IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iffpr6/42481.html

External Impact Assessment of IFPRI's 2020 Vision For Food, Agriculture, And The Environment Initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Paarlberg, Robert L.

Abstract

The 2020 Vision initiative of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) was launched late in 1993, at a time of growing global complacency regarding international food security questions. The first phase of the 2020 Vision initiative (1993–96) featured the development of an innovative forward-looking partial equilibrium model of the international food and agriculture sector; the hosting of an extensive series of high profile conferences, workshops, and regional meetings; the publication and distribution of numerous substantive discussion papers, policy briefs, and regional synthesis papers; and the regular publication of a topical newsletter. The goal was to refocus attention on current and future challenges in areas such as food security, agricultural development, rural poverty, and environmental protection; to catalyze a new consensus on these issues within the international policy community; and to encourage policy leaders—both in the donor community and in the developing world—to commit more energy and resources to resolve food security concerns. The present report is an independent effort, commissioned by IFPRI, to measure the actual impact, to date, of this ongoing 2020 Vision initiative. The impacts examined include impacts on three different audiences: researchers and educators, international policy leaders, and developing-country policy leaders. For each of these audiences, an assessment is given as to whether the 2020 Vision initiative significantly “reached” the audience in question with its materials and messages; whether 2020 had an impact on the policy thinking of this audience; and whether 2020 actually catalyzed any new policy actions by this audience. These were difficult assessments to make, since the audiences were large, diverse, and physically dispersed, and since the thinking and behavior of these audiences has recently been influenced by so many activities in addition to 2020. The information needed to make these difficult assessments was gathered from records kept by IFPRI of 2020 conference attendees and activities, from various surveys of conference participants, from solicited personal testimony by IFPRI staff and individuals involved in 2020 activities, from materials published by other organizations working in the food security and agricultural development area, and from materials gathered from donors, international organizations, and the nongovernmental organization (NGO) community. To summarize the findings of this report, the impact of the 2020 Vision Initiative has varied audience by audience and activity by activity. These impacts are rated in descending order as either highly significant, significant, noticeable, or not noticeable. 1. Within the first community of international researchers and educators (this is IFPRI’s traditional audience), 2020 has had a HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT impact. 2020 has successfully reached this first audience with numerous 2020 materials, and many of those materials have been extended—through subsequent duplication, citation, or classroom use—to an even wider circle of potentially influential individuals. 2. Within a second community of international policy leaders, the 2020 Vision initiative has had several kinds of impact: - 2020’s success in reaching this second community has been HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT, in the sense that numerous 2020 materials were consumed by the most important members of this second audience group, and many in this group were direct participants in 2020 Vision activities. - 2020’s success in catalyzing a consensus within this second community is assessed as SIGNIFICANT. IFPRI’s IMPACT model projections and other materials have become a visible part of the policy debate for most in this second audience, and for some (especially in the donor and NGO communities) a highly visible part of their thinking. The 2020 Vision initiative was also relatively successful in bringing skeptics and nonspecialists from this second audience into a discussion of rural poverty and agricultural development issues. - 2020’s success in catalyzing new policy actions by this second community was assessed as NOTICEABLE. Here, the most important goal was to reverse the mood of complacency among international donors, and reverse the fall in financial resources committed by donors to agricultural research and to agricultural and rural development. Aggregate levels of multilateral and bilateral donor support to agriculture continued to fall during the first four years of the 2020 Vision initiative, but this fall was eventually halted in 1997–98, and in some cases it was noticeably reversed, and in some of these cases the 2020 Vision initiative played a noticeable role in this reversal. 3. A third audience, policy leaders within the developing world, was not the primary target audience of the first phase (1993–96) of the 2020 Vision initiative. Still, some impacts were noted here: - 2020’s success in reaching this third audience with materials was surprisingly SIGNIFICANT. A number of influential developing-country leaders did consume 2020 materials and did participate in 2020 Vision activities. - 2020’s success in catalyzing a new consensus within this third audience was uneven but in some cases NOTICEABLE. Regional 2020 Vision statements were developed, refined, and discussed among developing country policy leaders in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia, and other 2020 materials did at times enter the policy debate inside some developing countries, strengthening the hand of advocates for agriculture. - 2020’s success in catalyzing new policy actions among developing country governments was assessed, so far, as NOT NOTICEABLE. In some cases developing-country governments took policy actions of the kind that 2020 might favor, yet establishing a direct causal link to the 2020 Vision initiative in these cases proved difficult. Catalyzing action in the developing world was not, however, the primary goal of 2020 in its first phase. Catalyzing policy actions within developing countries is precisely where a new second phase of