Impact assessment of international agricultural research centres

Agricultural Administration 22 (1986) 175-196

Impact Assessment of International Research Centres

Agricultural

H. E. Jahnke Institute of Farm Management, Technical University of Berlin, Im Do1 29, 1000 Berlin 33, Federal Republic of Germany and GFA-Company for Agricultural Projects Overseas, Duvenstedter Damm 19, 2000 Hamburg 65, Federal Republic of Germany

D. Kirschke Department

of Agricultural Economics, University 2300 Kiel 1, Federal Republic

of Kiel, Olshausenstrasse of Germany

40-60,

J. Lagemann GFA-Company

for Agricultural Projects Overseas, Duvenstedter 2000 Hamburg 65, Federal Republic of Germany (Received:

Damm

19,

30 July, 1985)

SUMMARY

Impact assessment of research activities is a complex task and this is true, in particular, with respect to potential effects of the International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs). These centres have been created to enhance the living standards of the poor in developing countries by focusing upon agricultural research. Thispaperpoints to the broad range of possible IARC impact areas and to the problems to identify, measure and evaluate them. Thus, a concise framework for IARC impact assessment is given. 175 Agricultural Administration 0309-596X/86/$03.50 Ltd, England, 1986. Printed in Great Britain

0 Elsevier Applied

Science Publishers

176

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke,

J. Lagemann

INTRODUCTION The International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs) have been created to enhance the living standards of the poor in developing countries by focusing upon agricultural research and, thus, increasing food production. 6*31q41The work of the Centres is widely acknowledged and the Green Revolution successstory of the 1960sis closely related to CIMMYT and IRRI, which probably are the best known IARCs. Since then, however, a new Green Revolution is missing and questions have been raised concerning the actual impact of these institutions. Actually, a world-wide impact study has beeninitiated by the donor community of the International Agricultural Research System. This paper is not intended to present results. It rather attempts to give an overview on the complexities and multiple aspectsof IARC impact assessment.The purpose is to discuss the link between IARC activities and the living standards in developing countries in detail and, thus, to present a concise framework for IARC impact assessment. Agricultural researchcan be seenas a specific form of investment.23,40 Considering the IARCs, investors would wish to know whether this particular kind of investment in agricultural researchis worth the outlay. They will be interested to evaluate a centre’s contribution to the desired goals’ realization. Moreover, they will wish to learn whether efficient use has beenmade of resources.Considering alternative ways to enhancethe development process, finally, investors will have to judge whether the creation of a specific centre has been a cost-effective way to achieve the desired goals. The ultimate purpose of impact assessmentstudies is to deliver the necesssary information for this evaluation.31,37 Hence, this study indicates what kind of impacts should be identified, why impact assessmentstudies should incorporate them, and deals with the problem of how certain impacts could be measured. The reader is warned that quantitative frameworks for IARC impact assessmentdo not exist in a ready and applicable way to cover the vast range of IARC activities. But efforts have led to interesting approachesto specific aspectswhich will be pointed out. It is not appropriate to assume, however, that existing methods could be used in a straightforward way to achievea global and quantitative impact assessment of IARC activities. Hence, impact assessment studies have to be also heavily based on qualitative considerations.

IARC

impact assessment

111

BASIC PROBLEMS FOR IARC IMPACT ASSESSMENT Impact

criteria

choice

Any policy evaluation has to commence by choosing appropriate criteria. Such criteria must be related to the goals pursued and indicate the link between these goals and activities considered.13,21Considering the impact of IARCs we suggestthat criteria should be identified according to how IARC activities may influence the development processand, hence, desired goals’ realization. This way may be characterizedby the following steps: -the generation and dissemination of knowledge; -production effects at the farm level; -aggregate market effects; and distributional and other socio-economic effects. The ultimate goal of research investment has been described as the attainment of desired socio-economic payoffs. To achieve this several steps have to be considered. Basically, research results have to be generatedand disseminated; they have to be adopted at the farm level; they then affect aggregate input and output; such aggregateslead to market effects; and, finally, to distributional and other socio-economic effects.At each step IARC activities may be identified which are relevant as an IARC impact. f Uncertainty

and time-lags

Research is a venture into the unknown and it is impossible to predict either an outcome with certainty, or the time at which this will occur. Impact studies, therefore, should not try to claim certainty but give information about the particular kind of uncertainty in the research processconsidered.They should indicate expectedresults, probability of success,4oand the expected time required to attain a desired result; but they should also state the sourcesof uncertainty and help to estimate the ‘probability distribution of success’.Furthermore, due to the nature of research, the particular importance of ex ante impact assessmentsis emphasized.12 Historical impact assessmentis necessary,of course, to monitor IARCs. But impact assessmentstudies should guide investors to direct future investment into research. This cannot be done simply by pointing to historical impacts which do not necessarily ensure comparable future success.Ex ante impact information, therefore, is an

