An overarching goal of the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) has been to influence policy outcomes in ways that lead to agricultural transformation and economic inclusion. The technical quality of this research is well recognized (CAS Secretariat 2020). Yet, high-quality, rigorous research is not sufficient to achieve policy influence in any domain. Other factors may shape policy uptake — for instance, elections may alter policy priorities, ideological biases may hinder the acceptance of research findings, and vested interest groups may lobby against data-driven or evidence-informed recommendations. A political economy perspective allows for a more holistic and realistic understanding of how policies are determined by governments and which pathways are more viable for achieving development outcomes through policy change.
Agricultural support policies cost more than US$800 billion per year in transfers to the farm sector worldwide. Support policies based on subsidies and trade barriers are highly distortive to markets and are also regressive as most support is provided to larger farmers. On balance, the incentives this support creates appear to increase greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. In addition, some subsidies undermine the production of more nutrient-dense commodities that are otherwise critical for the improvement of dietary outcomes. This paper first highlights that better outcomes could be achieved if even a small portion of agricultural subsidies were repurposed into investments in research and development (R&D) dedicated to productivity-enhancing and emission-reducing technologies. This would create multiple wins — mitigating global climate change, reducing poverty, increasing food security, and improving nutrition. Nonetheless, the political economy challenges to doing so are sizeable. Because current support policies are often politically popular and serve well-organized interests, reform is difficult without committed political leadership and multilateral collaboration. Using several case studies of both successful and failed changes of agricultural support policies in China, India, and the EU and the United States, we highlight lessons learned about the political economy constraints on and possibilities for reform.
This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC 4.0 International licence. It is free to read at Oxford Academic and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. The current structure of the global food system is increasingly recognized as unsustainable. In addition to the environmental impacts of agricultural production, unequal patterns of food access and availability are contributing to non-communicable diseases in middle- and high-income countries and inadequate caloric intake and dietary diversity among the world's poorest. To this end, there have been a growing number of academic and policy initiatives aimed at advancing food system transformation, including the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and several UN Climate conferences. Yet, the policy pathways for achieving a transformed food system are highly contested, and the enabling conditions for implementation are frequently absent. Furthermore, a broad range of polarizing factors affect decisions over the food system at domestic and international levels - from debates over values and (mis)information, to concerns over food self-sufficiency, corporate influence, and human rights. This volume explicitly analyses the political economy dynamics of food system transformation with contributors who span several disciplines, including economics, ecology, geography, nutrition, political science, and public policy. The chapters collectively address the range of interests, institutions, and power in the food system, the diversity of coalitions that form around food policy issues and the tactics they employ, the ways in which policies can be designed and sequenced to overcome opposition to reform, and processes of policy adaptation and learning. Drawing on original surveys, interviews, empirical modelling, and case studies from China, the European Union, Germany, Mexico, South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the United States, the book touches on issues as wide ranging as repurposing agricultural subsidies, agricultural trade, biotechnology innovations, red meat consumption, sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, and much more.
The evaluative study focuses primarily on PIM’s external partners; this includes partnerships where PIM is engaged by another organization as a service provider and trusted advisor. The objective is to undertake an in-depth analysis of PIM partnerships and to elicit lessons on the key factors contributing to their success in achieving outcomes. The aim is to generate: (1) an inventory of partnerships; (2) an understanding of the motivations for partnership formation, and of the partnership dynamics in promoting innovations and policy change; and (3) an assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to foster stronger future partnerships. This evaluative study serves the dual purposes of accountability to CGIAR partners and funders and of learning. The primary intended users are CGIAR researchers and partners. The findings and lessons learned will also provide input into the implementation of new initiatives under One CGIAR.
