IMPACT ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION PAPER No.

31

IMPACTS OF IFPRI’S “PRIORITIES FOR

PRO-POOR PUBLIC INVESTMENT”
GLOBAL RESEARCH PROGRAM

Mitch Renkow

October 2010

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE www.ifpri.org

2033 K Street, NW • Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA
T 1-202-862-5600 • F 1-202-467-4439 • E ifpri@cgiar.org • Skype: ifprihome office
Supported by the CGIAR

Impact Assessment Discussion Papers are externally peer reviewed. They are to stimulate discussion and critical comments. It
is expected that most Discussion Papers will eventually be published in some other forms, and that their content may also be
revised in the process.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) was established in 1975. IFPRI
is one of 15 agricultural research centers that receive principal funding from
governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations, most of
which are members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR).

FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTNERS

IFPRI’s research, capacity strengthening, and communications work is made possible by
its financial contributors and partners. IFPRI receives its principal funding from
governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations, most of
which are members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR). IFPRI gratefully acknowledges the generous unrestricted funding from
Australia, Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United
States, and World Bank.

AUTHORS
Mitch Renkow, North Carolina State University
Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics
Email: renkow@ncsu.edu

Published by
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
2033 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA
Tel.: +1-202-862-5600
Fax: +1-202-467-4439
Email: ifpri@cgiar.org

www.ifpri.org

Copyright 2010 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. Sections of this material may
be reproduced for personal and not-for-profit use without the express written permission of but with
acknowledgment to IFPRI. To reproduce the material contained herein for profit or commercial use requires
express written permission. To obtain permission, contact the Communications Division at ifpri-
copyright@cgiar.org.
 Contents

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ vii

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 2

3. PROJECT OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES ......................................................................................... 9

4. PERCEPTIONS OF RESEARCH EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................... 22

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 25

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 27

ANNEX A: CONTACTS ......................................................................................................................... 31

ANNEX B: GRP-3 PUBLICATIONS 1997–2010 ................................................................................. 33

ANNEX C: CITATIONS OF GRP-3 PUBLICATIONS ...................................................................... 47

APPENDIX: IFPRI’S IMPACT (VIA PMGSY) ON RURAL POVERTY AND

AGRICULTURAL GDP .................................................................................................. 55

iii
 List of Tables

TABLE 1. CHRONOLOGY OF IFPRI ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF CAADP ......................................................7

TABLE 2. GRP-3 PUBLICATIONS BY TYPE AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, 1997–2009 ............................ 10

TABLE 3. GRP-3 CITATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 10

TABLE 4. EXPENDITURES ON RURAL ROADS UNDER THE PMGSY, 2005–09 ............................................ 13

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED IMPACT OF IFPRI RESEARCH ON POVERTY AND AGRICULTURAL GDP

(VIA PMGSY), 2005–09 ........................................................................................................................... 14

TABLE 6. CHINESE PUBLIC SPENDING ON AGRICULTURAL R&D, IRRIGATION, AND RURAL

EDUCATION, 1978–2007 (MILLION YUAN) ....................................................................................... 17

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. EFFECTS OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ON RURAL POVERTY .........................................4

v
 ABSTRACT

This report assesses the impact of the International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI)
Global Research Program on Priorities for Public Investment in Agriculture and Rural Areas (“GRP-3”).
Initiated in 1998, the stated objectives of the research program were (1) to increase public investment for
rural areas and the agricultural sector given that there is an underspending in the sector and (2) to better
target and improve efficiency of public resources to achieve these growth and poverty reduction goals, as
well as other development goals.

GRP-3 evolved out of research on the impacts of alternative types of public spending on income
and poverty outcomes in India and China that was conducted by staff of IFPRI’s Environment and
Production Technology Division (later the Development Strategy and Governance Division). Those
studies indicated that public investments in infrastructure—in particular, investments in roads,
agricultural research and development (R&D), and education—yielded sizeable marginal benefits in
terms of poverty alleviation and income generation in rural areas. This line of research was later expanded
to encompass a number of countries in Africa and, to a lesser extent, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
A second major (and ongoing) thrust of the program is to support African governments in establishing
public investment priorities and strategies for promoting rural economic growth and poverty alleviation.
Major activities undertaken include providing analytical and institutional support to the Comprehensive
Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and evaluations of individual publicly-funded
programs in several African countries.