178

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke,

J. Lagemann

important feature of impact studies in general and especially for those IARCs that have only recently been established. Causality

and the isolation

of research effects

Impact assessmentrequires a causal linkage to be identified between IARC activities and an impact indicator. This may be straightforward in the caseof applied research,but will be a difficult task when considering basic research.The IARCs have beencreated to produce and disseminate ‘appropriate’ researchfor developing countries.41In many casesit would be sufficient to talk about intermediate researchon a scalebetweenbasic and applied research. Hence, difficulties in identifying causal linkages between IARC activities and relevant indicators will often arise. In this context, the IARCs should not only ‘play the easy game’ and stressthe obvious results of applied research. Emphasis should also be given to demonstrating how IARC activities influence different researchareasand, thus, pave the way for a better social goal realization in developing countries through intermediate research.Such indirect impacts of IARC activities can representessential topics for study. The actual performance of the development processis the result of a multiplicity of factors. 1o,46IARC activities may enhance social goal realization, but such a positive impact may be concealedby unfavourable external factors. A positive impact of researchresults may be hampered, for example, by institutional arrangements, policies8 credit shortages, tenure arrangements and other factors. I5 It is important, therefore, to sort out the partial impact of IARC activities on social goal realization. In general,this task cannot be fulfilled by simply looking at time seriesdata. Such data reflect the combined development of all factors affecting the variable considered.The idea, instead, is to construct a hypothetical time seriesthat should reflect the development without IARC activities. This is no easytask to accomplish, but it is the only conceptual way to identify the impacts. GENERATION Efficiency

AND DISSEMINATION

OF KNOWLEDGE

of research organization

A basic feature of the IARCs is to produce and diffuse knowledge. Obviously, research results should be produced at the lowest possible

IARC

impact assessment

179

cost. Emphasizing efficiency, however, does not imply a plea for reduced IARC activities; it simply means that the ratio betweenresearchresults and inputs should be maximized.2 Efficiency measurementin researchis a difficult topic. Quantitative efficiency indicators hardly exist, but the efficiency of a researchorganization can be approximated in some ways. Researchis a creative processand some think that this processshould not bother with organizational and planning problems. We admit that this view is important in carrying out actual research projects, but emphasize the importance of an adequate organization of IARC research.7The IARCs havebeencreatedwith a clear-cut mandate. Hence, they should prove that their organizational structure correspondsto their mandate. Essentially, this is a matter of planning.2 Specific problem identification and programme design should prove to be goal-oriented. Specific projects have to fit into the organizational network hierarchy, and the importance of links between projects has to be emphasized. The planning of researchprojects is an essentialpart of IARC activities. Certain features characterize effective project planning. First, project design will make use of the creative potential of scientists working in a particular area of the IARC or elsewhere.The expectedoutcome, then, should prove to fit intc a centre’s goal structure. Implementation, finally, should be basedon financial constraints, scheduling, and monitoring. It is obvious that a very restrictive handling of control mechanisms will hamper creativity and, thus, decreaseresearch output. But, used in a moderate way, control mechanismswill help to clarify the proceeding and the relevanceof projects. As a particular form of control mechanism we wish to stress the importance of in-house and peer reviews.l An obvious aspect of research efficiency is the problem of the appropriate funding and staffing of projects. Considering the allocation of resources in general, it should be demonstrated that capacities are sufficient and that economies of scale are used. Staffing is a most important aspect for the IARCs as for any research centre; this will require an appropriate recruiting procedure, incentives, and rewards.lg The IARCs are part of a global agricultural research network complementing private and national agricultural research22,2gwith special respect to the needs of developing countries.38 They have to develop their particular standing in this network and demonstrate their concentration on research areas according to their comparative advantage.The IARCS, of course, often make useof available knowledge produced by private, national or other International ResearchCentres.

180

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke,

J. Lagemann

This can be done by implementing joint projects, using facilities and researchresults of other researchcentres, or by personal contacts among scientists. The IARCs should demonstrate how such links are used to enhance their own research output. Farming SystemsResearch(FSR) as an approachto generatinginnovations Technological changeshave usually severaldirect and indirect effectson farms which are regarded as systems where several activities interact closely and sometimes compete for limited resources.These interactions are particularly pronounced under smallholder conditions where crop and animal production activities are combined.34,35The relationships within farming systems,as well as the relations with the environment, are in most casesexpressedin economic terms, becausefarms are regardedas economic units. It is evident, therefore, that an understanding of how a system works and what factors influence production should guide actual researchefforts.36,43 The development and diffusion of innovations is related to specific environments. It is useful, therefore, to group farms into classeswhich are similar in their structure and which can be expectedto produce on similar production functions. A classification according to ecological zones,farm resources and structure can be used to describe the characteristics and functions of farming systems,to identify constraints, and to setpriorities for agricultural researchapplicable to specific target areas.This step may then be followed by on-site and off-site trials to gain information about the performance of new techniques over time at various locations. FSR was developedwith the hypothesis that right from the beginning of a research programme a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to researchon the various biological and social aspectsis necessaryto solve the complex problems encountered under smallholder conditions in tropical regions.25 Interdisciplinary research teams work on resource development and managem’ent,on crop and livestock production and their interaction, as well as on resource conservation techniques.42The IARCs should demonstrate therefore whether -the identified constraints in principal farming systems were important factors limiting the development processof farms, and -whether the developed and tested innovations were suitable answers to overcome constraints and to achieve part of farmer’s goals.

