IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ON POVERTY: FINDINGS OF AN INTEGRATED ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS

"This paper reports findings of a CGIAR research project including seven case studies of different types of agricultural research: aggregate investments in agricultural research in China and India; rice, vegetable, and fishpond technologies in Bangladesh; soil fertility replenishment in Kenya; hybrid maize in Zimbabwe, and creolized maize in Mexico. The case studies found adoption was influenced by the technologies' likelihood to increase or decrease vulnerability, whether the poor have the assets needed to adopt, the nature of disseminating institutions, and cultural factors such as gender roles and taste preferences. Dissemination processes have become increasingly diversified and have a significant impact on who is reached with the technology and how well they are able to take advantage of it. A wide variety of direct impacts on adopting households were identified, including those related to increased production, income, knowledge, changes in power relationships (favoring men or women; richer or poorer farmers), and increased or decreased vulnerability. Poor people often benefit from these technologies, especially if these technologies are designed to build on assets that they have, though the studies also showed that impacts on the poor were sometimes limited by asset requirements for adoption or dissemination practices. Indirect effects were also important. Poor people were helped by declining food prices, though benefits to poor farmers were dampened by falling output prices. Increased stability and even marginal improvements in agricultural production were valued by poor households for providing food security and a launching pad into other activities. Increased agricultural employment was also a major benefit, improving incomes and stability of employment. " Authors' Abstract (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

[1]  P. Hazell,et al.  Government Spending, Growth and Poverty in Rural India , 2000 .

[2]  James P. Ignizio,et al.  Foreword , 1996, Comput. Oper. Res..

[3]  R. Meinzen-Dick,et al.  Property rights, collective action and technologies for natural resource management: a conceptual framework , 2000 .

[4]  C. Ashley,et al.  Sustainable livelihoods: lessons from early experience. , 1999 .

[5]  R. Chambers.  Whose reality counts? Putting the last first , 1997 .

[6]  D. Lewis,et al.  Rice Research, Technological Progress, and Impacts on the Poor: The Bangladesh Case (Summary Report) , 2007 .

[7]  S. Fan,et al.  National and international agricultural research and rural poverty: the case of rice research in India and China , 2005 .

[8]  M. Adato,et al.  The impact of improved maize germplasm on poverty alleviation , 2003 .

[9]  Linxiu Zhang,et al.  GROWTH AND POVERTY IN RURAL CHINA: THE ROLE OF PUBLIC INVESTMENTS , 2000 .

[10]  Jeffrey Alwang,et al.  Productivity and Land Enhancing Technologies in Northern Ethiopia: Health, Public Investments, and Sequential Adoption , 2004 .

[11]  Emmanuel Skoufias,et al.  Economic Crises and Natural Disasters: Coping Strategies and Policy Implications , 2003 .

[12]  R. Chambers.  The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal * ROBERT CHAMBERS ? , 1994 .

[13]  B. Agarwal,et al.  Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework , 2001 .

[14]  Robert Chambers,et al.  Institutional Learning and Change: An Introduction , 2003 .

[15]  Bonwoo Koo,et al.  The Economics of Generating and Maintaining Plant Variety Rights in China , 2003 .

[16]  Prabhu Pingali,et al.  Confronting the environmental consequences of the Green Revolution in Asia , 1994 .

[17]  The Impact of Improved Maize Germplasm on the Lives of the ExtremePoor: The Case of Tuxpeño-Derived Material in Mexico , 2003 .

[18]  D. Lewis,et al.  An Integrated Economic and Social Analysis to Assess the Impact of Vegetable and Fishpond Technologies on Poverty in Rural Bangladesh , 2003 .

[19]  I. Guijt,et al.  The myth of community : gender issues in participatory development , 1998 .

[20]  G. Brady.  Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action , 1993 .

[21]  P. Hebinck,et al.  The impact of agroforestry based soil fertility: replenishment practices on the poor in Western Kenya , 2005 .

[22]  M. Adato,et al.  Impact of improved maize germplasm on poverty alleviation: The case of Tuxpeño-Derived materials in Mexico , 2005 .

[23]  R. Mackay,et al.  Institutional learning and change in the CGIAR , 2003 .

[24]  P. Pingali.  Milestones in impact assessment research in the CGIAR, 1970-1999 , 1999 .

[25]  M. Smale,et al.  Determinants of cereal diversity in communities and on household farms of the Northern Ethiopian Highlands , 2003 .

[26]  John J. McDermott,et al.  Animal health and the role of communities: an example of trypanasomosis control options in Uganda , 2003 .

[27]  D. Hulme,et al.  Conceptualizing Chronic Poverty , 2003 .

[28]  R. Echeverría.  Assessing the impact of agricultural research. , 1990 .

[29]  R. Meinzen-Dick,et al.  Changes in agrarian relations and livelihoods in rural Bangladesh: insights from repeat village studies. , 2002 .

[30]  P. Kristjanson,et al.  Assessing the Factors Underlying Differences in Group Performance : Methodological Issues and Empirical Findings from the Highlands of Central Kenya 1 , 2002 .

[31]  Jean-Philippe Platteau,et al.  Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role for rural communities? , 2000 .