EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent studies have shown that agricultural research can have high payoffs in Africa, but impact depends on how well technology fits with evolving needs and capacity in the agricultural sector and the rest of the economy. Structural adjustment policies (e.g., market liberalization, currency devaluation) and political change are transforming user demands for new technology and the economic environment in which technology must perform. The challenge is how to design agricultural research as a strategic input to promote broad-based economic growth, structural transformation, and food security in the increasingly market-driven, but fragile, economies of Africa. Vision, strategy, tactics. A process for designing agricultural research as a strategic input will have three distinctive characteristics: (1) a vision that recognizes the link between research and agricultural transformation. The transformation from low-income agricultural economies involves increasing specialization and productivity in farming through the acquisition of science-based inputs from the rest of the economy in exchange for farm products. But this transformation will only occur if the agricultural sector and the broader economy are effective in delivering the required inputs (including food and other consumer goods) to the farming sector,and stimulating labor markets and off-farm enterprises to employ labor not required for farming in more productive activities. This implies the need for (2) a strategy that ensures consistency and complementarity between technological change and improvements in institutions and policies necessary to foster greater integration and exchange within the economy, and for (3) tactics, the development of feasible action plans, that bring together research clients and stakeholders. The vision: structural transformation. Historically, every major country that has substantially improved real incomes has done so through a structural transformation of its economy. This transformation results in the generation of increasing proportions of employment and output of the economy by sectors other than farming. The economy becomes less agriculturally oriented in a relative sense, although farming and the food system continue to grow absolutely and generate important growth linkages to the rest of the economy. Structural transformation also means a movement of the economy away from subsistence-oriented household-level production towards an integrated economy based on greater specialization, exchange and economies of scale. Many functions that used to be conducted on the farm, such as input production and output processing, are carried out off the farm. One implication of this process is that driving down the real cost of food to consumers requires fostering technical and institutional changes in the off-farm elements of the food system, as well as at the farm level. Another implication is that in order for structural transformation to go forward, the economy must develop low-cost means of exchange. High transaction costs in the economy can choke off structural transformation by making it too costly for people to rely on the specialization and exchange necessary to take advantage of the new technologies in the food system. The role of NARS in agricultural transformation: a framework. We start with the concept of a production-distribution-consumption sequence (PDCS) with two basic units of observation: physical transformations and transactions (Figure 1, p. 9). Physical transformations are the result of combining two or more inputs to make an output. Transformations are linked by transactions. A portion of one PDCS is illustrated in Figure 1. Here, the outputs from fertilizer manufacture, the on-farm production of labor, and animal power and manure from on-farm livestock production are brought together (through transactions) in the production of maize. The maize grain and stalks produced in turn are sold, given or traded as inputs to the subsequent production of maize meal, dairy or meat products, or additional on-farm labor. With each of these separable transformations, specialization is possible. In theory, each transformation can be handled by a separate individual or group of individuals. These different groups are then linked by transactions. An economy can be defined as a system of interrelated PDCS. Facilitating structural transformation requires increasing the productivity of the food system PDCS. This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) raising the productivity of the individual transformations in the PDCS through technological change, and (2) improving the coordination among the individual physical transformations. Increasing the productivity of individual physical transformations and improving coordination are, in practice, highly interdependent. For example, in much of the food system, the physical transformations are time-dependent. Fertilizer applied at the wrong time in the growing season may lower rather than raise grain output. Thus, realizing potential productivity gains offered by the development of a new fertilizer-dependent variety requires adequate coordination between input providers and farmers. In short, technological improvements and improved coordination can be thought of as two sides of a coin needed to increase productivity and foster structural transformation. Operationalizing the vision. In going from a broad mandate to an operational plan, the research organization must first define more precisely the aims of its research program and the assumptions underpinning it. What weight will be given to different performance dimensions? For example, it has to be decided if research will focus on increasing the total value of agricultural output, regardless of where it is produced (an efficiency goal). Alternatively, greater weight may be given to increasing the productivity of crops grown by the poor (an income distribution goal). Strategic planning has to take into account the potential tradeoffs among these criteria and others such as the sustainability of natural resources. Defining the clients and stakeholders for the research organization involves determining whose preferences count in the design of the research program. A client is an intended recipient of specific agency benefits. There has been a tendency to think of farmers as the clients of agricultural research, but improving food security and food system performance requires increased productivity throughout the food system, not just at the farm level. This suggests that if the aim of agricultural research is to boost productivity in the food system, the clients of the research include groups other than farmers, such as merchants, processors, input suppliers, and consumers. Just as the research system has to decide which weights to give to different performance dimensions, it also has to work out how to weight the interests of different clients and stakeholders. The effective participation of this expanded set of research clients in the planning process is a key to making the selection of research priorities more market-responsive. Beyond this, client and stakeholder networks constitute a potentially powerful coalition that can support and monitor the implementation of research programs themselves. Just as important, they can identify and facilitate the implementation of institutional and policy innovations critical for adoption of technology. The objective of strategic planning for NARS is to improve the probability that research resources will be invested where they will have a high payoff. The planning involves making educated guesses about where research