IARC impact assessment

181

The answers could indicate whether the research approach which has been developed is suitable to predict the relative potential of various prospective technologies and hence of researchpriorities. Research output measurement

IARC impact assessmentshould try to present a precise view of the knowledge produced. Knowledge as such may be incorporated in new methodologies and procedures as well as in innovations. Methodologies and procedures represent knowledge that will indirectly favour the outcome of a production process.Systemsresearchis a typical example in this respect.Impact studiesshould carefully explain the way in which such researchmay ultimately influence the production process. Innovations‘ like new seed varieties, on the other hand, may directly influence the production process.Their potential impact is more obvious. In any case, it should be emphasized how such directly or indirectly effective knowledge may ultimately enhance social goal realization. In addition to this procedure, some widely acknowledgedproxies could be used to describethe researchoutput. Publications and seminar papers or speechescan be indicators, as well as citation indices and reviews. Apart from listing this kind of information, however, the quality aspect should be stressed.In this respect,in-house refereesystemsor adherence to journal review systems are important. In general the presentation of quality indicators, and indicators describing a competitive research environment, should be emphasized.Researchoutput presentation often tendsto be biased. The well-known dangeris to omit failures and to stress short-term and impressive results. This violates an important principle of research. Negative results are worth knowing as they may guide future research intentions, and emphasis on short-term research projects is inadequate to guide long-term efforts. Knowledge

dissemination

Sincethe creation of the IARCs, the dissemination of knowledge has been one of their conspicuous tasks.6 The idea has obviously beento enhance technology adoption in developing countries, and also to increase‘know how’ as a production factor. The impact of an IARC’s dissemination activities could be analysed in several ways. A first aspect concerns a centre’s generalposition in a communication network.38 It is important

182

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke, J. Lagemann

to know what kind of communication channels exist betweenIARCs and National Research Systems, politicians, and people at farm and processing level. Furthermore, information about the kind of communication should be given. Is it a one-way street from the IARCs, or a feedback processhelping centres to adapt their perspectivesto changing needs? Is it restricted to formal communication, or do informal and personal links exist? Another topic to be contained in IARC impact studiesis a description of a centre’s outreach activities. This concerns the dissemination of information, materials, and research results, the documentation of research results, the organization of seminars and workshops, and, possibly, the stationing of staff in related researchorganizations. Apart from listing such activities, their possible relationship to the goals being pursued should be explained, and it should be mentioned by whom and to what extent these activities are used. Training is a particular means of enhancing human capital. The scope for training activities and their particular objectives should be explained and justified according to a centre’smandate. It is also of interest to learn about links between research and training programmes, since training activities could be used directly to disseminate a centre’s ‘intermediatelevel’ researchresults. Trained persons,then, could serveasdissemination workers. PRODUCTION Adoption

EFFECTS AT THE FARM LEVEL

df new technology

Adoption of innovations is normally the decision of the individual farmers. It dependson the objectives of farmers aswell as on the physicobiological and socio-economic environment under which they operate.l 1.36 Production risks differ widely, as well as farmers’ attitudes towards increasing incomes versus reducing leisure. It is therefore not astonishing that the same innovations have different adoption rates in different regions and by various groups of farmers. This is an important fact in the assessmentof new technology. The adoption dependsnot only on the innovation itself, but also considerably on the environments in which farmers are working. Besides, the existence or non-existence of support servicesand government policies play an important role. Price regulations, taxes and subsidies, input and output quotas can affect the

IA RC impact assessment

183

adoption of innovations to the extent of drastically limiting the impact of new technology. But this does not necessarilymean that the development of a specific technology was a failure. The impact should therefore be assessedfor farming systemsunder similar physico-biological and socioeconomic framework conditions, which have to be clearly specified. The adoption of new technology and its meaning has to be clarified. From experiencewe know that farmers commonly do not adopt the whole package of new technology but only components of it. Important questions to answer are therefore: What has beenadopted, why or why not and what is the intensity of adoption? During this explanation processagricultural economistsusually identify various constraints based on ‘hard facts’. Under African smallholder conditions very often the labour constraint is regardedas one of the major obstaclesconcerning the adoption of new technology. However, experience from African smallholders shows that labour supply can be relatively elastic due to changesin motivations and incentivesfrom innovations. This implies that during the processof assessingthe adoption of new technology one has not only to concentrate on the collection of ‘hard facts’, like ‘labour productivity’, but also on qualitative information to understand whether a ‘new technology’ fits into an existing farming system,25how it is related to other elements in the system, and where innovations have changed behavioural functions (and therefore lifted the ‘constraint level’) and forced a speedup of institutional changes. Economic