the 2020 Vision initiative will concentrate its energies. The distinctive feature of this Phase II of 2020 is the creation of “subregional networks” (initially, in East and West Africa) where African policy leaders and technocrats will engage in country level 2020 visioning efforts. At the first substantive meetings of these subregional networks, late in 1998, African researchers and government officials developed country-level strategy papers suitable not only for building a stronger internal policy consensus, but also for guiding donors in search of fundable projects in the food and agricultural sectors. In summary, from the vantage point of early 1999, the impacts of the 2020 Vision initiative already emerge as substantial. At times these impacts have been significant or even highly significant, and in most other instances they have at least been noticeable. These significant impacts have also been highly cost-effective, as indicated by the tiny share of IFPRI’s budget outlays (just 5 percent annually) devoted to its 2020 Vision initiative. Within the international donor community, the 2020 Vision initiative has in several instances had a noticeable positive effect on actual resource commitment decisions. Governments in the developing world were a secondary focus during much of the first phase of 2020, yet even here significant impacts were felt on policy debate. The goal of the second phase of 2020 will be to produce significant impacts on policy action inside developing-country governments as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Paarlberg, Robert L., 1999. "External Impact Assessment of IFPRI's 2020 Vision For Food, Agriculture, And The Environment Initiative," Impact Assessment Discussion Papers 42481, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iffpr6:42481
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.42481
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/42481/files/iadp10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.42481?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G. & Roseboom, Johannes, 1998. "Financing agricultural research: International investment patterns and policy perspectives," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1057-1071, June.
    2. Fan, Shenggen & Pardey, Philip G., 1992. "Agricultural Research in China: Its Institutional Development and Impact," ISNAR Archive 310666, CGIAR > International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paarlberg, Robert L., 1999. "External impact assessment of IFPRI's 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture and the Environment Initiative," Impact assessments 10, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Heng, Dora, 2015. "Incentives, Institutions and Investment in Private Agricultural Reasearch in Asia," SS-AAEA Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 2015, pages 1-25.
    3. Roberto ESPOSTI & Pierpaolo PIERANI, 2001. "Building the Knowledge Stock: Lags, Depreciation and Uncertainty in Agricultural R&D," Working Papers 145, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    4. Stanley Wood & Liangzhi You & Xiaobo Zhang, 2004. "Spatial Patterns of Crop Yields in Latin America and the Caribbean," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 41(124), pages 361-381.
    5. Lachaud, Michee Arnold & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Ludena, Carlos E., 2015. "Agricultural productivity growth in Latin America and the Caribbean and other world regions: An analysis of climatic effects, convergence and catch-up," Working Papers 40, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    6. Tokgoz, Simla, 2003. "R&D Spillovers In Agriculture: Results From A North-South Trade Model," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22258, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Parayil, Govindan, 2003. "Mapping technological trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution from modernization to globalization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 971-990, June.
    8. Raitzer, David A. & Kelley, Timothy G., 2008. "Benefit-cost meta-analysis of investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 108-123, March.
    9. Carter, Colin A. & Estrin, Andrew J., 2001. "Market Reforms Versus Structural Reforms in Rural China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 527-541, September.
    10. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), . "COMUNIICA No. 15," Comuniica Magazine, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, vol. 2001(15).
    11. Xiangfei Xin & Liu Xiaoyun, 2008. "Regional disparity of factor endowment and agricultural labor productivity in China," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 3(3), pages 380-409, September.
    12. Gabre-Madhin, Eleni Z. & Haggblade, Steven, 2003. "Successes In African Agriculture: Results Of An Expert Survey," MSSD Discussion Papers 16216, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Alexandre Almeida & Aurora A.C. Teixeira, 2008. "One size does not fit all… An economic development perspective on the asymmetric impact of Patents on R&D," FEP Working Papers 292, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    14. Alston, Julian M. & Chan-Kang, Connie & Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Wyatt, T.J., 2000. "A Meta-Analysis Of Rates Of Return To Agricultural R & D: Ex Pede Herculem?," Research Reports 16535, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Fan, Shenggan & Pardey, Philip G., 1997. "Research, productivity, and output growth in Chinese agriculture," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 115-137, June.
    16. Meng, Erika C.H. & Smale, Melinda & Rozelle, Scott & Ruifa, Hu & Huang, Jikun, 1999. "The Cost Of Wheat Diversity In China," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21580, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    18. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Rozelle, Scott & Huang, Jikun, 2000. "Transition, development and the supply of wheat in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(4), pages 1-29.
    20. Koo, Bonwoo & Pardey, Philip G. & Qian, Keming & Zhang, Yi, 2003. "The economics of generating and maintaining plant variety rights in China:," EPTD discussion papers 100, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iffpr6:42481. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.