8.1. Emerging opportunities for research on public management
8.2. Other Centers' involvements
8.3. Instruments for institution strengthening
8.4. Institutional sustainability
The parallel study on institution strengthening (The Future Role of the CGIAR in Development of NARSs: A Strategic Study of Institution Strengthening Research and Services, SDR/TAC:IAR/95/12, June 1995) makes a series of very useful suggestions in relation to "the role that ISNAR should play in strengthening NARSs. The Study endorses ISNAR's progressive shift from services to institutional R&D (paragraphs 60 & 61), suggests increased emphasis in research on institutional development in collaboration with research centres specialized in this area (paragraph 62), increased research on assessment and evaluation criteria (paragraph 63), more in-depth studies of successful and unsuccessful institution-building experiences (paragraph 65), and implementation of ISNAR's curriculum for post-graduate courses in institutional development and research management (paragraphs 66 & 67). This Panel fully endorses these suggestions.
In relation to opportunities for ISNAR-IFPRI collaboration, the Study considers that they are restricted to areas of overlap, namely, on priority setting and funding for agricultural research, including development and analysis of agricultural research indicator series (paragraph 72), and on ways to remove restrictions imposed by government regulations and labor laws for effective personnel policy and management in NARSs (paragraph 73). The Panel concurs with these opportunities for ISNAR-IFPRI collaboration, but wishes to expand on emerging research opportunities which, in the view of the Panel, are critical to better position the Centres for institution strengthening.
Two interlinked areas of public management research emerge as a consequence of public policy reforms induced by structural adjustment processes. One refers to effective mechanisms for influencing public policy reforms by bridging the communication gap between the NARSs and national policy makers. The other refers to the redesign of public sector institutions in agricultural R&D in line with emerging opportunities provided by the expanded constellation of civil and private organizations involved in agricultural R&D.
The capacity of NARSs to influence public policy reforms varies but is generally quite limited. NARSs are in a unique position to provide information on comparative advantages as determined as much by technological opportunities as by resource endowments in relation to market opportunities. Information on technological options to help achieve various policy objectives can be extremely useful for the formulation of public policies. Effective mechanisms are consequently needed for NARSs to participate in policy planning and for policy makers to develop confidence in NARSs' capacity to adjust to new policy objectives and to contribute to achieving synergy between technologies and policies. The "action planning approach" provides a framework for influencing public policies, for structuring a dialogue for research systems reforms in accordance with changing macroeconomic realities and agricultural growth strategies, and for obtaining political and long-term funding support for research programmes in line with policy objectives (Manning, 1995; Tabor, 1995). ISNAR and IFPRI can contribute meaningfully through joint research on successful cases of NARSs-NAPAs-policymakers interactions to derive lessons on management mechanisms for success.
The other interlinked area refers to the redesign of public sector institutions in agricultural R&D in line with emerging opportunities provided by the expanded constellation of civil and private organizations involved in agricultural R&D. As mentioned in section 4.1.3, tighter fiscal policies, the embracement of a subsidiary role for the public sector, concerns for empowering civil society, and the adoption of more stringent public management practices, have resulted in increasing funding restrictions for public agricultural R&D and in a demands for rethinking the role of public sector institutions. Increasingly, LDCs' demands are for research policies and public management strategies that facilitate and enhance the role and effectiveness of private sector and civil organizations in agricultural R&D, where appropriate.
Changes in the contexts in which R&D institutions in LDCs operate have led to the search for and experimentation with decentralized R&D approaches that increasingly rely on market forces and civil organizations. Devolution of agricultural services to the private sector and civil organizations, e.g., of seeds systems to producers' organizations and private firms, of water management to water users associations, and of credit to private banks or informal financial institutions, among others, are congruent with state subsidiarity but need to be studied in relation to their conditions for success. Policy impact analyses by NAPAs and IFPRI cannot ignore market failures in technology, water, risk, and credit markets, nor can they ignore new actors in policy-making processes in relation to agricultural R&D (ISNAR's area). Neither P&M research nor research on research policies and agricultural R&D can ignore the need for the state to assess where and how devolution processes could work, and to complement devolution processes with appropriate regulatory functions. They cannot ignore the needs for coordination within the public sector, e.g., amongst the various public institutions and ministries involved (agriculture, forestry, environment, science and technology, finance), for coordination of the public-private sector interface, and for facilities to allow farmers and civil organizations to voice their views and concerns.
Since the political, social, and economic environments in which R&D institutions operate are changing fast, institutional development efforts must be able to adapt to changes in these environments. They require a "new" institutional economics approach in which flexible mechanisms are set in place for the participatory definition of research agendas with relevant local actors such as farmers organizations, non-profit civil organizations, universities, for-profit private sector firms, and NGOs. These mechanisms also need to provide incentives for the participation of local actors in the delivery of selected services, including information services and adaptive technology testing with farmers and feedback to research. While successful institutional development projects along these lines will necessarily have a high degree of local specificity, important lessons can be derived from cross-country studies complemented with more in-depth analyses of selected cases.