aspects of new technology

Technical innovations are principally of two different kinds: they either replace existing farming systems,or they more or lessfit into them. Both approacheshave been used with success.Irrigated rice systemsor cattle ranchesare exampleswhere something entirely new has been introduced and replaced the existing production systems. The introduction of new varieties which are adapted to intercropping is an example for the improvement approach. There is some evidence that research which improves existing systems is more location specific and therefore more expensive. However, costs for support infrastructure and services tend to be lower compared with innovations that completely replace existing production systems. Both lines of research can be relevant, depending on the rates of adoption and the additional returns to the farmer.

184

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke,

J. Lagemann

The employment effect of technical innovations is particularly pronounced under African smallholder conditions. Better husbandry practices, harvesting and processingactivities require large quantities of additional labour and farmers tend to employ hired labour even when their own labour capacity is not completely utilized.; The additional income is therefore distributed over a large number of people. Examples are the introduction of new maize varieties in Kenya and the introduction of irrigated rice in West Africa where seasonallabour surplus could be better utilized. Technical changeswhich combine crop and livestock production tackle the problem of soil fertility which becomes aggravated with increasing population densities. The complementary relationship betweenlivestock and crop production is widely appreciated.2o Livestock can provide sufficient manure to maintain soil fertility, especially when alternative feeding regimes are introduced. Successfulexamples can be found in the highlands of Kenya aswell asin the lowlands of Nigeria wherepopulation densities are already high, and which, therefore, might also demonstrate avenuesfor development for other regions in Africa. FSR for the evaluation of new technology The assessmentof researchimpact at the farm levelcan be conductedwith the same instruments as on-farm and project analysis.25 Data availability, however, will not allow the separation or the isolation of the direct researcheffect. The ‘improved technology’ has to be treated as a package-for example, an improved variety with mineral fertilizer, additional labour input and a drainage system. FSR can play an important role in assessingand separating the impact of such innovation packages.‘7,18 Model farms have to be created representingprincipal farming systems in a region, and the ‘without improved technology model’ has to be established with data from existing farm surveys or extension projects. The static analysis of farms before new technologies entered is relatively easy.We know, however,from experiencethat traditional farming systems change over time. 24 Also without technical innovations from outside, farmers adapt their pracbces to changing conditions and ‘invent’ new production techniques (see examples of agricultural systems under increasing population pressure, as in Eastern Nigeria, Western Cameroon, Rwanda and Burundi, Island of Ukara in Tanzania). We

IARC impact

185

assessment

conclude from this that the ‘without’ situation can be dynamic, in a positive or negative direction, and difficult to quantify. The ‘with improved technology’ model represents farms which have adopted the examined new technology. Assessments have to be undertaken for several years in order to estimate the effect during the early adoption period up to the full development of the innovation and to account for environmental variations over the years.A comparison of the net farm benefit situation of the ‘with’ and‘without’ model, then, provides us with information on incremental farm benefitswhich are derived from the application of new technologies. AGGREGATE

MARKET

EFFECTS

The adoption of IARC-induced technologies can be expected to lead to changesin the aggregateinputs used and the aggregateoutputs produced. This may have a direct influence on welfare and distribution, which may be further complicated by the market and price changesit induces. This complex is interwoven and cannot always be neatly separated. For heuristic reasons,however, it is useful to distinguish betweenthe physical input and output effects and the price, market and welfare effects,and to give separate treatment to distributional and other socio-economic effects. Much of the following discussion refers to the impact assessment of technical change in general.30,3g,44,45 This is obvious as International Agricultural Researchis part of a global researchnetwork and, due to the concept of the system, any impact will be a result of the collaboration between the IARCs and National Agricultural Research in developing countries. We will, nevertheless,point to the specific role of IARCs in this collaboration wherever possible and appropriate. Output

effects

The basic goal of IARC activities is to increase food production in developing countries. Hence, impact studies should attempt to analyse carefully what kind of output effects their activities have had and may have in the future. This may be straightforward in the case of crop products, but is often more difficult for livestock products. Livestock production comprises a multiple of products that all contribute to better living conditions in developing countries (meat, milk, eggs,hides, skins,

