Comparative Science, Technology, and Innovation Systems in Developing-Country Agriculture: What Can We Measure and What Can We Not?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Comparative Science, Technology, and Innovation Systems in Developing-Country Agriculture: What Can We Measure and What Can We Not?

on

  • 544 views

Metrics for Agricultural Transformation: Update on Recent and Ongoing Developments

Metrics for Agricultural Transformation: Update on Recent and Ongoing Developments
April 19, 2013
Washington, DC

Statistics

Views

Total Views
544
Views on SlideShare
544
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Comparative Science, Technology, and Innovation Systems in Developing-Country Agriculture: What Can We Measure and What Can We Not? Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Comparative Science, Technology, andInnovation SystemsinDeveloping-Country AgricultureWhat Can We Measure and What Can We Not?David J SpielmanInternational Food Policy Research InstituteWashington, DCApril 19, 2013
  • 2. Metrics and measurements• Technical & economic indicators• Innovation system indicators• Measurement issues
  • 3. Technical & economic indicatorsInputs• Public investment in agricultural R&D– Pardey & Roseboom (1989); Pardey & Beintema (2000); Beintema et al. (2012)Outputs• New varieties, practices, technologies, systems• Publications, patents, and variety registrationsOutcomes• Changes in cereal, livestock yields; natural resource stocks• Changes in agricultural total factor productivity change (Coelli & Rao 2003)Impacts• Rates of returns to agricultural R&D– Alston, Norton, & Pardey (1995); Alston et al. (2000)• Contribution of R&D to productivity growth– Evenson & Gollin (2003); Evenson & Rosegrant (2003)• Contribution of R&D to poverty reduction– Fan, Hazell & Thorat (2000); Hazell & Haddad (2001); Adato, Meinzen-Dick & Suseela (2007)
  • 4. Input indicators:Public expenditure on agricultural R&D01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,0001981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008Constant(2005)US$mPPPSub-Saharan Africa (45)ChinaIndiaAsia & Pacific (26)BrazilLatin America & Caribbean (28)West Asia & North Africa (13)Source: Beintema & Stads (2012); ASTI (2012)
  • 5. Output indicators:R&D on improved nutritional/quality traitsIn regulatoryIn research articlesSource: Graff, Zilberman, & Bennett (2010)In initial field trialsIn advanced field trials
  • 6. Output indicators:Contributions of genetic improvement to yield growth51%83%56%23%66%88%69%28%0%20%40%60%80%100%Latin America Asia Middle East/NorthAfricaSub-Saharan AfricaShare of area to modern varieties (1998)Total genetic improvement contribution to yield growth (1965-1998, % per year)Sources: Renkow & Byerlee (2010); Evenson & Gollin (2003)
  • 7. Outcome indicators:Agricultural TFP index for sub-Saharan Africa (1961=100)Source: Fuglie & Rada (2012)
  • 8. Agricultural innovation systemAgroprocessorsExportersProducerorganizationsInput suppliersCredit agenciesLand agenciesGovernment policy and regulatory frameworkInformal institutions, practices, behaviors, and attitudesConsumersStandards agenciesFarmersNational extension andbusiness developmentservicesNationalagriculturalresearch systemNational education andtraining organizationsFarmers &entrepreneursBridging and coordinationorganizationsScience, technology, and innovation systemsSource: World Bank (2012)
  • 9. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7BangladeshBurkina FasoSenegalGhanaKenyaIndiaChinaSouth AfricaThailandBrazilUnited StatesFinlandIndex (1-7)Source: World Economic Forum (2013)Global competitiveness index
  • 10. Knowledge economy indexSource: World Bank (2012)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10FinlandUnited StatesBrazilThailandSouth AfricaChinaIndiaKenyaGhanaSenegalBurkina FasoBangladeshIndex score (1−10)ICT Education Innovation Economic Incentive Regime
  • 11. BECZDKDEEEHRESFRIEITCYELLTLUHU MTNL ATPLPTSISKFISEUKBGROTRISNOUSJPCHLV0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0SummaryInnovationIndex(0−1)Average growth rate of SIIDotted lines show EU25 mean performance.Innovation LeadersCatching-upFollowersTrailingEuropean innovation scoreboardSource: Hollanders and Arundel 2004; CEC (2006); Hollanders, pers. comm.
  • 12. • Epistemological debate– Can quantitative measures adequately explain a system that is highlycomplex, context-specific, and endogenous?• Methodological debate– How robust is the selection, construction, and interpretation ofindicators?• Policy debate– Can measurements of innovation influence policy change?Challenges inmeasuring science, technology, and innovation
  • 13. Thank you