Year Published
- (-) Remove 2008 filter 2008
- (-) Remove 2009 filter 2009
- 2010 (4) Apply 2010 filter
- 2011 (1) Apply 2011 filter
- 2012 (3) Apply 2012 filter
- (-) Remove 2013 filter 2013
- (-) Remove 2014 filter 2014
- 2015 (0)
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
- (-) Remove 2017 filter 2017
- 2018 (0)
- 2019 (0)
- 2020 (0)
- 2021 (0)
Research Topics
Populations
- Countries/Governments (2) Apply Countries/Governments filter
- Rural Populations (0)
- Smallholder Farmers (1) Apply Smallholder Farmers filter
- Women (0)
Types of Research
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (4) Apply East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- (-) Remove Global filter Global
- (-) Remove South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter South Asia Region and Selected Countries
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (2) Apply Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- (-) Remove Sub-Saharan Africa filter Sub-Saharan Africa
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (5) Apply West Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
Dataset
Current search
- (-) Remove Sub-Saharan Africa filter Sub-Saharan Africa
- (-) Remove 2017 filter 2017
- (-) Remove FAOSTAT filter FAOSTAT
- (-) Remove 2014 filter 2014
- (-) Remove Global filter Global
- (-) Remove 2008 filter 2008
- (-) Remove South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter South Asia Region and Selected Countries
- (-) Remove 2013 filter 2013
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
- (-) Remove 2009 filter 2009
An ongoing stream of EPAR 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. For this project, we seek to summarize the key public good characteristics of R&D investment for agriculture in general and for different subsets of crops, and hypothesize how these characteristics might be expected to affect public, private, or philanthropic funders’ investment decisions.
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.
EPAR’s Political Economy of Fertilizer Policy series provides a history of government intervention in the fertilizer markets of eight Sub-Saharan African countries: Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania. The briefs focus on details of present and past voucher programs, input subsidies, tariffs in the fertilizer sector, and the political context of these policies. The briefs illustrate these policies’ effect on key domestic crops and focus on the strengths and weaknesses of current market structure. Fertilizer policy in SSA has been extremely dynamic over the last fifty years, swinging from enormous levels of intervention in the 1960s and 70s to liberalization of markets of the 1980s and 1990s. More recently, intervention has become more moderate, focusing on “market smart” subsidies and support. This executive summary highlights key findings and common themes from the series.