186

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke,

J. Lagemann

work, manure, etc.).18,20Hence, such diverse output effectsshould all be mentioned, although single effectsmay not be in any way spectacular.It will be useful, too, not to present single aggregatedfigures, but to give information for various disaggregatedlevels. One aspect is the regional distribution of output effects. It is important to know where production increasesactually occur. They may be restricted to a specific region or ecological zone, or enhanceproduction on a national or evenglobal scale. Further, new technologies will sometimes result in increased production instabi1ities.37The development of some high-yielding varieties can serve as an example. As a consequencehigh potential production increasesmay not be realized due to farmers’ risk aversion, a finding that might come out of the farm level analyses,It may, however, also be that the fluctuation of aggregateoutput is more pronounced. A final aspect considers the distinction betweenproduction and market supply. In semisubsistenceproduction systemsonly part of any production increaseswill actually be marketed. l4 Only an increasein marketable surplus, however, will result in additional market effects. As mentioned above, a particular problem for impact assessment studies is to isolate thesepossible effects of IARC activities. Considering output effects,actual production is greatly influenced by weather changes or policy-induced price changes.l5 Such factors may conceal the true impactlof!IARClactivities./ With respect to livestock, commonly owned pastures are a topic of partihlar concern because,property rights not being well-defined, farmers will not invest sufficiently in pasture improvements. As a result, the potential yield increasesof new breedsmay not be achieveddue to such external effects.It is essential,then, to clearly separateactual developments and the impacts of IARC activities. In some casesthis may bedone using multivariate estimation proceduresbasedon actual data, but experiencewith this method is not very encouraging. If sufficient data are lacking, on the other hand, normative methods (suchas programming models) will have to be used. When using programming models, care should be given to the aggregationproblem. Suchmodels are normally established to analyse the behaviour of a representativefarm; on the aggregatelevel, results can be confounded by market effects. Production increases may be considered more or less important according to the product involved. It is obvious that technological changesare more important the larger is an affectedproduct’s production share. There are several indicators which may characterize a product’s importance. 21 Commodity-oriented indicators describe a product’s

IARC

impact assessment

187

potential for the realization of social goals. Such indicators may be a commodity’s share in production and consumption values, trade, or nutrition. Resource-oriented indicators, on the other hand, may demonstrate a product’s importance in using production factors. These indicators relate, for example, to agro-ecological zones,gland use and irrigation, and factor intensities.” Overall, impact studies should use indicators to demonstrate the setting and importance of technologyinduced output changes. Input effects

As technological changesmay shift supply curves, so they may also shift demand curvesfor production factors. Hence, IARC activities may affect the use of seeds,fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, and also the use of water, credit, machinery, and labour. Such impacts of the IARCs are important for the development process13and they should be assessedin impact studies. Furthermore, identification of such impacts is a necessaryprerequisite to assesswelfare and distributional effects. Some particularities concerning input effect measurement have to be considered. In general, the identification and explanation of factor demand changesdue to technological changesis much more complicated than the analysis of output changes.Technological changewill primarily increasefactor productivities. Impact studies, therefore, should consider as a first step how such factor productivities are affected. In the caseof non-neutral technological changes,the comparative advantageof factor usewill change,resulting in a different input structure. The extent of such changes in the input structure depends upon the technical relationship among inputs. It is important to know, therefore, what kind of complementarity or substitutionality exists. Technological change may also affect demand for inputs to varying degrees.Input use is a crucial element in the agricultural development process. Some resources,like fertilizer and capital, are scarce whereas other resources are abundantly available; labour is often a typical example in this respect,although labour scarcity may arise in developing countries at certain times. Technological change, then, may help to overcome input scarcities and help to make increasing use of available resources.This is the basic idea of scarcity-related agricultural research activities.4>37In order to judge actual IARC activities in this respect,the relevant information has to be provided in impact studies. It should be

188

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke,

J. Lagemann

shown, for example, to what extent new technologies are adapted to characteristics of agro-ecological zones, soil qualities, and water availability. It should also be demonstrated what additional ‘new’ inputs, like irrigation systems,are necessaryto ensuresuccessof a technological change. Finally, the effects on labour productivity and capital intensity are essential aspectsto be considered. Effects on product prices and market exchange Supply shifts due to technological change tend to decreasethe price level and, thus, to increasedemand. The price effectwill be the greater the more inelastic the demand; with a totally inelastic demand increasedsupply will result in a sharp price decrease.Production will not increasein this case resulting in overcapacitiesand a pressurefor production factors to leave the production sector. With a totally elastic demand, on the other hand, prices will remain constant and the additional supply will actually be demanded. Hence, the market effects of supply shifts crucially depend on possible price changes.‘6,27It is important, therefore, to know the price elasticities of demand and to incorporate this information in impact studies. In a dynamic context, supply shifts and, above all, demand shifts will occur over time reflecting population and income developments. If demand shifts tend to be larger than supply shifts price levels could rise over time. Technology-induced supply shifts due to IARC activities could then help to break or reducesuch an increasingprice trend. To assesssuch an impact, information about possible future demand shifts has to be given. This information will consist of population trends, changes in income and purchasing power, and income elasticities of demand. In a geographic context, a distinction between regional and nonregional demand will prove to be useful. The smaller a region, the more elastic non-regional demand will be. As a consequence,price effects of supply shifts greatly depend upon the geographical size of the region where they occur and upon trade among regions. If a small region is considered, supply shifts will hardly affect the price level. Regional consumption will roughly remain constant, and regional supply increases will be exported or result in reduced imports. The larger a region, however, the more will supply shifts result in price decreasesand in changes of supply and demand described above. Hence, the impact of IARC activities on markets cannot adequately be assessedif interregional relationships are neglected.