GRP-3 has generated an impressive array of published outputs. The great bulk of these emerged
from the research conducted in India and China. A much smaller number of published outputs have been
generated by the (more recently conducted) research in Africa; however, a substantial number of papers,
book manuscripts, and monographs are in various stages of the publication process. Other important
program outputs include a variety of public expenditure databases suitable for assessing the nature and
effects of individual countries’ spending priorities.

GRP-3 research has had substantial influence on public expenditure priorities in India and China.
Most notably, published research in India played a key role in the institution of the Rural Roads Program
that directed huge sums toward construction of roads connecting large numbers of previously unserved
villages. Quantitative assessment of the positive impacts from these road investments indicates that IFPRI
research can reasonably take substantial credit for lifting tens of thousands of individuals out of poverty
and increasing agricultural GDP by billions of rupees. Additionally, in both China and India, GRP-3
research has influenced recent policy conversations that have led to increased spending on agricultural
R&D and education. Overall, the program has substantially met its stated objectives in Asia.

GRP-3 research in Africa has yet to fully meet the program’s objectives, in large part because the
policymaking process in the countries where IFPRI has been active are still not far enough advanced for
the research outputs to have translated into actual policies. Still, some important outcomes have emerged:

• The work IFPRI has conducted in support of CAADP has successfully shepherded 19 countries
through the Compact process. However, the Compacts are intermediate products; it remains to be
seen the extent to which governments follow through on the plans contained within them.

vii
• IFPRI’s compilations of disparate public expenditure data in a large number of countries
represent a useful local public good for use by research and practitioner communities outside of
IFPRI. In addition, IFPRI’s role in guiding the formation and operation of a regional strategic
assessment and knowledge support system (ReSAKSS) has boosted, if not created, institutional
capacity for future monitoring and evaluation activities.

• Research on the impact of public investments in the agricultural sector has been useful to the
donor community by providing empirical backstopping for ongoing policy dialogues with
governments. However, the difficult—and often contentious—political environment in which
those dialogues occur has meant that policy outcomes are still materializing (and far from
certain).

viii
 1. INTRODUCTION

The International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI) Global Research Program on Priorities for
Public Investment in Agriculture and Rural Areas (GRP-3) was initiated in 1998 to investigate how, and
to what extent, public investments produce positive development outcomes. The program evolved out of
research on the impacts of alternative types of public spending on income and poverty outcomes in India
and China that was conducted by staff of IFPRI’s Environment and Production Technology Division
(later the Development Strategy and Governance Division). Those studies indicated that public
investments in infrastructure—in particular, investments in roads, agricultural R&D, and education—
yielded sizeable marginal benefits in terms of poverty alleviation and income generation in rural areas.
This line of research was later expanded to encompass a number of countries in Africa and, to a lesser
extent, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

This study evaluates the outcomes and impacts of the GRP-3 research program. This assessment
involved meeting with principal investigators and others at IFPRI headquarters, reviewing written outputs
of the research, extensive email exchanges and telephone conversations with individuals having
knowledge of the various research activities under the aegis of GRP-3, and a field visit to one of the main
countries in which this work was undertaken (India). Correspondence and field interviews concentrated
on the perceptions of individuals directly or indirectly involved with the planning, implementation, and
follow-up of the research. These included IFPRI staff, current and former government officials,
academics, and members of the international donor community (especially at the World Bank) having
varying degrees of familiarity with GRP-3 activities.

