1.1 Origins of the Study
1.2 Linking Public Management Research to Policy and Institution Strengthening Research
1.3 Focus of the Study
1.4 Objectives of the Study
1.5 Process and Organization of the Strategic Study
This is the first Systemwide study of policy, public management, and institution strengthening research and service in the CGIAR. In a sense, the existence of the study provides an indication that the subject matter increasingly has gone beyond the boundaries of the specialized centres that have traditionally focused on these activities, e.g., IFPRI, ISNAR, and IIMI. The wide support of the study by the CGIAR members also is an indication that some believe that there may be a need to change the nature, magnitude, and/or focus of this work in the System.
A main original reason for this study was the request to TAC by the CGIAR Chair at ICW93 to look at options for restructuring and consolidating elements of the CGIAR System. At MTM94, the Group decided not to pursue this line of action and launched a process of renewal of the CGIAR. However, there were reasons beyond potential restructuring advantages that contributed to the need for the study.
This study also was a response to several more specific questions voiced by CGIAR members and others. The most basic one was whether or not the System is doing the right kinds of policy, management and institution strengthening research and service work, and whether it is doing the right amount of such work. Another concern relates to the reliance on IFPRI in proposals by the other centres in the System, in terms of IFPRI participation in their policy research. Thus, policy research appears in the MTPs of all but one centre, with IFPRI linked to the various proposals.
This widespread inclusion of IFPRI - sometimes without the clear agreement of IFPRI -leads to at least two potential issues: First, some of the research proposed by centres is more socioeconomic research work that IFPRI has little reason to be involved with, since it is not in line with IFPRI's strategic plan and MTP. Second, even in the case of legitimate policy research that also fits within IFPRI's mandate and strategic plan, IFPRI does not have the capacity nor budget to be involved in every project that is proposed.
A related concern focuses on whether or not the apparent confusion in the way the terms policy research and socioeconomic research are used in the System leads to potentially undesirable duplications in research, and missed opportunities for taking advantage of complementarities.
There is need for some logical, effective mechanisms to help rationalize and in some cases coordinate policy research in the System, both to avoid confusion and false expectations, and to avoid missed opportunities, particularly to develop complementarities between socioeconomic research and policy research (see definitions later).
In the case of institution strengthening research and service, it was felt that there was need to define more clearly the role of the CGIAR in this area. It is emphasized that the concern was not that something was "wrong." Rather, the focus was on development of a clearer definition of the internationality of the subject matter (a significant criterion for CGIAR involvement), and a concern with the role of the System in service activities.
Public management research entered the study somewhat late in the process of designing it, and not in response to any particular concern about it. It was more a matter of some members of TAC and CGIAR members suggesting, in recognition of the strong links between policy/public management/institution strengthening, that public management should be included in the study to make the study comprehensive. At the same time, it was recognized that there is little research in the System on public management per se, and, partly for that reason, little controversy surrounding such research.
TAC recognizes that the relationship between "public management" research and the other two topics of this stripe study - policy and institution strengthening - is subject to some confusion, mainly due to differences in interpretation of the terms. In the case of public management links to policy, for example, some people view policy as merely one of the functions of public management. Therefore, logically, policy processes and impacts are researched within the broader context of management. For others, the opposite is the case: public management is one of the three main categories of tools or mechanisms that the public sector has available for implementing policy, the other two categories being legal/regulatory mechanisms and fiscal mechanisms, such as taxes and subsidies.
Similarly, in the case of public management research links to institution strengthening, some argue that one of the main goals of institution strengthening is the strengthening of management. They would suggest that management research is one of the means of gaining insights on how best to accomplish the broader goal of strengthening institutions. Others would argue that institution strengthening research and service are means for improving overall public management, in which case, institution strengthening falls under the broader umbrella of management, along with policy research.
One of the main reasons why these two sets of views can exist side by side without conflicting is the fact that the term "management" is being used with widely differing definitions and interpretations. Thus, in the more formal organizational context, many view management research as the study of the processes and functioning of organizations, and, more particularly, how people function in organizations. Other, more practical interpretations of term, include its use in the sense of "doing things" e.g., managing our finances, managing personnel, managing natural resources use and conservation, managing technology diffusion, and so forth. TAC believes that the interpretation of the term does not matter, so long as one is clear on how it is used.
In what follows, TAC uses the term "management research" in a way that appears to be consistent with the interpretation in most of the centres of the CGIAR system, namely, in the more practical sense of management being a means to an end, or the process of "doing things." In this context, management for the most part can be treated within the categories of both policy research and institution strengthening research and service. At the same time, it is recognized that ISNAR, and to some extent IIMI, also view public management in the more formal sense of the management sciences, i.e., related to the organization and functioning of organizations. This is fully consistent with the mission and goals of ISNAR; and the difference in perspective provides a strong argument for the work being undertaken in the management area by ISNAR.