IARC impact assessment

Welfare

189

effects

Technological changesmay affect the cost structure, supply and demand and, hence, welfare. Welfare simply describes the well-being of people using resources to satisfy their goals. According to such an interpretation, increased consumption possibilities will indicate higher welfare levels. The welfare effects of technological changes can be measuredin a simple way. Using a cost-benefit approach, welfare change consists of the benefit of increased production, subtracting the incremental costs. In this way, impact studies could try to assessthe welfare effects of technological changes.16~26,28~30~3g,44,45 Quantity effectswould have to be identified, valued with appropriate prices and aggregated.Valuation, however, is a particular problem, and some remarks are necessaryto clarify the issue. Ideally, the prices represent shadow prices indicating a commodity’s marginal value to increase consumption possibilities. Market prices could be used to represent such marginal values, but unfortunately they are distorted in many cases.In developing countries distorted exchange rates and policy-distorted product and factor prices have to be taken into account; taxation and subsidy schemesaffect prices so that they no longer reflect a commodity’s marginal value to society. Furthermore, where severe unemployment exists the shadow price of labour will be close to zero although the actual wagelevel is much higher. A particular problem arisesif supply shifts result in price decreasesand if a subsequentreduction of inputs results in adjustment costs. Such costs reflect expenditure to enhance factor mobility and employment in alternative production processes.These, obviously, haveto be subtracted from possible welfare gains. On the other hand, welfare gains due to supply shifts tend to be the higher the fewer price decreasesoccur. Prices indicate the marginal value of a product and the lessthis marginal value is decreased due to a supply increase the higher will be the value of additional output. Multiplier

effects

Increased production of a particular commodity due to technological change increaseswelfare, but it may also initiate a multiplier effect that increasesrural income over severalperiods.3 Such a ‘downstream’ effect is caused by rural linkages in production and demand. Considering production, additional factor demand may increase factor income.

190

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke,

J. Lagemann

Furthermore, reduced product prices may diminish production costs of other sectors resulting in increased producers’ incomes. With respect to consumption, reduced product prices increase real incomes. Consequently, technology-induced supply shifts will increase overall rural income and induce additional demand. Hence, a multiplier effect occurs which may be as big as the initial welfare change due to technological change. Analysis has shown that most of this multiplier effect is due to real income changes among consumers. To assessthis effect, then, information about real income changes in different household types and their importance in initiating multiplier effects is important. DISTRIBUTIONAL

AND OTHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS

The distributional implications of IARC activities have increasingly been discussedand analysed.31Establishing a ‘more even’income distribution, furthermore, is widely acknowledged as an important social goal. As a consequence,impact studies should try to reveal possible links between income distribution and technological change’ due to IARC activities. Unlike overall welfare, however, income distribution can hardly be described in a single figure, but will consist of different aspectssuch as distribution among farmers, among groups and factors, and among regions. Distribution

among farmers

Technological changestend to reducethe unit costs of ?productionand/or increaseoutput and, thus, may enhancefarmers’ incomes.” In the caseof a fixed product price those farmers will gain who introduce new technologies whereas absolute income distribution changesin favour of innovative farmers. This effect may be partly or totally offset if or when those who have been non-innovators also begin to adopt new technologies. As a result it is difficult to assessthe ultimate effect on relative income distribution, but absolute income levels for both groups will have increased.A decreasingproduct price may reversethe effect of technological change for farmers and may even reduce income. Consequently, non-innovators will have to adopt new technologies if absolute income decreasesare to be avoided.

IARC

impact assessment

191

It is necessarynot to use the term ‘innovative’ as a synonym for ‘big’. New technologies have often been considered as favouring big farmers rather than small ones. This may actually have beenthe case,but it may not have been due to the technology itself but to other factors like liquidity, credit facilities, and other ‘scale-biased’ factors.13 It is important, therefore, clearly to analyse the potential scaleeffects of new technologies and to distinguish them from relevant determinants for innovation which may be scale-neutral. Distribution

among groups

Supply shifts may affect income distribution among producers and consumers. It is straightforward to use aggregatedproducers’ surplus as an income indicator for all producers. Correspondingly, consumers’ surplus may be used as an income indicator for the group of consumers. Both indicators can easily be used to analyse the income effects of technological changes.16,28 Considering producers as a group, technological change reduces production costs and, hence, increases income initially. A negative feedback effect will occur if the product’s price decreases.The overall effect of technological change on producers’ income is not obvious. It is the more likely to increase the less the product price decreases.It is possible, however, that the overall effect will be negative in the caseof a relatively inelastic demand. The effect of technological change on consumers’ incomes is straightforward. If the price does not change, income is not affected. Income will increasethe more, on the other hand, the larger price decreasesare. As a result, then, changesin relative income distribution depend on the possibility and the extent of price decreases. As on the producer side, it may be helpful to differentiate among consumers. If prices go down, those consumerswho will benefit most are those who buy relatively most of a product considered. Useful data here are the income shares spent for the product under consideration for different consumer or household types. According to this line of argument poor consumers may gain relatively more from technological changeif the induced price decreaseoccurs for products which represent a relatively large share of their expenditures. Apart from producers and consumers, in many casesa third group‘the government’-has to be added to the analysis. If governments intervene with the market mechanism, by taxation or subsidization,

