This TAC study was motivated by the desire to assess the adequacy of the growing ascendancy of the social sciences in the CGIAR, provide a general evaluation of what the Centres are doing in policy and management (P&M) research, suggest ways of improving coordination among Centres in the conduct of this research, recommend on the merit of organizing a Systemwide programme in policy research, and discuss gaps or redundancies in the research portfolio. The study was also motivated by the need to assess how the social sciences have adjusted to the redefinition and broadening of the CG mandate as well as by the timeliness of providing guidelines for the forthcoming External Programme Reviews of IFPRI and ISNAR.
Given the vastness of the subject, and the limited time available to the Panel, this study was not able to engage in detailed analysis of what specific Centres are doing.1 Such assessment should be done in the context of particular Centre reviews. By contrast, this study focuses on strategic issues, looking at the broader picture and in particularly at the System as a whole with respect to position relative to other policy and management research initiatives in the world, new directions for research related to redefinitions of the CG mandate and emerging issues, thematic thrusts and overall quality in responding to information for policy and management guidelines, division of labor and coordination among Centres, and links with institution building.
1
But see Annex for a brief description.
The CGIAR has become increasingly involved in P&M research. In 1995, the social sciences absorbed 14.8% of the System's budget and 17.7% of its scientific personnel. P&M research absorbed 8.1% of the budget and 9.3% of the scientific personnel. However, the magnitude of the contributions made by the CG in this field of research, measured in number of full-time research workers, is minute compared to the worldwide effort. This report estimated the CGIAR's contribution to the worldwide effort, measured in percentage of the total number of scientists engaged, to be 1.6% in policy and 0.4% in management research. While very small in a relative sense, this effort is seen by this Panel as preciously important (1) for the operation of the System itself and for servicing the needs of its immediate national clients and partners, (2) to maximize the impact of technological innovations in agriculture on the welfare of humanity, and (3) to provide solutions to some of the broader problems addressed by the System, such as the reduction of rural poverty, improvement in human nutrition, and sustainable ecoregional development.
Expansion of the social sciences in the CG shows, to the extent that it is a response to demand, that the System has unique comparative advantages in the broad worldwide division of labor for socioeconomic, management, and policy research. It is the opinion of the Panel that there is a necessary continuum between policy, management, and socioeconomic research and that it is important to maintain maximum fluidity and complementarity in the relationship between these levels of analysis. Even though this may not be its explicit purpose, much of the Centres' socioeconomic research is used for policy analysis. As a consequence, there is more on-going policy research in the Centres than acknowledged in TAC documents. Indeed, the strong complementarities that exist between socioeconomic, management, and policy research are a distinctive source of strength for CG P&M research.
The Panel is of the opinion that current CG P&M research is, overall, of satisfactory quality, that it is making significant contributions to the System's mission, and that it does not February 10, 1996 require a major systemwide overhaul at this time. However, there are important changes which are redefining the nature of P&M research in the System that deserve further attention. The two most important changes that set the framework for the recommendations that follow are:
- Expansion of the CGIAR and its goals have created needs for more comprehensive social science analyses than the types of analyses typically promoted by Centres in support of technology design, the allocation of resources to research priorities, and impact assessment of the diffusion of technology. These demands are for more comprehensive social science analyses that need to be conducted jointly with the search for biotechnical solutions. The centrality of these analyses explains both the rising importance of the social sciences in CG budgets and the increasing complexity of the types of analyses needed.- Descaling of the role of the state implies the emergence of a set of new actors and institutions in research and development, the management of irrigation water and forests, and the design of solutions to problems of efficiency, poverty, and sustainability. Understanding and working with these civil institutions, that range from commercial firms to NGOs and grassroots organizations, is a new dimension that has not yet been sufficiently internalized in CG research and institution strengthening.
The analysis conducted by the Panel leads to the following set of recommendations and suggestions:1
1
Some of the recommendations and suggestions in the following list are consolidations of closely related recommendations and suggestions developed in the text of the report.
Recommendations for TAC
Demand for Policy and Management Research: The Context for Priority Setting (See Chapter 4)
1. The Panel recommends that the System assigns formally to IFPRI the responsibility to advance its work on global food and natural resource use projections, in collaboration with FAO and other agencies as appropriate. For specific crops, global projections ought to be done in collaboration with the crop centres concerned since these centres have unique knowledge of future technological prospects and agroecological potentials.
2. The Panel recommends that TAC considers priority setting in P&M research as a dynamic and interactive process, that needs to be bottom-up (based on Centres proposals), forward-looking, and participatory, involving NARSSs, NAPASs, and other centres as appropriate.
3. The Panel recommends that TAC gives due consideration to the adoption of the six specific criteria proposed for priority setting in P&M research. The Panel suggests that the possible indicators listed in Table 4.1 be discussed with the Centres with the aim of developing a set of indicators that becomes useful in applying the proposed criteria.
Supply and Research Quality (see Chapter 5)
4. The Panel recommends that the Committee on Impact Assessment follow closely the IFPRI exercise in ex-post impact assessment, with the aim of learning from this experience how impact was achieved, how information was circulated, and how it was used in a timely fashion.
