IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/othbrf/172758.html

Methodology [of the PEDAL project]

Author

Listed:
  • Resnick, Danielle

Abstract

Large-scale food fortification (LSFF) is considered one of the most cost-effective ways of addressing micronutrient deficiencies. The intervention involves adding essential minerals and vitamins to widely consumed foods and requires minimal changes to consumption patterns while relying on existing food delivery systems. However, there is a lot of variability across countries in the adoption of mandatory and voluntary LSFF standards, that is, the government legislation requiring that specific staple foods or condiments be fortified. In fact, there are more than 80 countries where micronutrient deficiencies are widespread but a mandatory fortification standard has not been adopted. Even in countries where standards have been adopted, implementation could not be financially sustained over the years or laboratory tests revealed that designated food vehicles lacked the stipulated micronutrients. The Political Economy Diagnostic for Assessing Large-Scale Food Fortification (PEDAL) is designed to identify the ways in which political and institutional factors may contribute to differences in the uptake and implementation of LSFF standards. While political economy is acknowledged to be an important factor underlying the success or failure of LSFF, few studies on LSFF explicitly incorporate it into their analyses. By reducing LSFF to a purely technical intervention, bottlenecks to policy traction can worsen and derail uptake. In contrast, PEDAL offers a systematic diagnostic of the political economy environment for LSFF to identify these bottlenecks ex ante and to calibrate policy interventions accordingly. In doing so, PEDAL aims to help countries advance toward achieving healthier diets and reducing micronutrient deficiencies. PEDAL focuses on two core elements of the enabling environment: political will and implementation capacity (see Figure 1). Political will consists of the range of interests that motivate different stakeholders, the ideational goals that underlie their policy preferences, and their degree of leverage to exert their preferences. Implementation capacity consists of both the institutional architecture established to make continuous decisions related to LSFF policy and the technical capacity to ensure regulations are adhered to at the processing and retail levels. Across both dimensions, the diagnostic examines three sets of actors: the public sector (including government ministries, agencies, executives, legislators, and bureaucrats), the private sector (such as food producers, processors, and retailers) and civil society (including consumers, research institutes, universities, journalists, and nongovernmental organizations). The remainder of this brief examines these components in more detail and highlights how they can be assessed by researchers and practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • Resnick, Danielle, 2025. "Methodology [of the PEDAL project]," Other briefs 1, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:othbrf:172758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/172758
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Resnick, Danielle & Haggblade, Steven & Babu, Suresh & Hendriks, Sheryl L. & Mather, David, 2018. "The Kaleidoscope Model of policy change: Applications to food security policy in Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 101-120.
    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. Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Lerato Phali, 2023. "On the impact of provincial development policies in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 1137-1152, November.
    2. Mockshell, Jonathan & Birner, Regina, 2020. "Who has the better story? On the narrative foundations of agricultural development dichotomies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    3. Veronique Theriault & Lilian Kirimi & Ayala Wineman & Ephiphania Kinyumu & David Tschirley, 2024. "Assessment of the policy enabling environment for large-scale food fortification: A novel framework with an application to Kenya," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Resnick, Danielle & Mather, David & Mason, Nicole & Ndyetabula, Daniel, "undated". "What Drives Agricultural Input Subsidy Reform in Africa? Applying the Kaleidoscope Model of Food Security Policy Change," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Briefs 260419, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    5. Steven Haggblade & Amadou Diarra & Abdramane Traoré, 2022. "Regulating agricultural intensification: Lessons from West Africa’s rapidly growing pesticide markets," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(1), January.
    6. Boru Douthwaite & Nancy Johnson & Amanda Wyatt, 2023. "Using Outcome Trajectory Evaluation to Assess HarvestPlus’ Contribution to the Development of National Biofortification Breeding Programs," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 426-451, April.
    7. Hendriks, Sheryl L. & Babu, Suresh C. & Haggblade, Steven, "undated". "What drives nutrition policy reform in Africa? Applying the Kaleidoscope Model of Food Security Policy Change," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Briefs 260422, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    8. Serge Savary & Sonia Akter & Conny Almekinders & Jody Harris & Lise Korsten & Reimund Rötter & Stephen Waddington & Derrill Watson, 2020. "Mapping disruption and resilience mechanisms in food systems," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(4), pages 695-717, August.
    9. Danielle Resnick & Kola Matthew Anigo & Olufolakemi Anjorin & Shilpa Deshpande, 2024. "Voice, access, and ownership: enabling environments for nutrition advocacy in India and Nigeria," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 16(3), pages 637-658, June.
    10. Aragie, Emerta & Diao, Xinshen & Spielman, David J. & Thurlow, James, 2024. "The economywide recovery measures in Rwanda during the COVID-19 pandemic: How useful a lesson?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1103-1124.
    11. Ratner, B. D. & Dubois, Mark J. & Morrison, T. H. & Tezzo, X. & Song, A. M. & Mbaru, E. & Chimatiro, S. K. & Cohen, P. J., 2022. "A framework to guide research engagement in the policy process, with application to small-scale fisheries," Papers published in Journals (Open Access), International Water Management Institute, pages 1-27(4):45..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fpr:othbrf:172758. 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: the person in charge (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.