The report is laid out as follows: The following section provides an overview of the various
GRP-3 research activities that have been conducted. Section 3 summarizes the research outputs and
outcomes within a number of countries in Asia and Africa, as well as those supporting the Comprehensive
Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). This discussion includes a quantitative analysis of
impact on poverty alleviation and agricultural GDP stemming from the work conducted in India.
Section 4 summarizes insights gleaned from correspondence as to respondents’ perceptions of the
program’s overall effectiveness. The report concludes with a summary of the main findings and the extent
to which the GRP-3 research program achieved its stated objectives. Annexes to the report provide a list
of individuals contacted, a bibliography of GRP-3 publications, and compilations of citations from
various sources for project outputs.

1
 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND

Project Objectives
IFPRI’s Global Research Program on Priorities for Public Investment in Agriculture and Rural Areas
(GRP-3 in IFPRI’s organizational nomenclature) was initiated in 1998. At that time, there was growing
concern that enthusiasm for market-led approaches to development priority setting had resulted in a de-
emphasis of public investments in key public goods necessary for sustainable rural development—i.e.,
that the pendulum might have swung a bit too far away from public spending as a key component of
national development strategies. This sentiment is reflected in language contained in IFPRI’s Third
External Review (TAC Secretariat 1998) describing the need for GRP-3 research:

During the last decade, developing countries have witnessed some fundamental
structural changes, driven by market-led development, that have affected the allocation
of public resources to agriculture and rural development. As a result, governments’
hitherto pervasive interventions have been reduced and the scope of the private sector in
economic activities has expanded. However, the reduction in public expenditures has
resulted in a shrinking allocation to agricultural research, irrigation and water control,
rural infrastructure, and agricultural credit.

GRP-3 was thus born out of a perceived need for an understanding of how national and local
governments might best increase their allocation to agricultural and rural development spending while
maintaining a commitment to market-led development. The program’s overall objectives are explicitly
stated in the program’s planning document (IFPRI 2007a):

The overall objective of the program is to research policy options to (1) increase public
investment for rural areas and agricultural sector given that there is an under-spending
in the sector, and (2) better target and improve efficiency of public resources to achieve
these growth and poverty reduction goals, as well as other development goals.

Priority research issues associated with these objectives are summarized in a brochure describing the
program (IFPRI 2007b). These include

(1) developing monitoring and evaluation systems for assessing public spending decisions;
(2) understanding why changes occur in the level and composition of public spending;
(3) analyzing the effects of different types of public expenditures on income growth and poverty
outcomes across a range of spatial and socioeconomic dimensions;
(4) exploring options for financing public investments for achieving development goals; and
(5) investigating the influence of governance and political economy forces on provision of public
goods and services.

Research on the Impact of Alternative Public Investments

IFPRI’s interest in the impacts of alternative public investment strategies flows naturally from its policy
research mandate. Governments regularly decide how to spend huge amounts of money to pursue
multiple rural development goals. These expenditures span a broad array of investments (in education,
infrastructure, R&D, and the like) and socioeconomic programs (such as transfers, subsidies, social safety
nets). Understanding which of those investments or programs yields the largest economic and social
payoffs affords policymakers the best chance of accomplishing goals such as alleviating poverty or

2
promoting sustained income growth. It also provides donors and other external policy advisors with
valuable information with which to inform their activities.

The intellectual core of the GRP-3 research is found in a set of papers published by Peter Hazell,
Shenggen Fan, and Xiaobo Zhang (with various co-authors) beginning in the late 1990s. These papers
laid out a structural model that links government expenditure on various services (extension, education,
health) and different types of infrastructure (roads, agricultural R&D, irrigation, power) to sectoral
outcomes (agricultural profitability, nonagricultural employment, agricultural wages), thence to poverty
outcomes.

Figure 1 reproduces a schematic diagram of the various interconnections within the model as it
was applied in India (Fan, Hazell, and Thorat 1999). 1 The model considers multiple channels through
which government expenditures affect rural poverty: directly via improvements in agricultural
productivity and profitability; and indirectly via changes in prices (especially for food), changes in
agricultural wages, and changes in employment and income earning opportunities—both agricultural and
nonagricultural. The emphasis on “indirect” impacts via income and employment growth is important
insofar as sustained economic growth provides the best approach to permanent improvements to the well-
being of rural dwellers.