This is a particular area of public management that falls among ISNAR's comparative advantages (organization and management of R&D institutions) as well as among IFPRI's (agricultural P&M research). In relation to more specific areas of public management, it also falls in the mandate of IIMI (water management), CIFOR (forest management), and ICLARM (fisheries management), even though their comparative advantages are not as yet fully developed. In the view of this Panel, there is ample scope for deriving synergy from joint research projects among IFPRI, ISNAR, and other research centres that have specialized expertise in the institutional development area.
As indicated in section 4.3.4, the Panel suggests that the forthcoming reviews of IFPRI and ISNAR pay particular attention to these two areas of research on public management, and to the potential synergy that could be derived from joint, inter-centre projects.
As indicated in section 2.1, a number of other Centres are involved in P&M research. The answers provided by 13 of the Centres to the question of who the clients are for their P&M research include nine different types of institutions (Table 8.1).
As could be expected. Centres' answers are diverse, reflecting the wide range of research projects they conduct and the corresponding variety of partners involved. The relatively high frequency of NARSs and NAPAs, and the low frequency of farmer's organizations and NGOs as clients are, however, worth noticing. Though the latter is to be expected for international Centres that regard national organizations as their main clients, the expanded constellation of civil and private organizations involved in agricultural R&D merits stakeholder analyses within both national and international settings. The ecoregional approach may facilitate stakeholder analysis, as well as help foment greater interactions among participating Centres. The spread of Centres' projects over too many locations (as illustrated by the Centres' answer to question 3 in the questionnaire) does not seems to facilitate in-depth understanding of the agricultural R&D processes. Concentration in a few, selected watersheds may facilitate it. IFPRI's and ISNAR's participation to research at these sites may contribute to the understanding of policy, management, and technology interactions to draw lessons of international relevance.
Table 8.1. Clients for P&M research: Percentage of Centres that identified particular clients
|
|
Research on |
|
|
Policy |
Management |
|
|
NARSs |
62 |
46 |
|
NAPAs |
62 |
31 |
|
Development aid agencies |
46 |
31 |
|
Universities |
31 |
15 |
|
Natural resource management organizations |
23 |
23 |
|
IARCs management and scientists |
23 |
23 |
|
Farmers and their organizations |
23 |
23 |
|
NGOs |
23 |
31 |
|
Development banks |
15 |
23 |
Based on answers from 13 Centers, excluding IFPRI, ISNAR, and ICRISAT
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.
8.3.1. Institution building
8.3.2. Collaborative research
8.3.3. Training courses
8.3.4. Workshops
8.3.5. Exchange and visiting research fellows
8.3.6. Publications
8.3.7. Network of IFPRI associates
The CGIAR 's long-term effectiveness depends on the System's ability to help strengthen institutions and research competencies in national systems. Policy research is not an exception. For a continuous flow of sound national policies to take place, effective policy research institutes and policy making processes are required at the national level. The same applies to the public management of R&D institutions: effective processes, and organizations and managers to lead the processes are required. The question is to what extent Centres should be involved in building new institutions in the area of P&M research (beyond ISNAR's role in relation to agricultural R&D institutes), or whether they should rely on selected or more indirect instruments for institution strengthening.
In the view of this Panel, Centres in general and IFPRI in particular, do not have comparative advantages to be involved directly in institution building for P&M research since such type of activities require both expertise in specialized areas (e.g., political science, public administration, institutional anthropology, institutional economics, law) as well as substantial commitments of staff time and resources to engage in the practice of institution building. Because of scale, Centres could only devote small amount of resources to this end, and even modest allocations of resources will have a high opportunity cost in terms of research. Good researchers can help sort out priorities for research in particular areas, but are seldom good institution builders. Centres, however, can contribute to institution strengthening through various direct and indirect instruments. Before collaborative projects come to an end, they could also draft an "institutional impact statement" that makes suggestions for other donors as to how to approach institution strengthening to capitalize on what has been achieved through joint research. This would help maximize continuity in institutional development beyond the research phase to which CG researchers are direct participants.
As opposed to other Centres, ISNAR has an explicit mandate in institution building. We refer readers to the parallel TAC study on institution building for an analysis of this role.
IFPRI, ISNAR, and the other Centres involved in P&M research see information and methods (adapted or new ones) as the main outputs of their research. Instruments used to assist in institution strengthening include collaborative research and graduate thesis research (direct instruments), and publications and workshops (more indirect instruments). The Panel concurs with Centres that collaborative research is an effective instruments for institution strengthening in P&M research. Graduate thesis research can be a cost-effective way to expand collaborative research. The Panel suggests that data bases at IFPRI and other Centres be made available for graduate thesis research, and that Centres be proactive in exploring opportunities for graduate thesis research in priority areas with leading professors in universities in both developed and developing countries.