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke,

192

J. Lagemann

budget cost or budget surplus will result. Such amounts representincome or income foregone for society as a whole. Whenever government is involved in market exchange, therefore, the effect of technological changes on the budget should be assessed. Distribution

among production

factors

Technological change may affect the use of inputs and input prices and, hence,the income distribution among factors. For an impact assessment in this respect, relative income distribution between tenants and landowners, or between capital owners and labour, are points of particular interest.13 Basically, there aretwo ways of assessingthe relative income changesof factors which both have the same result. The first is to look at the development of factor sharesin total regional or national income. Such income sharesrepresent the product of production coefficients and real factor prices. Hence, changesin factoral income sharescan be identified by looking at changesin production coefficients and real factor prices.An equivalent way of dealing with the problem is to look at the relationship between factor incomes. This relationship is the product of factor intensities and factor price ratios. Consequently, changes in relative income distribution among factors can be identified by analysing changes in factor intensities and changesin factor price ratios. Overall, a considerableamount of information is necessaryto judge the impact of technological change on income distribution among factors. The ultimate impact will depend on actual production functions and the availability and the mobility of production factors. Other socio-economic

effects

An important impact area of IARC activities may be the effect on various production-related goals. The relevance of such goals for the International Agricultural Research System has increasingly been addressed.There are several goals with which at some time or another agricultural researchhas been charged. These are:4o -generating or saving exchange, -ameliorating human nutrition,32,33 -achieving food self-sufficiency, --creating employment,

IARC

impact

assessment

193

-improving rural incomes, -changing the distribution of income, -increasing the incomes of small farmers, and -reducing rural to urban migration. Hence, an assessmentof IARC activities could be extendedto identify possible impacts on thesegoals. It is emphasized,however, that all these goals apart from food production are only loosely linked to agricultural production as they point to policy failures in other domains. Moreover, increased food production has principally been identified to be the primary goal for the International Agricultural ResearchSystem.41The question, therefore, is which role such secondary impacts should actually play in an overall impact assessmentof IARC activities. It is not the purpose of this paper to give a kind of impact ranking. It is suggested, instead, to, at least, try to identify opportunity costs in terms of increased production foregone whenever impacts on production-related goals are to be considered. CONCLUSIONS Impact assessmentof technological change is a difficult task and this is true, in particular, with respectto the assessmentof potential effectsof the IARCs. Many of the centres have only recently been established, they cover a broad range of activities which are supposedto generally enhance the living standards of the poor in developing countries, and any possible impact can seldom be isolated but is a result of the development environment in general and the collaboration with National Agricultural Research Systems in particular. Despite these problems there is no alternative to such an evaluation of IARCs. The centres are competing for funds with other development initiatives and their virtual existence, basically, will depend on the realization of expected impacts. The paper has pointed to the broad range of possible IARC impact areasand to the difficulties to identify them. It has also demonstrated how certain impacts could be measured and their relevance be evaluated. Based on the proposed framework actual IARC impact assessmentwill be faced with even more shortcomings and complexities. As limited as the results of such an effort may actually be, they will, nevertheless, allow crucial insights in the special role of International Agricultural Researchin the overall development process.

194

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke, J. Lagemann

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We thank the editors of this journal for helpful comments and suggestions. Any responsibility, of course, remains with the authors. REFERENCES 1. Anderson, J. R., On formalized opinion of peers in monitoring agricultural research, Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, 44 (1976), 119-22. 2. Arnon, I., The planning and programming of agricultural research, FAO, Rome, 1975. 3. Bell, C. L. G. and Hazell, P. B. R., Measuring the indirect effects of an agricultural investment project on its surrounding region, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62 (1980), 75-86. 4. Binswanger, H. P. and Ruttan, V. W. (Eds), Induced innovation. Technology, institutions and development, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. 5. Binswanger, H. P. and Ryan, J. G., Efficiency and equity issues in ex ante allocation of research resources, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 32 (1977), 217-31. 6. CGIAR, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, DC, 1980. 7. Elz, D. (Ed.), The planning and management of agricultural research, A world bank and ISNAR symposium, Washington, DC, 1984. 8. Falcon, W. P., Recent food policy lessons from developing countries, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66 (1984), 180-5. 9. FAO, Report on the Agro-Ecological Zones Project, Vol. 1: Methodology and results for Africa, World Soil Resources, Report 48, Rome, 1978. 10. FAO, Agriculture: Toward 2000, Rome, 1981. 11. Feder, G., Just, R. E. and Zilbermann, D., Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33 (1985), 255-98. 12. Greig, I. D., Agricultural research management and the ex ante evaluation of research proposals: A review, Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, 49 (198 l), 73-94. 13. Hardaker, J. B., Anderson, J. R. and Dillon, J. L., Perspectives on assessing the impacts of improved agricultural technologies in developing countries, Invited paper for the 28th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, Sydney, 7-9 February, 1984.

