This paper evaluates the influence and impact that IFPRI research and related activities had on the initiation, evolution, and impact of the food for education (FFE) program in Bangladesh. It reviews the outputs from the IFPRI program and summarizes the perceptions of various stakeholders about the value and influence of these on the FFE program. A novel experimental evaluation methodology is used on household sample survey data to analyze the effects of FFE on schooling outcomes. Earnings functions are then estimated using national household income and expenditure survey data to assess the effect of schooling on earnings. Combining the two, the effects of the increased participation and duration of schooling (due to the FFE program) on lifetime earnings of children are derived. Using these incremental earnings figures, the internal rates of return for both national and private investments in the FFE program are estimated. From these, a conservative assessment of the economic value of IFPRI's contribution to the generation of the national benefits is made... We conclude that a very conservative assessment of the economic value of IFPRI's contribution to the generation of the national benefits estimated above is that the FFE program began one year earlier than it might have without the IFPRI input. Based upon the total cost of the IFPRI-FFE research program of US$151,000, the internal rate of return on this research investment ranges from 64-96 percent. of all the other benefits are added to this, clearly the IFPRI contribution has been an outstanding economic investment. These benefits might have been even greater had IFPRI had an explicit communications strategy with more timely and available publications, along with appropriate advocacy based upon a more thorough knowledge of the dynamic political economy of government decision making in Bangladesh." -- from Authors' Abstract
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.
"The objective of this study is to attempt to characterize the influence and impact of IFPRI in relation to the Mexican PROGRESA/Oportunidades anti-poverty and human resource program with its conditional cash transfers (CCT)—conditional on specific investments in education, health, and nutrition. The paper first describes PROGRESA/Oportunidades and estimates of the impact and benefits-to-costs of this program; then discusses the challenges in assessing the influence and impact of IPRRI on and through PROGRESA/Oportunidades; and then presents the information sources used in this study to attempt to identify the influence and impact of IFPRI on PROGRESA/Oportunidades including interviews with 39 key informants as well as various published and unpublished studies and memos, publications in the popular media and on the internet and press releases and other documents. With this foundation it next explores the apparent influence and impact of IFPRI on PROGRESA/Oportunidades by considering four questions: Was the PROGRESA program design influenced by prior IFPRI research? Why was IFPRI chosen to undertake the initial impact evaluation of PROGRESA? How did the IFPRI evaluation of PROGRESA contribute to the program? Were there spillovers of the IFPRI evaluation of PROGRESA?
The food problems now facing the world—scarcity and starvation, contamination and illness, overabundance and obesity—are both diverse and complex. What are their causes? How severe are they? Why do they persist? What are the solutions? In three volumes that serve as valuable teaching tools and have been designed to complement the textbook Food Policy for Developing Countries by Per Pinstrup-Andersen and Derrill D. Watson II, they call upon the wisdom of disciplines including economics, nutrition, sociology, anthropology, environmental science, medicine, and geography to create a holistic picture of the state of the world's food systems today. Volume I of the Case Studies addresses policies related to health, nutrition, food consumption, and poverty.
Strengthening national capacities for undertaking, communicating, and using evidence-based food policy analysis has long been one of the International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI’s) major objectives. To that end, IFPRI has engaged in different kinds of capacity strengthening that include formal training, (policy) networks, country strategic policy support, research collaboration with individuals and organizations, institutional development, support to university degree programs, visiting fellows, and training of postdoctoral fellows.