The set of interactions depicted in Figure 1 is complex; but attention to the multiplicity of
channels through which public investment affects income growth and poverty outcomes was (and is)
essential for adequately addressing the research questions at the heart of the GRP-3 research agenda.
Empirical implementation of the model was an ambitious task as well, requiring the assembly of large
amounts of cross-sectional time series data on public spending. It was a novel endeavor, too: while a
considerable amount of published empirical research on impacts of public infrastructure investment in the
OECD countries had been conducted during the 1980s and 1990s (Gramlich 1994), there really was no
precedent in a developing-country setting for an analysis of the impacts of public expenditure on
economic performance this comprehensive.

National-level econometric analyses were undertaken in India and China, using state-level panel
data (Fan, Hazell, and Thorat 1999; Fan, Zhang, and Zhang 2002). Both analyses demonstrated the
positive impact of a range of government expenditures. Most importantly, the analyses provided estimates
of the marginal impact on agricultural productivity and poverty alleviation of various technology,
infrastructure, and social investments. This facilitated ranking different types of government expenditure
on the basis of how well they succeeded in achieving desired development outcomes. While the actual
ordering differed slightly across the two countries, three forms of investments consistently dominated:
roads, education, and agricultural R&D.

Subsequent research employed a similar methodological approach to analyze links between

public spending and economic performance in Uganda (Fan, Zhang, and Rao 2004), Tanzania (Fan,
Nyange, and Rao 2005), Thailand (Fan, Jitsuchon, and Methakunnavut 2004), and Egypt (Fan et al.
2006). The analyses for Africa were constrained by a lack of aggregate statistical data, instead relying to a
greater extent on household survey data.

Follow-up research in India used a similar methodology but expanded the analysis to consider
subsidies in addition to public expenditures on physical capital items (Fan, Gulati, and Thorat 2007;
2008). That research also examined impacts of public spending on a decade-by-decade basis. Subsidies
were found to have played an important role in promoting adoption of productivity-enhancing

1
The model for China was quite similar, with some modest differences in the set of variables – presumably due to differences in
data availability

3
Figure 1. Effects of government expenditures on rural poverty

Source: Fan, Hazell, and Thorat (1999).

4
technologies (especially among small farmers); however, the positive role of subsidies in promoting
agricultural productivity growth and poverty reduction were also found to have largely disappeared over
time. The results of this later work also reinforced the earlier findings of the positive impacts attributable
to government spending on roads, education, and agricultural R&D.

Research Support to CAADP

The research efforts in India and China represent one of the two main thrusts of the GRP-3 program. The
other was oriented toward supporting African governments in establishing public investment priorities
and strategies for promoting rural economic growth and poverty alleviation. Conceptually, the issues
facing African governments were much the same as those faced in Asia. However, several factors dictated
a somewhat different approach to pursuing the GRP-3 agenda.

First, national research capacity was (and continues to be) relatively weaker. Thus, a substantial
effort was required to enhance the ability of African governments to generate and process the information
needed to guide efficient public spending decisions. Second, demand for public investment research in
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) came from a large number of countries, many of them relatively small in size.
This provided a rationale for a more regional approach to take advantage of economies of scope in
research design and implementation. Last, but by no means least, a distinct lack of data constrained the
ability of researchers to pursue meaningful statistical analysis of public spending decisions and their
impacts on economic performance. Thus, a real need existed for developing the knowledge base required
to even begin addressing these issues.

A substantial amount of GRP-3 activity in Africa is tied to the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD). Constituted by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 2001, NEPAD’s
mission is to develop an integrated socioeconomic framework for eradicating poverty, promoting
sustainable growth and development, and more fully integrating African countries within a globalizing
world economy (NEPAD 2001). This partnership developed a strategy for agricultural and rural
development—the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)—that was
formally endorsed by African Ministers of Agriculture in 2002. Through CAADP, African governments
committed themselves to increasing public investment in agriculture to 10 percent of their national
budgets (from levels that were typically much lower) and raising agricultural productivity growth to at
least 6 percent per year by 2015.