Only ISNAR and ILRI have been involved in formal training courses, on management and livestock policies, respectively. IFPRI is planning training courses for policy analysts to be held at the Institute's headquarters, but this has not been started yet. The Panel fully endorses this move, as well-structured policy research courses are apparently in short supply and can be cost-effective in strengthening policy analysis and research capacities in partner institutions in LDCs. IFPRI will undoubtedly build such courses based on the experience of other institutions that have offered agricultural policy courses in the past. The Panel suggests that, building on this experience, IFPRI considers opportunities for developing regional courses in collaboration with appropriate regional organizations, local, and leading foreign universities that could contribute to such courses and at the same time provide for continuity after IFPRI moves on. In the view of this Panel, regional courses should be given priority over national ones, not only to justify IFPRI's involvement but also to enrich the mix of experiences and gain insights from cross-country experiences. Finally, the Panel also suggests that IFPRI set in place mechanisms for course evaluation by external experts and course participants.
In the view of this Panel, an important contribution toward institution strengthening is to provide appropriate for focused brainstorming about food policies in LDCs and P&M research needs. IFPRI has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous such conferences, semi NARSs, and workshops. These opportunities have been very much appreciated by partners in LDCs, but there is always room for improvement and greater focus than what can be inferred from IFPRI's MTP 1994-1998. There is a special need for regional workshops on priorities for P&M research which can be effective instruments for focusing research on priority issues from a regional perspective and for mobilizing regional resources for collaborative research. The Panel suggests that IFPRI pay due consideration to the organization of regional workshops for assessing priorities for P&M research. The IFPRI global food projections, and global and regional priorities for P&M research as perceived by IFPRI, should be analyzed at these workshops. They should be organized in collaboration with appropriate regional or national organizations and other Centres that could contribute.
ISNAR's global and regional workshops on selected areas of P&M research (e.g., structural adjustment, NRM, RM&E) seem to have been well received by participants. The degree of coordination with IFPRI and other centers is less clear.
IFPRI is planning a more regular graduate research exchange programme and a visiting research fellow programme, activities which in the past took place on an ad-hoc basis. The Panel fully endorses these initiatives. Both types of programmes are important to help policy analysts from LDCs and IFPRI staff mutually sharpen their research hypotheses, and thereby derive synergy and a broader perspective on P&M research issues. Such programmes are effective complements to training courses and focused workshops in that they allow for more in-depth analyses of issues and options. They may become a direct and powerful instrument to strengthen national capacities.
The Panel recommends that the forthcoming IFPRI review assess the relative allocation of resources to training courses, workshops, and exchange-visiting research fellow programmes. The objective should be to achieve a balanced mix that maximizes the joint development of hypotheses for P&M research from an international perspective, as well as from the perspective of institution strengthening in LDCs, yet without unduly taxing staff time for research.
Publications are an appropriate medium for conveying the results of P&M research and thus contribute to institution strengthening. IFPRI has relied heavily on publications in refereed journal as well as on IFPRI series, both of which seem to be used widely. The frequency of citations of IFPRI publications in refereed journals, as indicated by the Social Science Citations Index, could provide an indicator of the impact that IFPRI research has had in the scientific community. This is a time consuming task that needs to be done prior to arrival of the EPR team.
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 analyzes the feasibility, costs, and advantages of also making available on-line its more recent publications.
As part of the MTP, IFPRI's outreach division proposed the establishment of a network of individuals that are associated with the Institute's research, with regional chapters of the network to provide for the fulcrum of outreach activities in each region. The initiative has appeal, particularly in terms of providing a vehicle for two-way communications between network participants, but it may have important cost implications. While some centres and NARSs are not yet connected to the internet, this is rapidly developing and is proving to be an extraordinary bonus for otherwise isolated institutions.
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.
As in the case of any other institution, the sustainability of institutions involved in P&M research depends on the capacity of stakeholders to lobby for support of the respective institution. As indicated in section 8.3.1, the Panel does not see comparative advantages in the Centres (other than ISNAR in relation to agricultural R&D institutions) for engaging in comprehensive institution or programme building. Centres in general and IFPRI in particular can rely on selected instruments (such as collaborative research, training, and exchange and visiting research fellows) or on more indirect instruments (such as workshops and publications) for institution strengthening. These instruments can contribute significantly to enhance institutional sustainability through the improvement of human resource capacities for P&M research and analysis, and through peer discussions of hypotheses for enhanced relevance and quality of the research undertaken by policy analysts in national systems.
As mentioned in section 8.1, IFPRI and ISNAR can contribute to strengthen institutional sustainability indirectly through research on successful cases of NARSs-NAPAs-policymakers interactions to derive lessons on public management mechanisms for success, including institutional sustainability in relation to P&M research and analysis.
Policy advice is rightly seen by IFPRI and other Centres as an incidental byproduct of research of international relevance, not as the main purpose of research; albeit that partners in national programmes may see policy advice as one of the main purposes for their involvement. However, seeking greater policy relevance at the country level is a justified research goal that needs to be carefully weighted against international relevance, as discussed in section 6.2.5.
The Panel recommends that IFPRI and other Centres continue to adhere to the principle of international relevance in 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.
Occasionally there may be opportunities for IFPRI to engage in programme planning for P&M research in NARSs and NAPAs. This is quite appropriate, but undue distraction of resources needed for IFPRI's research should be avoided. In fact, programme sustainability in LDC institutions requires that such capacity be developed in-house and that continued dependence on IFPRI be avoided.