14. Hayami, Y. and Herdt, R. W., Market price effects of technological change on income distribution in semisubsistence agriculture, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59 (1977), 245-56. 15. Hazel& P. B. R. and Anderson, J. R., Publicpolicy toward technical change in agriculture, IFPRI, Washington, DC and University of New England, Armidale, 1984.

IARC impact assessment

195

16. Hertford, R. and Schmitz, A., Measuring economic returns to agricultural research. In: Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research (Arndt, T. M., Dalrymple, D. G. and Ruttan, V. W. (Eds)), Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1977, 148-67. 17. IITA, Research Highlights for 1983, Jbadan, 1984. IS. ILCA, ILCA-The First Years, Addis Ababa, 1980. 19. ISNAR, The early years, The Hague. 20. Jahnke, H. E., Livestock production systems and livestock development in tropical Africa, Kiel, Kieler Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, 1982. 21. Jahnke, H. E. and Kirschke, D., Quantitative indicators for priorities in international agricultural research, Background working paper commissionedfrom GFA by FAG for TAC, Hamburg and Rome, 1983. 22. Judd, M. A., Boyce, J. K. and Evenson, R. E., Investing in agricultural supply, Center Discussion Paper, No. 442, Economic Growth Center, New Haven, 1983. 23. Kaiser, K., Die ijkonomik der Agrarforschung, Zeitschriftfiir auslandische Landwirtschaft, 16.Jg. (1977) 21-36, 110-27. 24. Lagemann, J., Traditional African farming systems in Eastern Nigeria, Afrika Studien, Nr. 98, Munich, 1977. 25. Lagemann, J., Farming systems research as a tool for identifying and conducting research and development projects, Agricultural Administration, 11 (1982), 139-53.

26. de Leon, P., The evaluation of technology RD, Research Policy, 11 (1982), 347-57. 27. Lindner, R. K. and Jarrett, F. G., Supply shifts and the size of research benefits, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60 (1978) 48-58. 28. Norton, G. W. and Davis, J. S., Evaluating returns to agricultural research: A review, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63 (1981), 685-99. 29. Oram, P. A. and Bindlish, V., Resource allocations to national agricultural research: Trends in the 1970s ISNARIIFPRI report, The Hague and Washington, DC, 198 1. 30. Pasour, Jr., E. C. and Johnson, M. A., Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research revisited, Public Choice, 39 (1982), 301-17. 3 1. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Agricultural research and technology in economic development, London and New York, Longman, 1982. 32. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Berg, A. and Forman, M. (Eds), International agricultural research and human nutrition, Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute, 1984. 33. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Ruiz de Londono, N. and Hoover, E., The impact of increasing food supply on human nutrition: Implications for commodity priorities in agricultural research and policy, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58 (1976) 13 l-42. 34. Ruthenberg, H., Smallholder farming and smallholder development in Tanzania, Afrika-Studien, Nr. 24, Munich 1968. 35. Ruthenberg, H., Farming systems in the tropics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980.

196

H. E. Jahnke, D. Kirschke, J. Lagemann

36. Ruthenberg, H., Innovationpolicyfor smallerfarmers in the Tropics (ed. by Jahnke, H. E.), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1985. 37. Ruttan, V. W., Agricultural research policy, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1982. 38. Ruttan, V. W., Toward a global agricultural research system, Paper for a Workshop, Wageningen, 1984. 39. Schuh, E. E. and Tollini, H., Costs and benefits of agricultural research: The state of the arts, World Bank Staff Working Paper, No. 360, Washington, DC, 1979. 40. Scobie, G. M., Investment in agricultural research: Some economic principles, Working Paper Prepared for CZMMYT, Mexico, 1984. 41. TAC, TAC review of priorities for international support of agricultural research, Rome, 1979. 42. TAC, Report of the TAC quinquennial review of the International Livestock Centre for Africa, Rome, 1982. 43. Valdes, A., Scobie, G. M. and Dillon, J. L. (Eds), Economics and the design of small-farmer technology, Ames, Iowa State University Press, 1979. 44. Wise, W. S., The economic analysis of agricultural research, RD Management, 8 (1978) 185-9. 45. Wise, W. S., The theory of agricultural research benefits, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 32 (1981), 147-57. 46. World Bank, Toward sustained development in sub-Saharan Africa, Washington, DC, 1984.