In 2003 IFPRI was contracted to guide CAADP implementation. From the outset, a priority was
placed on adherence to a set of principles relating to good governance—democracy, transparency,
accountability, integrity, respect for human rights, and promotion of the rule of law. IFPRI’s charge was
to facilitate and take part in a set of strategic functions that included (a) collecting, managing, and sharing
of information; (b) monitoring and evaluating impacts of specific programs and public investments; (c)
building partnerships among countries through the sharing of data and knowledge; and (d) promoting and
supporting regional economic communities like the Economic Community Of West African States
(ECOWAS) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA).

CAADP-based research is organized into four thematic areas (“pillars”): (a) sustainable land and
water management; (b) rural infrastructure and market access; (c) food production and marketing; and (d)
improving national agricultural research systems. These research efforts are focused on providing the key
knowledge inputs for formulation of national agricultural strategies (“Compacts”) for achieving NEPAD
production and investment targets. Those strategies are debated and formalized in national summits
(“Roundtables”) for which the goals are to both define a national plan and align that plan with those of
neighboring countries. This latter supranational element is explicitly built into the process to take
advantage of potential synergies and economies of scope in research and priority setting.

5
 Table 1 provides a chronology of IFPRI activities in support of CAADP. The first few years were
taken up with managing the large organizational tasks associated with the strategy planning process.
These involved substantial consultations with governments, regional institutional entities (the Regional
Economic Communities), and donors, as well as the preparation of technical reports.

A substantial emphasis was placed on the development of an integrated regional strategic

assessment and knowledge support system (ReSAKSS) aimed at establishing the information
infrastructure needed to inform the individual countries’ agricultural compacts. ReSAKSS housed a large
amount of research on agricultural sector trends and performance within individual country “nodes.” Five
CGIAR centers (IFPRI, IITA, ILRI, IWMI, and ICRISAT) are part of this process, with IFPRI assuming
overall project leadership. At the country level, ReSAKSS nodes are charged with providing technical
backstopping for the analyses in the run-up to CAADP Roundtables.

The Roundtable process included (a) a stock-taking exercise assessing agricultural-sector

performance; (b) assessment of the capability of individual countries to meet CAADP growth and
budgetary targets; and (c) development of strategies to meet those targets (Omilola 2009). Here, too,
IFPRI’s role included both logistical support of the process and direct involvement in conducting the
research underpinning it. The first CAADP Roundtable took place in Rwanda in March of 2007. In the
past year, 19 countries have finalized their CAADP Compacts; 2 nineteen other countries are at various
stages of the process leading up to national Roundtables (or, in the case of Kenya, have held a Roundtable
but not yet signed a Compact). Given this timing, the point at which impacts of policies emerging from
national compacts become visible on the ground remains on the horizon.

Finally, a primary aspect of the ReSAKSS initiative has been to monitor and assess sector
performance within specific countries against the CAADP goals. The work under this activity involves
compilation of annual trends and outlook reports, both at the country and regional levels; operation of a
website wherein large amounts of data and reports are made available for stakeholders at the country,
regional, and continental levels; and development of a framework for monitoring and evaluation (M&E).
The M&E framework that has been adopted (a) identifies key indicators to track public expenditures; (b)
identifies data requirements, data sources, and analytical methods for computing those indicators; and (c)
lays out a plan for data analysis and subsequent reporting of findings (Benin et al. 2010).

Other Research in Africa and Asia

A number of other research activities conducted by IFPRI staff in Africa fall under the aegis of GRP-3.
Some of these activities were associated with IFPRI support of individual countries’ strategy support
programs. In Ethiopia, the impacts of different types of public spending on rural household welfare were
compared using a more reduced-form approach than that pursued in the India and China work referenced
previously (Mogues, Ayele, and Paulos 2008). A series of papers used a common computable general
equilibrium (CGE) framework—developed as part of a different IFPRI research program (GRP-32)—to
assess the potential to achieve CAADP agricultural growth targets in Rwanda, Mozambique, Malawi,
Uganda, Zambia, and Ghana (Diao, Benin, and Fan 2010).