This also is consistent with the use of improved management as one means to move towards the CGIAR goals of contributing, through agricultural, forestry and fisheries research, to improvements in poverty alleviation, sustainable food security and environmental management. It seems more logical to TAC to adopt the view of management as a tool rather than an end in and of itself. Thus, TAC in this study treats management research within the context of a) policy implementation and b) institution strengthening, where both are aimed at the common CGIAR goals.
Experience to date in the CGIAR seems to confirm and conform with this view of the subject. Even in the case of IIMI, while management has been a predominant concern, it has always been within the context of improving irrigation systems as a means of helping to improve food security and poverty alleviation. In other words, even in IIMI, management has been a means rather than an end. Certainly in IIMI's evolving new focus on global water issues, it should become more so. This view contrasts with a management research or training program with a central focus on the processes of management, regardless of where they will be applied.
In sum, the focus of what follows is on policy research and on institutional strengthening research and service, with management research subsumed as important subcategories within each. For the purposes of the study, TAC defines the two terms as follows:
Policy research is distinguished here from the predominantly production economics research or socioeconomic analysis to evaluate technical options developed by centre researchers. It also is distinguished from the socioeconomic research carried out by centres in relation to assessments of farm organization, structure, and operation. While public policy research may use the same microeconomics tools, and the results from socioeconomic work of centres, it is distinguished from the latter by being defined as research on the policy processes and the policy environments within which the results of technical research and socioeconomic and production economics research from the centres and national research systems are applied. Included under this heading is research that helps to define an appropriate agricultural and natural resources science policy for a county. Also included is research focused on public management as one of the tools or mechanisms for implementation of policies.Institution strengthening research and service relate to the System's activities aimed at strengthening national research systems (defined in the broadest sense) related to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and natural resources management and addresses the NARS broadly defined. Central components of such work in the CGIAR relate to capacity building in NARS personnel, the better understanding of research management processes, and the provision of more efficient and effective tools for policy formulation, planning and management, including priority setting and impact assessment at different levels. Central components also include the delivery of research results and the development of collaborative activities with NARS that help to build their research and research management capacity and to strengthen their performance. This topic also relates to strengthening the basic science and research policies of countries and the process by which they are determined. Advisory services address in a holistic fashion the policy, organization and management concerns of NARS. They include advice on national agricultural research policy, on structure and organization of national systems and their linkages, and on research programme, research resources, and research institute management, such as undertaken by ISNAR.
Given the above comments on issues and definitions, this stripe study of strategic issues was conceived mainly with the following objectives in mind:
· Provide a general assessment at a strategic level of the on-going policy, management and institution strengthening research and service in the System, and place it in the context of research and service activity outside the System.· Suggest potential improvements in the organization and coordination of the CGIAR's work in these areas and in the division of labour within the System.
· Suggest areas in which changes (increases/decreases) in research and service effort likely would be productive
Given the above definitions, focus and objectives, TAC decided to split the study into two parts in terms of the detailed background assessments by panels. One panel covered policy research and those few parts of public management research that have a policy orientation. The other panel covered institution strengthening research and service, including research on public management related to national research systems. In this sense, there was some overlap between the two panel studies.
As in the case the TAC study on soil and water aspects of natural resources management in the CGIAR System, it was decided to use a new model or process for this stripe or systemwide study that TAC believed would be both more effective and more efficient in terms of the ultimate objectives for the study. It involved the following:
· TAC debated priority issues and developed a TOR for the assessment. (In this case, it was decided to carry forth the background work on the assessment using two separate panels).· Expertise to carry out the background assessments was identified and contracted. Independent consultants used in this study are indicated in Appendix 1.
· Two TAC members and the Officer-in-Charge of the TAC Secretariat convened and briefed the study panels at an initial meeting, held at ISNAR, in April 1995.
· The panels met and developed their reports and recommendations and submitted drafts to TAC. Comments were provided to the panels and final drafts of the papers were prepared. (Panel compositions, TORs, and procedures are found in the Panel reports which are being made available as separate documents).
· TAC debated the reports, as well as additional information compiled by the Secretariat, and produced the present paper, which summarizes TAC's assessment of and recommendations for changes in the PMIS work of the System.
It is important to note that where TAC differs in its conclusions from those presented by the panels, such differences are clearly indicated in the text. As mentioned, the full Panel reports are presented as separate background papers.
