- (-) Remove Development Finance & Policy filter Development Finance & Policy
- (-) Remove Aid & Other Development Finance filter Aid & Other Development Finance
- Global & Regional Public Goods (8) Apply Global & Regional Public Goods filter
- Monitoring & Evaluation (2) Apply Monitoring & Evaluation filter
- Political Economy & Governance (15) Apply Political Economy & Governance filter
- Household Well-Being & Equity (53) Apply Household Well-Being & Equity filter
- Education & Training (8) Apply Education & Training filter
- Food Security & Nutrition (23) Apply Food Security & Nutrition filter
- Gender (34) Apply Gender filter
- Health (19) Apply Health filter
- Labor & Time Use (20) Apply Labor & Time Use filter
- Poverty (13) Apply Poverty filter
- Risk, Preferences, & Decision-Making (10) Apply Risk, Preferences, & Decision-Making filter
- Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods (146) Apply Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods filter
- Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management (71) Apply Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter
- Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints (59) Apply Agricultural Productivity, Yield, & Constraints filter
- Environment & Climate Change (26) Apply Environment & Climate Change filter
- Finance & Investment (11) Apply Finance & Investment filter
- Market & Value Chain Analysis (79) Apply Market & Value Chain Analysis filter
- Technology (36) Apply Technology filter
- Countries/Governments (5) Apply Countries/Governments filter
- Rural Populations (0)
- Smallholder Farmers (2) Apply Smallholder Farmers filter
- Women (0)
Types of Research
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (1) Apply East Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- Global (5) Apply Global filter
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (1) Apply South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (1) Apply Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- Sub-Saharan Africa (5) Apply Sub-Saharan Africa filter
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (1) Apply West Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
- ASTI (2) Apply ASTI filter
- FAOSTAT (1) Apply FAOSTAT filter
- Farmer First (0)
- LSMS & LSMS-ISA (0)
- Other Datasets (2) Apply Other Datasets filter
This brief draws on recent reports by the OECD, the World Bank, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and others to provide an overview of climate finance in developing countries. The brief is divided into three sections: (i) sources of global climate finance; (ii) country-level flows of climate finance; and (iii) applications of climate finance in developing countries. The brief is designed to give a concise overview of financial flows directed at climate change mitigation and adaptation globally and in developing countries, with an introduction to climate finance accounting such that climate financial flow volumes can be compared to aid volumes in other sectors. Total global climate finance flows were approximately USD $364 billion in 2011 (Buchner et al., 2012) and $359 billion in 2012. However the vast majority of these flows - 76%, or $275 billion - was finance generated and spent within a country’s own borders (domestic finance) (Buchner et al., 2013). The “Fast-Start Finance” period from 2010-2012 saw $35 billion in new aid mobilized for climate finance in developing countries. Developed countries have recently committed to mobilize an additional $100 billion per year by 2020.
The following brief details the various policies surrounding donor agency salary supplementation (or top-up) to individuals employed in project countries. The goal of this research was to understand the landscape of different agency’s policies regarding salary top-ups for government experts and scientists advising on donor projects. However, information on this specific scenario was limited. The brief covers a range of scenarios in which donor agencies may pay salary top-ups to local, in-country individuals and aims to draw out a number of hypothesized advantages and disadvantages associated with the practice of donor salary supplementation.
Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) is a development framework which focuses on the capacities, skills and social resources of people and their communities, rather than initially focusing on the needs, deficiencies, constraints and problems of a community.1 This document contains three sections. The first section summarizes several papers which either (1) apply ABCD or similar asset-focused development frameworks in a rural/agricultural context and to development in Sub-Saharan Africa, or (2) provide general guidance on the implementation of ABCD approaches to development. The second section provides more detail on how Oxfam and the Coady International Institute have applied ABCD in Ethiopian communities.
Finally, in order to provide an example of how ABCD might be applied to a Foundation project, the third section briefly notes how an ABCD strategy might differ from the Foundation’s proposed constraints-based Bihar strategy.