Research since the 1990s highlights the importance of tenure rights for sustainable natural resource management, and for alleviating poverty and enhancing nutrition and food security for the 3.14 billion rural inhabitants of less-developed countries who rely on forests and agriculture for their livelihoods. The specific rights or combination of rights held by an individual, household, or community affects whether they have access to land and resources, as well as how those can be used and for how long. Equally important is the degree to which landholders perceive their tenure to be secure. Landowners are more likely to engage in land and resource conservation if they perceive that the likelihood of losing their land or resource rights is low. Between 2013 and 2021, the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) supported researchers to explore the drivers of tenure insecurity and their consequences, as well as mechanisms that can enhance tenure security. Their work focused on rights held by individuals and households, as well as collectively held rights. Studies found that tenure insecurity has a variety of negative consequences for natural resource management, agricultural productivity, and poverty reduction, but the sources of tenure insecurity differ for men and women, and for individual, household, and collective lands. Statutory recognition of customary rights, multistakeholder processes (MSPs) such as for land use planning, and organized social alliances such as Indigenous peoples’ groups have emerged as important mechanisms for securing rights or enhancing access to collectively held lands. Long-term partnerships, ongoing engagement, and training for actors at multiple scales increase the likelihood of successful implementation of tenure reforms. Further research on tenure security can contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, especially by clarifying how customary tenure can provide security and how tenure affects decision-making in multistakeholder platforms.
Assessing Aid determines that the effectiveness of aid is not decided by the amount received but rather the institutional and policy environment into which it is accepted. It examines how development assistance can be more effective at reducing global poverty and gives five mainrecommendations for making aid more effective: targeting financial aid to poor countries with good policies and strong economic management; providing policy-based aid to demonstrated reformers; using simpler instruments to transfer resources to countries with sound management; focusing projects oncreating and transmitting knowledge and capacity; and rethinking the internal incentives of aid agencies.
This title describes the concept of adaptive policymaking and presents seven tools for developing such policies. Based on hundreds of interviews with people impacted by policy and research of over a dozen policy case studies, this book serves as a pragmatic guide for policymakers by elaborating on these seven tools.
What is the use of research in public debates and policy-making on immigration and integration? Why are there such large gaps between migration debates and migration realities, and how can they be reduced? Bridging the Gaps: Linking Research to Public Debates and Policy Making on Migration and Integration provides a unique set of testimonies and analyses of these questions by researchers and policy experts who have been deeply involved in attempts to link social science research to public policies. Bridging the Gaps argues that we must go beyond the prevailing focus on the research-policy nexus by considering how the media, public opinion, and other dimensions of public debates can interact with research and policy-processes. The chapters provide theoretical analyses and personal assessments of the successes and failures of past efforts to link research to public debates and policy-making on migration and integration in six different countries - Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States - as well as in European and global governance debates. Contrary to common public perceptions and political demands, Bridging the Gaps argues that all actors contributing to research, public debates, and policy-making should recognize that migration, integration, and related decision-making are highly complex issues, and that there are no quick fixes to what are often enduring policy dilemmas. When the different actors understand and appreciate each other's primary aims and constraints, such common understandings can pave the way for improved policy-making processes and better public policies that deal more effectively with the real challenges of migration and integration. This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.
The livelihood of the world's population depends mostly on natural resources: land, forest, water and the air we breath. The continual degradation and diminution of these resources due to the cultivation of land threatens the economic and social security of individuals, communities and countries as well as the intricate web of ecological, social, economic and cultural relations that bind the global community together. To be productive, our resources must be managed properly, enriched and harvested responsibly.
REDD+ must be transformational. REDD+ requires broad institutional and governance reforms, such as tenure, decentralisation, and corruption control. These reforms will enable departures from business as usual, and involve communities and forest users in making and implementing policies that a ect them. Policies must go beyond forestry. REDD+ strategies must include policies outside the forestry sector narrowly de ned, such as agriculture and energy, and better coordinate across sectors to deal with non-forest drivers of deforestation and degradation. Performance-based payments are key, yet limited. Payments based on performance directly incentivise and compensate forest owners and users. But schemes such as payments for environmental services (PES) depend on conditions, such as secure tenure, solid carbon data and transparent governance, that are often lacking and take time to change. This constraint reinforces the need for broad institutional and policy reforms. We must learn from the past. Many approaches to REDD+ now being considered are similar to previous e orts to conserve and better manage forests, often with limited success. Taking on board lessons learned from past experience will improve the prospects of REDD+ e ectiveness. National circumstances and uncertainty must be factored in. Di erent country contexts will create a variety of REDD+ models with di erent institutional and policy mixes. Uncertainties about the shape of the future global REDD+ system, national readiness and political consensus require exibility and a phased approach to REDD+ implementation.
