and practice for the impact evaluation of policy-oriented research (POR) lag behind many other research sectors, such as agricultural technology research, making it difficult to prioritize investments in POR and retarding institutional learning about how to make POR more effective. To address these issues within the context of the CGIAR, a workshop on “Best Practice Methods for Assessing the Impact of Policy-Oriented Research” was cosponsored by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), and the Standing Panel for Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the CGIAR’s Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC), and held at IFPRI headquarters in Washington, DC, November 11–12, 2014. This paper provides a summary of the workshop discussions and draws on this, together with findings from the literature, to derive guidelines for assessing policy-oriented research in the CGIAR.
The performance of the International Food Policy Research Institutes (IFPRIs) research program that focuses on water resource issues is reviewed for the period 19942010 around the three themes that constitute the program: global modeling, river basin modeling, and institutions. The IFPRI water team has been involved in leading-edge research in a number of dimensions: it has focused on analysis at varying geographic scales; the work has been truly interdisciplinary by engaging economics with biophysical science and other social sciences; and research outputs have been innovative in advancing institutional analysis and water pricing and in policy measures addressing the complexities of water supply management. In the research tasks, IFPRIs water team actively collaborated with a wide range of researchers from within the CGIAR network, national research institutes, and universities. Within the team, a largely stable group of leaders has been responsible for the professional development of a substantial cohort of junior staff who have moved onto successful careers elsewhere. The output of the program has been prolific and prominent in academic, policy, and development communities. The approach taken is to review selected publications from the themes; assess the quality of the journals in which papers have been published; and evaluate the performance, on average, of researchers in the program. In addition, surveys of stakeholders were carried out, and three specific projects were subjected to detailed review. The assessment demonstrated the high regard in which the program research outputs and researchers are held. The IFPRI water team has been remarkably productive throughout the 16 years considered, working on issues that are of high relevance to policy and producing work that has largely been cutting edge. However, impacts generated by individual projects were not consistently or readily identifiable. To maximize the benefits of this performance and to overcome challenges associated with securing more outcomes, this report recommends that a more coordinated approach be taken to develop the research project portfolio. This would involve better targeting of projects to policy objectives through a more systematic review of research demand forces and improved integration of research work with policy development processes. The latter in particular requires the development of a sense of research project ownership within the policy circles the research is designed to influence. More effort in the development of in-country research partnerships can aid this process as local researchers can act as champions within local policy circles. Where government agencies have a research function, their integration into the partnerships is recommended. Avoidance of completing research projects in a policy vacuum is critical but requires both advanced planning of each research project as well as constant adaptation of the work plan to (often rapidly) evolving policy contexts. To achieve project impacts beyond the immediacy of the specific case study context, a more targeted and coordinated publication strategy should be developed in light of changing publication technology. Project webpages within the IFPRI website, with readily downloadable reports, are useful during the implementation of each project and more formal papers should be targeted for publication in high-impact factor technical journals with parallel papers prepared for more policy-oriented journals that have high circulations.
Many development programs that aim to alleviate poverty and improve investments in human capital consider womens empowerment a key pathway by which to achieve impact and often target women as their main beneficiaries. Despite this, womens empowerment dimensions are often not rigorously measured and are at times merely assumed. This paper starts by reflecting on the concept and measurement of womens empowerment and then reviews some of the structural interventions that aim to influence underlying gender norms in society and eradicate gender discrimination. It then proceeds to review the evidence of the impact of three types of interventionscash transfer programs, agricultural interventions, and microfinance programson womens empowerment, nutrition, or both. Qualitative evidence on conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs generally points to positive impacts on womens empowerment, although quantitative research findings are more heterogenous. CCT programs produce mixed results on long-term nutritional status, and very limited evidence exists of their impacts on micronutrient status. The little evidence available on unconditional cash transters (UCT) indicates mixed impacts on womens empowerment and positive impacts on nutrition; however, recent reviews comparing CCT and UCT programs have found little difference in terms of their effects on stunting and they have found that conditionality is less important than other factors, such as access to healthcare and child age and sex. Evidence of cash transfer program impacts depending on the gender of the transfer recipient or on the conditionality is also mixed, although CCTs with non-health conditionalities seem to have negative impacts on nutritional status. The impacts of programs based on the gender of the transfer recipient show mixed results, but almost no experimental evidence exists of testing gender-differentiated impacts of a single program. Agricultural interventionsspecifically home gardening and dairy projectsshow mixed impacts on womens empowerment measures such as time, workload, and control over income; but they demonstrate very little impact on nutrition. Implementation modalities are shown to determine differential impacts in terms of empowerment and nutrition outcomes. With regard to the impact of microfinance on womens empowerment, evidence is also mixed, although more recent reviews do not find any impact on womens empowerment. The impact of microfinance on nutritional status is mixed, with no evidence of impact on micronutrient status. Across all three types of programs (cash transfer programs, agricultural interventions, and microfinance programs), very little evidence exists on pathways of impact, and evidence is often biased toward a particular region. The paper ends with a discussion of the findings and remaining evidence gaps and an outline of recommendations for research.
