Year Published
- 2008 (0)
- 2009 (0)
- 2010 (0)
- 2011 (1) Apply 2011 filter
- (-) Remove 2012 filter 2012
- 2013 (0)
- 2014 (0)
- (-) Remove 2015 filter 2015
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
- 2017 (1) Apply 2017 filter
- 2018 (0)
- (-) Remove 2019 filter 2019
- 2020 (0)
- 2021 (0)
Research Topics
Populations
- Countries/Governments (0)
- Rural Populations (0)
- Smallholder Farmers (0)
- Women (0)
Types of Research
- Data Analysis (1) Apply Data Analysis filter
- Literature Review (1) Apply Literature Review filter
- Portfolio Review (0)
- Research Brief (0)
Geography
- (-) Remove East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter East Africa Region and Selected Countries
- (-) Remove Global filter Global
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (0)
- (-) Remove West Africa Region and Selected Countries filter West Africa Region and Selected Countries
Dataset
Current search
- (-) Remove East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter East Africa Region and Selected Countries
- (-) Remove Global & Regional Public Goods filter Global & Regional Public Goods
- (-) Remove ASTI filter ASTI
- (-) Remove Farmer First filter Farmer First
- (-) Remove 2012 filter 2012
- (-) Remove Food Security & Nutrition filter Food Security & Nutrition
- (-) Remove Development Finance & Policy filter Development Finance & Policy
- (-) Remove Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods filter Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods
- (-) Remove Global filter Global
- (-) Remove 2019 filter 2019
- (-) Remove West Africa Region and Selected Countries filter West Africa Region and Selected Countries
- (-) Remove 2015 filter 2015
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
This research considers how public good characteristics of different types of research and development (R&D) and the motivations of different providers of R&D funding affect the relative advantages of alternative funding sources. We summarize the public good characteristics of R&D for agriculture in general and for commodity and subsistence crops in particular, as well as R&D for health in general and for neglected diseases in particular, with a focus on Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Finally, we present rationales for which funders are predicted to fund which R&D types based on these funder and R&D characteristics. We then compile available statistics on funding for agricultural and health R&D from private, public and philanthropic sources, and compare trends in funding from these sources against expectations. We find private agricultural R&D spending focuses on commodity crops (as expected). However contrary to expectations we find public and philanthropic spending also goes largely towards these same crops rather than staples not targeted by private funds. For health R&D private funders similarly concentrate on diseases with higher potential financial returns. However unlike in agricultural R&D, in health R&D we observe some specialization across funders – especially for neglected diseases R&D - consistent with funders’ expected relative advantages.
This brief explores how two datasets – The Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS) and the TNS-Research International Farmer Focus (FF) – predict the determinants of inorganic fertilizer use among smallholder farmers in Tanzania by using regression analysis. The (TZNPS) was implemented by the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics, with support from the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team and includes extensive information on crop productivity and input use. The FF survey was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and implemented by TNS Research International and focuses on the on the behaviors and attitudes of smallholder farmers in Tanzania. The two datasets produce relatively comparable results for the primary predictors of inorganic fertilizer use: agricultural extension and whether or not a household grows cash crops. However, other factors influencing input use produce results that vary in magnitude and direction of the effect across the two datasets. Distinct survey instrument designs make it difficult to test the robustness of the models on input use other than inorganic fertilizer. This brief uses data inorganic fertilizer use, rather than adoption per se. The TZNPS did not ask households how recently they began using a certain product and although the FF survey asked respondents how many new inputs were tried in the past four planting seasons, they did not ask specifically about inorganic fertilizer.