will be most productive. But estimates of the payoffs to different lines of research depend critically on what researchers assume about the political-economic conditions that will prevail in the future. For example, the question of whether the development of high-yielding, fertilizer-responsive varieties will have a high payoff depends in part on what is assumed about the future availability of fertilizer at the farm level. Researchers can make at least three different broad sets of assumptions about political-economic conditions. First, they can assume that the current situation will continue unchanged. This approach says that the research program should adapt to current conditions regarding, e.g., the availability of purchased inputs, opportunities in export markets, and the overall policy environment. Second, researchers can assume that political-economic conditions will change in the future, and that it is possible to make predictions about how those conditions will evolve.The research program will then be designed to take advantage of the predicted future conditions. This set of assumptions sees the future as dynamic, but not influenced by the research system itself. Finally, researchers can assume that the future is both dynamic and that they can influence it. This approach is proactive and assumes that the strategic planning process will identify changes in the political-economic conditions that could increase the payoffs to particular lines of research, and help mobilize support from client groups and policymakers to change those conditions. The strategic planning approach that we present is consistent with this third approach. It sees agricultural researchers influencing how the future political-economic environment facing the food system evolves. The food system matrix and subsector analysis: tools for analyzing the food system. In order to develop a workable research plan, researchers must come up with a way of describing and analyzing the food system in a manageable way. For example, one can visualize the food and fiber sector as a food systems matrix. The matrix is multi-dimensional, and can be viewed as a series of overlaid 2-dimensional matrices. Figure 2 (p. 18) shows one two-dimensional representation of the matrix, with commodities depicted as columns and various stages in the vertical transformation process depicted as rows. Technology development and transfer can make contributions to all the production and distribution functions shown in the various cells. Historically, agricultural research has focused primarily on problems that fall into individual cells & e.g., farm-level production constraints for millet. However, both farming systems research and subsector approaches address problems that span the various cells in the matrix and analyze how a coordinated approach to research on problems in different cells can increase the productivity of the technology development and transfer system. For example, research on urban consumption patterns for coarse grains may lead to major insights about the attributes that breeders need to stress in their selection programs. Hence, research and extension need to address both physical transformations (represented by individual cells in the table) and the coordination among those transformations. The food systems matrix identifies classes of important relationships in the sector viewed as a system. The matrix helps to identify questions and data relevant to evaluating the probable value of alternative programs of research and related programs, by directing attention to important relationships in the system likely to be influenced by the research. The matrix is also useful for identifying barriers to improved performance and unexploited opportunities, thus identifying potential opportunities for high-payoff research and complementary programs. Subsectors are defined as the sequence of activities contributing to the production, distribution and use of particular commodities. A subsector is depicted as a vertical slice in the food systems matrix. The emphasis in subsector analysis is on descriptive diagnosis of potential opportunities and constraints in the vertical sequences in production and distribution and their coordination. The focus is thus on the coordination between stages, e.g., from the point where a commodity is produced on farms until it loses its identity in meals or in industrial processes. An initial description of the subsector shows the channels and transformations of the commodity; data (when available) indicating volumes and values of the commodities in various forms; and costs, by source, as the commodities pass through the different stages and channels. Most importantly, the analysis focuses on the vertically integrated processes of transformation and coordination throughout the subsector and on identifying problems and opportunities to improve performance. Strategic planning as a process. Strategic program planning must be a continuing,institutionalized process of problem solving and allocation of resources, not a one-shot exercise. The uncertainty inherent in technology development for rapidly changing food systems requires a planning process that is able to adjust priorities and activities in response to new opportunities or changed conditions. Strategic Agricultural Research Program Planning (SARPP) can be thought of as a sequence of questions whose answers will help to define a vision, strategy and tactics that will lead to a greater payoff to investments in the research program. These include: What are the development goals and objectives for the agricultural sector,commodity subsector (or geographical region or resource) that a research organization or program is concerned with? What are the major constraints (with regard to technology, infrastructure, institutions and policy) to the realization of those goals and objectives, and what are the relevant boundaries for analysis of the constraint (regional, national, sub-national)? What are the opportunities for technological innovation at the farm and/or other stages in the food system? Do the technologies exist or must they be developed,and if they exist at what level (national, regional, international)? To what extent are potential technical innovations dependent on or responsive to investments, or policy or institutional innovation in the food system? Who are the relevant direct clients (technology users), indirect clients (those other than technology users who gain or lose from adoption) and stakeholders whose participation is necessary to help define and realize the potential contribution of agricultural research? How can the planning group choose among (prioritize) alternative opportunities to match activities to available human and financial resources?
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics in its series Food Security III Papers with number
11424.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
Jayne, T.S. & Mukumbu, Mulinge & Duncan, John & Staatz, John & Howard, Julie & Lundberg, Mattias & Aldridge, Kim & Nakaponda, Bethel & Ferris, Jake & Keita, Francis & Sanankoua, Abdel Kader, 1996.
"Trends In Real Food Prices In Six Sub-Saharan African Countries,"
Food Security III Papers
11381, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
[Downloadable!]
Other versions:
Jayne, T.S. & Mukumbu, Mulinge & Duncan, John & Staatz, John & Howard, Julie & Lundberg, Mattias & Aldridge, Kim & Nakaponda, Bethel & Ferris, Jake & Keita, Francis & Sanankoua, Abdel Kader, 1995.
"Trends In Real Food Prices In Six Sub-Saharan African Countries,"
Food Security III Papers
11327, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
[Downloadable!]