2
As of this writing, the countries that have established CAADP Compacts include Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, The
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, and
Uganda. A regional Compact has been established for ECOWAS as well.

6
Table 1. Chronology of IFPRI activities in support of CAADP

Timing Activity

2002 African Ministers of Agriculture endorse NEPAD strategy for CAADP.

NEPAD strategy formally launched; IFPRI contracted to guide CAADP

2003–04
implementation.

IFPRI posts senior staff member at NEPAD Secretariat as advisor to the CAADP
Late 2004 team, assists Secretariat in drafting a “roadmap” document laying out an action plan
for implementing CAADP.

Regional Economic Communities and development agencies meet to iron out details
of implementation of CAADP Roundtables to define country-level investment
October 2004
programs. These include decisions on participants, timing, and procedures for
governance, coordination, dialogue, and review.

January–May Series of regional implementation meetings culminates in a High Level Summit and
2005 Regional Economic Community (REC)–Development Partner Retreat.

NEPAD, with IFPRI, supports drafts of detailed implementation document, taking

2005 into account the recommendations from consultations with RECs and member
countries.

NEPAD Secretariat and IFPRI facilitate direct discussions with COMESA,

2006 ECOWAS, and donors to iron out funding details. IFPRI’s involvement as technical
backstop and managerial lead formalized.

January 2007 Phase I of CAADP is launched.

Initial disbursement of resources to RECs. First country Roundtable held in Rwanda

2007 in March, followed by more than a dozen more the same year. Lessons from Rwanda
Roundtable used by IFPRI to codify the preparation process.

Eighteen countries complete the CAADP Roundtable process and sign their
2007–09 compacts; ECOWAS signs its regional compact. IFPRI provides technical support,
largely via ReSAKSS, as well as logistical support.

Source: Omilola (2009).

7
 Other projects that will be examined here include evaluations of individual publicly-funded
programs that were commissioned by the World Bank in Nigeria, Ghana, and Uganda. This work was
distinct from, but fed into, on-going support to CAADP. As will be discussed in Section 3, all of these
evaluations have taken place in a fractious policy environment. To varying degrees, they have had some
influence on policy through interactions with members of the government and by providing research-
based empirical backstopping for World Bank policy advice.

In Nigeria, IFPRI was contracted by the World Bank to conduct the Nigerian Agriculture Public
Expenditure Review. The primary findings of this work were that (a) agriculture’s share of the overall
budget was quite small (only about 2 percent) and (b) a huge fraction of the agriculture ministry’s
budget—in excess of 40 percent—was spent on fertilizer subsidies (and an additional large amount went
to price supports for staple foods). IFPRI also was contracted to lead the evaluation of Nigeria’s Fadama
program for rural poverty alleviation. That study, which was cited in the 2008 World Development
Report and formed the basis of an award-winning World Bank publication, demonstrated the positive
contributions to the welfare of rural households stemming from Fadama’s provision of extension services,
rural road infrastructure, and local institutional capacity building.

In Ghana, IFPRI was contracted to review government fertilizer subsidy policy. That research
uncovered large discrepancies between stated policy goals and actual implementation—most notably in
the form of limited ability to participate in the program by the majority of Ghanaian fertilizer retailers.
The work has been controversial, as it brought to light elements of mismanagement in the system.

In Uganda, IFPRI was contracted in 2004 to evaluate the impacts of the National Agricultural
Advisory Program (NAADS). A baseline survey was conducted in 2004, and a follow-up survey was
conducted in 2007. Analysis of the data indicated that NAADS has succeeded in promoting adoption of
certain improved crop and livestock technologies but, curiously, had no significant impact on yields. The
study identified a number of factors constraining smallholders. As with the Ghana work, the NAADS
research took place in a highly charged political environment.

Finally, a number of other GRP-3 research activities have examined growth and poverty
reduction impacts of alternative public investment strategies in specific countries in Asia (Nepal,
Thailand, Vietnam), in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rwanda, Sudan, and Tanzania), and in West Asia and North
Africa (Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen). Due to limited time and resources, these
activities were not evaluated as part of this review.