5. The Panel recommends that each Centre put into place effective mechanisms for peer review of both their research programmes and projects (e.g., relevance, methodologies used, February 10, 1996 importance of the policy conclusions) and their research outputs (e.g., publications, public data bases, client satisfaction).
6. The Panel recommends that Centres be particularly vigilant, and review their performance, in securing first-rate scientific personnel at the theoretical and methodological frontiers of their fields, that collaborations with cutting-edge scientists outside the system be increased, and that close cooperation be maintained internally between theorists, empiricists, and practitioners.
Policy and Management Research: Quantity and Gaps (see Chapter 6)
7. The Panel recommends that the current share of CGIAR resources invested in socioeconomic, policy, and management research be maintained.
8. The Panel recommends that the CG mandate on research policy and research management be broadened to capture not just the traditional public management dimensions of R&D, but also the public-private interface, the co-production of public goods by public and private sectors, and the role and management problems of NGOs and other non-profit organizations of civil society.
9. This Panel recommends that all Centres make a serious effort to get better acquainted with the potential that the "new" institutional economics offers for their socioeconomic, management, and policy research. It suggests that scientists concerned in different centres collaborate in systematically exploring areas where worthwhile advances could be made using this approach.
10. This Panel recommends that every effort be made to continue to explore possibilities of making headways in research on the political economy of policy and management decisions.
11. The current large emphasis given to research on common property resources in the System seems fully warranted and this Panel suggests that this effort should be pursued, particularly in terms of solid empirical research.
12. The Panel recommends that IFPRI and other Centres involved in policy and management research devote some thinking to the issue of generic versus country-specific policy studies before the next EPR and that this issue be addressed by the EPR itself.
13. The Panel recommends that, whenever consistent with the research effort, the very important contributions of the Centres to primary household and farm-level data generation be sustained.
Policy and Management Research Coordination Among Centres (see Chapter 7)
14. The Panel recommends not to pursue a System-wide initiative in policy research as an instrument to enhance collaboration and coordination in this area of research.
15. The Panel recommends that Centres review their current capacities in socioeconomic and policy research to assess whether the minimum capacity for desired collaborative research with IFPRI is in place and take remedial action if it is not.
16. The Panel recommends that IFPRI's outposted staff be increased when consistent with key research projects, and when it enhances a Centre's policy research capacity.
17. The Panel consequently recommends that TAC consider defining a modality that would allow it to allocate resources on a competitive basis in response to requests by two or more Centres for funds to support (1) project preparation and coordination in socioeconomic, policy, and management research and (2) methodological backup activities across-Centres.
18. The Panel suggests that Centres which may want to establish collaborative research with IFPRI should be offered greater participation to the development of IFPRI's medium term plan and, reciprocally, opportunities to coordinate their own medium term plans with IFPRI's. It recommends that IFPRI consider appointing a research fellow to be a liaison person with a specific centre.
19. The Panel suggests that budget reporting on the "policy" and "protecting the environment" programmes be disaggregated in their respective components to adequately report on the extent of socioeconomic, policy, and management research in the System.
Institution Strengthening (see Chapter 8)
20. The Panel suggests that IFPRI consider opportunities for developing regional courses in collaboration with appropriate regional organizations, and local and leading foreign universities that could contribute to such courses and at the same time provide for continuity after IFPRI moves on.
21. The Panel suggests that IFPRI assesses the feasibility, advantages, and costs of using "bulletin boards" (via INTERNET or other information networks) to develop two-way communications on specific themes of long-term interest to IFPRI and its partners, particularly in LDCs.
22. The Panel recommends that IFPRI and other Centres continue to adhere to the principles of international relevance and strategic research but that they seek ways to give greater country-level policy relevance to their research, in part as an instrument for institution strengthening.
Recommendations for the IFPRI and ISNAR External Program Review panels
1. The Panel recommends that the forthcoming IFPRI review assess the proportions of project funding in the various programmes of the Institute and their implications for programme effectiveness.
2. The Panel consequently recommends that the forthcoming IFPRI review consider the issue of the desirable level of involvement of this Centre in policy science research and the approaches through which policy science research can be pursued.
3. The Panel recommends that IFPRI and other Centres involved in policy and management research devote some thinking to the issue of generic versus country-specific policy studies before the next EPR and that this issue be addressed by the EPR itself.
4. The Panel recommends that the forthcoming reviews of IFPRI and ISNAR assess the involvement of these institutes in P&M research within ecoregional initiatives, and question the institutes on opportunities that might exist (1) to derive lessons of international relevance for the management of public-private interface and (2) to achieve greater synergy in inter-centre collaboration to this end.
5. The Panel recommends that the forthcoming IFPRI review assess the relative allocation of resources to training courses, workshops, and exchange-visiting research fellow programmes.
6. The Panel suggests that the forthcoming IFPRI review analyze the extent to which IFPRI publications are cited by peers. The Panel further suggests that IFPRI analyze the feasibility, costs, and advantages of also making available on-line its more recent publications.