How development organizations, NGOs, and governments can best allocate scarce resources to those in need has long been debated. As opposed to universal allocation of resources, a more targeted approach attempts to minimize program costs while maximizing benefits among those with the greatest need or market opportunity. Drawing on literature from several sectors,this brief presents two categories of beneficiary targeting in the development context: administrative targeting and self-targeting. The paper includes a brief overview of targeting and segmentation in development, a summary of reasons for targeting, theoretical and practical critiques of targeting, and a discussion of targeting methods in research and practice, including examples from the literature. Implementation examples cited in this body of research include food aid program targeting by self-reported household income in Egypt; fertilizer use in low-potential zones of Uganda; and seven strategic initiatives to improve drought and disease resistance in crops in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. We find that beneficiary segmentation has several theoretical advantages. Improved targeting may increase the efficiency and equity of organizational and program efforts and help better match interventions to recipient preferences, increasing the likelihood of adoption and participation. Development organizations may improve the focus of both their strategic priorities and budgets through customized targeting methods. However, concerns exist regarding the accuracy, reliability, cost, and time-constraints of targeting methodologies. Creating valid and reliable target groups with implementation potential remains a significant challenge.
How development organizations, NGOs, and governments can best allocate scarce resources to those in need has long been debated. As opposed to universal allocation of resources, a more targeted approach attempts to minimize program costs while maximizing benefits among those with the greatest need or market opportunity. Many international development organizations strategically target clients based on geographic location (e.g., community, region, country) or socio-economic indicators, such as the World Bank’s “$1 a day” poverty line. Drawing on literature from several sectors, this brief presents additional methods of beneficiary targeting that international development organizations might consider. We find that beneficiary targeting/segmentation has the potential to make organizational and program efforts more equitable and efficient. With limited resources, smaller organizations have tended to use single robust indicators or simple heuristics, whereas agribusinesses and private sector firms have used more data-intensive marketing tools to position their products. Technological innovation and better access to data have made targeting more prevalent and potentially more affordable in agricultural development. However, creating valid and reliable target segments remains the most significant challenge.
On July 10, 2009 at the Italy G8 summit, attendees issued a joint statement pledging to contribute $20 billion towards agricultural development and food security in the developing world over the next three years. This research brief notes the status of the contributions made to the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative and whether any of the $20 billion will be allocated to agricultural research. We conclude that no declarations have been made as of September 2009 on how much of the $20 billion will be allocated to agricultural research, and which types of research will be funded by the initiative.
This report provides a general overview of trends in public and private agricultural research and development (R&D) funding and expenditures in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The request is divided into two sections, covering public funding and private funding. Within each section, relevant data is presented on historical funding patterns, the types of research conducted, and which countries within SSA are financing R&D at the highest level. We find that the majority of growth in African public agricultural research funding took place in the 1960s, when real public spending on agricultural research increased 6% a year. From 1971 to 2000 annual growth averaged 1.4% a year. Public financing of agricultural R&D experienced a moderate shift in the 1990s from bilateral and multilateral donor funding to domestic government financing. The shift varied by country, but donor funding dropped for all SSA countries an average of 10%. Private research and development funding is heavily concentrated in developed countries with the United States and Japan the two biggest spenders. Within SSA, private R&D expenditures comprise 2% of all R&D spending. The main private actors in SSA are companies based in South Africa and Nigeria. The private sector is focused on research areas that involve marketable inputs, such as chemicals, seeds, and machines/
Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are generally defined as geographically delimited areas administered by a single body, offering certain incentives (duty-free importing and streamlined customs procedures, for instance) to businesses that physically locate within the zone. This literature review provides a baseline analysis of SEZs and their potential impacts on smallholder farmers in SSA. Criticism on SEZs is distinctly divided between those who criticize on social or environmental grounds versus those who question the economic impact of SEZs. SEZs are often criticized based on perceived negative socio-economic impacts—particularly their negative impact on women, labor, and working conditions. This review includes several country-specific studies that find evidence that SEZs actually have higher environmental standards and higher worker satisfaction than outside the SEZ. Most responses to criticisms do note, however, that the case studies’ results are not necessarily generalizable to SEZs throughout the world. The literature review includes key elements of successes and failures pulled from the case studies of SEZs in SSA. Though the evidence is insufficient to conclusively determine if smallholder farmers receive direct benefits from SEZs and their associated agroindustrial contracts, this review finds that resources provided to farmers (credit at rates lower than bank rates, technical or managerial assistance, pesticides, seeds, and fertilizer on credit) tend to be concentrated among larger farmers. The report concludes with a note on donor involvement as well as recommendations for further research.