8
 3. PROJECT OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

This section summarizes the outputs and outcomes of the GRP-3 program. Outputs here refer to specific
products emerging from the various research and support activities of IFPRI staff, their collaborating
partners from national agricultural research systems, and the donor community. Within the context of
policy research, outputs include publications, training, conferences, media releases, and capacity building
(CGIAR Science Council 2006). Outcomes refer to specific uses or activities to which outputs are
credibly attached. Within the context of policy research generally—and GRP-3 research specifically—the
primary outcomes of interest are (a) design and implementation of policies or government programs that
can be attributed to the research; (b) tangible changes in the organization of the policymaking process that
reflect IFPRI’s capacity-building efforts; and (c) spillovers of the knowledge that is generated, most
notably in the form of global public goods consumed by individuals involved elsewhere in policymaking
and/or policy research.

The path from outputs to outcomes involves dissemination and uptake of research results
(CGIAR Science Council 2008). A necessary condition for uptake of the research is that it is deemed
credible and relevant by those in a position to transform ideas into actions. But there is also an issue of
influence on the part of the organization and/or individuals doing the research. To better gain a sense of
IFPRI’s influence, I communicated by email and telephone with a variety of individuals having
knowledge of IFPRI’s research and the policy environment into which research outputs might have
influence. 3 The perceptions and insights provided by these respondents are central to the assessment in
this section. Annex A provides a list of individuals contacted.

Outputs
Table 2 summarizes the publications that have emerged from various strands of the GRP-3 program
between 1997 and 2010. A total of 194 peer-reviewed publications were produced over this time frame.
These include 12 books, 48 refereed journal articles, 4 IFPRI Research Reports, 36 book chapters
(including chapters in Proceedings volumes), and 91 other papers (primarily IFPRI working papers).
Annex B provides the entire GRP-3 bibliography.

Clearly, GRP-3 research has generated an impressive array of published outputs. Particularly
striking is the large number of articles that emerged from the efforts in China and India. Equally striking
is the much smaller number of publications—most of which (80 percent) currently exist as working
papers—that have emerged from GRP-3 work in Africa. This is no doubt explained, in part, by the fact
that much of the Asian work took place considerably longer ago, and thus has had a longer germination
period. 4 Evidence to this effect lies in the fact that 10 future publications, all but two originating in
research conducted in Africa, are currently at some point in the review process for refereed journals or
IFPRI Research Reports. Publications currently under review are listed at the end of Annex B.

Table 3 presents citation counts for GRP-3 research taken from different sources. Many of the
journal articles have been moderately well cited by other published work, with total citations reported by
the Web of Science numbering 173 as of March 2010. All of those citations come from the Asian work.

3
IFPRI staff were very helpful both in identifying useful contacts and in describing key outcomes.
4
It is also the case that a large fraction of the outputs from Africa—especially research associated with CAADP in support of
PRSPs and country SSPs—are best characterized as staff papers written first and foremost for consumption of policymakers.
These tend to fare more poorly in scholarly journals’ review processes than do more academically oriented research papers.

9
Table 2. GRP-3 publications by type and geographic location, 1997–2009

IFPRI
Journal Research Book
a b c d
Location Total Books Articles Reports Chapters Other
China 84.5 8.5 28 2 21.5 24.5
India 26.5 0.5 11 1 3.5 10.5
Sub-Saharan Africa 18 1 1 1 15
Ghana 10 1 9
Uganda 6.5 2 0.5 4
Ethiopia 5 1 1 1 2
Nigeria 5 5
Rwanda 4 1 3
Egypt 2 1 1
Thailand 2 1 1
Arab Region 3 1 2
Tanzania 2.5 0.5 2
Malawi 2 2
Zambia 2 2
Brazil 1 1
Yemen 1 1
e
Other 16 1 3 4 8
TOTAL 191 12 48 4 36 91
a
Includes one comparative study for India and China.
b
Includes eight comparative studies for India and China.
c
Includes four comparative studies for India and China, and one comparative study for Uganda and Tanzania.
d
Includes 51 IFPRI discussion papers, 11 IFPRI Policy Briefs, 2 IFPRI Annual Report Essays, 9 non- IFPRI
Working Papers, Reports, and Periodicals, 5 Ghana Strategy Support Program Papers, 3 ReSAKSS Briefs, 7
ReSAKSS Africa-wide Working Papers, and 1 Nigeria Strategy Support Program Brief.
e
Includes work that has a global focus or is methodological in nature.