The IFPRI 2020 Conference on Leveraging Agriculture for Improving Nutrition and Health was held in New Delhi, India, February 1012, 2011, and attracted more than 900 attendees. Conference activities included 12 plenary sessions, 15 parallel sessions, 14 side events, an ongoing knowledge fair with more than 25 exhibit booths and tables, six informal discussion groups, and roughly 30 rapid fire presentations during coffee breaks. Assessing the impact of this Conference is a task complicated by multiple issues such as assessment coverage and impact attribution. The assessment methods used here include surveys of conferees, Internet searches, website and literature searches, and extensive personal interviews. Distinctions are drawn between short-term and medium-term impacts, and also among impacts on individuals, on institutions, and on professional discourse. Impacts on individual conferees were measured through pre- and post-Conference surveys and telephone interviews. The impacts on the substantive views of those who attended the Conference were found to be small. Most conferees (75 percent) came to Delhi already convinced that a cross-sector approach to agriculture, nutrition, and health (ANH) was appropriate. At the individual level, the Conference impacted motivation and empowerment more than beliefs. The Conference gave those who attended new information, new networking opportunities, and various positioning advantages that made them more effective within their own institutions back home. Such advantages were primarily important in the short term. Regarding impacts on institutions, the 2020 Conference produced important but mixed results. Direct impacts on national governments were small, in part because ministerial structures and bureaucratic routines in governments are traditionally segregated by sector, and resistant to anything more than incremental change. Direct impacts from the 2020 Conference on private companies and NGOs were also modest, but for a different reason: these institutions are inherently comfortable working across sectors, so most of the private companies and NGOs participating in the Conference felt little need to change. The strongest institutional impacts from the Conference came within a category of organizations that wanted to integrate nutrition with agriculture, but were unsure of how, or how quickly, to move forward. These institutions included the CGIAR itself as it moved to create the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (CRP4); the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as it responded to an internal evaluation of its own work in nutrition; and a number of donor institutions including most prominently the UKs Department for International Development (DFID), which used the materials and policy energy generated by the 2020 Conference to help guide and push a major expansion of bilateral funding into the ANH arena. These DFID responses alone were a large enough payoff to mark the Conference a success. A third significant impact from the Conference was on professional discourse. The 2020 Conference helped change the conversation about agriculture and food security by boosting the frequency of reference to cross-sector impacts on both nutrition and health. Impact measurement becomes difficult here, because the Conference was not the only initiative highlighting cross-sector linkages underway. Nonetheless, the average number of Google Internet hits per search for the phrase linking agriculture, nutrition, and health increased from 9,288 in the pre-Conference period to 13,508 in the immediate post-Conference period of MarchMay 2011. Searches of organization websites revealed that 18 of 21 of the sites had more links to agriculture, nutrition, and health issues immediately following the Conference compared to just before, and 20 of 21 had an even higher number of such links one year later in July 2012. The most obvious limitation on impact has been at the level of national government policy (excluding donor policies). Partly this reflects attendance. Only 19 percent of those who attended the 2020 Conference were government officials, compared to 41 percent who came from research institutes or universities. Yet, even where Conference impacts on governments might have seemed probable, they have proved (so far) to be mostly tentative or modest. The government of Malawi co-hosted its own version of the 2020 Conference in Lilongwe in September 2011. While this was an important step, the Conference was donor-suggested and donor-funded, and senior officials from the Ministry of Health were unable to attend.In Uganda, the 2020 Conference helped sustain an effort to mainstream nutrition within the Ministry of Agriculture. However, this effort was underway before the Conference, and parallel efforts from USAID, WFP, and FAO did as much to sustain it.In China, the leadership of the State Food and Nutrition Consultation Committee was briefed on 2020 Conference materials, which may have helped to establish a new (but already approved) food safety and nutrition development institute at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS). Since Chinese leaders had been unable to attend the Conference itself, impacts in the country also depended heavily on a separate outreach effort by IFPRI leadership.In India, national officials and researchersand IFPRImade concerted efforts to use the Conference to shape language in the new 12th Five-Year Plan (201216). While some engaged in this effort claimed progress in that direction, nothing definitive has emerged and in India it appears that little has changed in the traditional separation between the agriculture ministry and the nutrition and health sectors. The Conferences largest impacts within India were felt at the individual level, at the level of discourse, or within some state administrations, not within national governmental institutions. What can one reasonably expect when looking for impacts from a single international Conference? In the case of the 2020 Conference in Delhi, where the goal was to change the way individuals and institutions were thinking about ANH issues and considering them in professional discourse, measurable progress was made toward each of these goals in both the short term and the medium term. IFPRI took a risk by designing the Delhi Conference to challenge traditional paradigms. This assessment shows that, in both the short term and medium term, the risk has been rewarded.
"This report assesses the impact of IFPRI's work on the agriculture negotiations in the WTO's Doha Round. It is set against the context of IFPRI's mission which emphasizes food security and the interests of poor people in low-income countries and underlines the importance of active engagement in policy communications to link research work to policy action. The report also traces briefly the evolution of IFPRI's work on international agricultural trade more generally, noting its broad disposition to market-oriented policy prescriptions while illuminating the very different impacts of agricultural trade liberalization on individual developing countries through detailed research at the national and household level." -- from Author's Abstract
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.
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.
This paper aims to document IFPRI’s communications activities during the recent food crisis which peaked in mid-2008. IFPRI’s communications activities during the food crisis were somewhat unusual for the Institute. The communications campaign included IFPRI’s usual avenues, and built on IFPRI’s existing place in the global food policy system, but was unusual in its concerted coordination across all divisions of the Institute, the relatively low number of publications and unusually high engagement with the media, as well as a high number of face-to-face presentations and meetings. All in all the campaign, which arose in response to the policy window that opened up in early and mid-2008, was considered particularly effective, and IFPRI earned the position as one of the “thought leaders” during the crisis.
