Year Published
- 2008 (0)
- 2009 (0)
- (-) Remove 2010 filter 2010
- 2011 (0)
- 2012 (0)
- (-) Remove 2013 filter 2013
- 2014 (0)
- 2015 (0)
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
- 2017 (2) Apply 2017 filter
- 2018 (1) Apply 2018 filter
- 2019 (0)
- 2020 (0)
- 2021 (0)
Research Topics
Populations
- Countries/Governments (0)
- Rural Populations (0)
- Smallholder Farmers (1) Apply Smallholder Farmers filter
- Women (0)
Types of Research
- Data Analysis (0)
- (-) Remove Literature Review filter Literature Review
- Portfolio Review (0)
- Research Brief (0)
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- (-) Remove Global filter Global
- (-) Remove South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter South Asia Region and Selected Countries
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (2) Apply Sub-Saharan Africa filter
- (-) Remove West Africa Region and Selected Countries filter West Africa Region and Selected Countries
Dataset
- ASTI (1) Apply ASTI filter
- FAOSTAT (1) Apply FAOSTAT filter
- Farmer First (0)
- LSMS & LSMS-ISA (0)
- Other Datasets (0)
Current search
- (-) Remove Household Well-Being & Equity filter Household Well-Being & Equity
- (-) Remove 2010 filter 2010
- (-) Remove South Asia Region and Selected Countries filter South Asia Region and Selected Countries
- (-) Remove 2016 filter 2016
- (-) Remove 2013 filter 2013
- (-) Remove West Africa Region and Selected Countries filter West Africa Region and Selected Countries
- (-) Remove Research & Development filter Research & Development
- (-) Remove Labor & Time Use filter Labor & Time Use
- (-) Remove Global filter Global
- (-) Remove Literature Review filter Literature Review
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.
In recent years, product supply chains for agricultural goods have become increasingly globalized. As a result, greater numbers of smallholder farmers in South Asia (SA) and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) participate in global supply chains, many of them through contract farming (CF). CF is an arrangement between a farmer and a processing or marketing firm for the production and supply of agricultural products, often at predetermined prices. This literature review finds empirical evidence that demonstrates that the economic and social benefits of CF for smallholder farmers are mixed. A number of studies suggest that CF may improve farmer productivity, reduce production risk and transaction costs, and increase farmer incomes. However, critics caution that CF may undermine farmers’ relative bargaining power and increase health, environmental, and financial risk through exposure to monopsonistic markets, weak contract environments, and unfamiliar agricultural technologies. There is consensus across the literature that CF has the best outcomes for farmers when farmers have more bargaining power to negotiate the terms of the contract. In reviewing the literature on CF, we find a number of challenges to comparing studies and evaluating outcomes across contracts. This literature review summarizes empirical findings and analyses regarding contract models and best practices to increase farmers’ bargaining power and decrease contract default.