Table 3. GRP-3 citations

Source Number of citations

ISI Web of Science 173

Google Books (10/2004–3/2009)
- Visits 16,537
- Pages viewed 174,528
RePEc (working papers)
- File downloads 8,593
- Abstract views 23,771
RePEc (journal articles)
- File downloads 2,229
- Abstract views 7,088

10
The Google Books and RePEc compilations are more inclusive of “gray literature” that includes working
papers. Some of the African work has received a large number of “hits” according to these sources.
Notable examples here are over 38,000 hits reported by Google Books for the Benin et al. (2008)
discussion paper for Malawi, and roughly 1,000 hits apiece for discussion papers emerging from work
done in Thailand (Fan, Jitsuchon, and Methakunnavut 2004) and Uganda (Fan, Zhang, and Rao 2004). A
complete listing of citation counts is found in Annex C.

Finally, assembly of data by IFPRI researchers for use in analyzing public expenditure patterns
(as well as a host of other potential uses) represents an important output of GRP-3 efforts. Databases
compiled as a part of specific research projects are referred to further in the discussion of outcomes
below. In addition, mention should be made of an ongoing effort to compile a global database on
government expenditures for agriculture, infrastructure, social development, and defense. At present,
information from 51 countries has been assembled. This database was used in analyses contained in the
2008 World Development Report, as well as a host of other global and national publications and policy
documents.

Outcomes
I turn now to project outcomes in the main locations in which GRP-3 activities have taken place. As noted
above, the link between outputs and outcomes is fundamentally related to the influence that those outputs
have on decision makers—either directly or through third parties (e.g., World Bank country staff). The
discussion in this section is informed by interviews and correspondence with a variety of individuals
having knowledge of IFPRI’s efforts. Interactions with these individuals were organized around three sets
of queries:

(1) To what extent has IFPRI’s analysis of public investment options succeeded in making a positive
contribution toward agricultural growth and/or poverty reduction targets in your country (or in the
region)? Is there tangible evidence of progress that can be traced to IFPRI’s activities in this area?
(2) Have IFPRI’s activities been instrumental in developing and supporting a monitoring and
evaluation framework in your country (or region)? If so, what tangible evidence is there of
progress on this front and how might that translate into progress toward economic growth and
poverty reduction goals?
(3) Why was IFPRI chosen to do this work? Could these activities have been performed by some
other institution, or is IFPRI in some sense uniquely qualified?
The first two of these sets of queries represent an attempt to gain a measure of the impact of IFPRI’s
research on policy design and policy implementation, while the third is oriented toward the counterfactual
of what would have happened absent IFPRI’s involvement.

India
The salient findings of the research on returns to public spending in India were that (a) the marginal
impacts on poverty and rural income growth were largest for investments in roads, agricultural R&D, and,
to a lesser degree, education and rural development programs; and (b) once-positive impacts on poverty
and agricultural GDP growth of subsidies on fertilizers, power, irrigation, and credit had dwindled very
much by the 1990s. The issue at hand is whether these findings have been reflected in observed public
spending patterns and, if so, how much of that can be attributed to IFPRI.

11
 Interactions with a number of experts 5 with knowledge of the public resource allocation process
lead me to conclude that (a) investment in rural roads in particular was very much affected by IFPRI’s
research; (b) IFPRI research findings regarding agricultural R&D have definitely been part of the
“conversation” in the policymaking arena, but there is no compelling evidence that the findings have
influenced actual spending decisions; and (c) similarly, the findings about subsidies have been discussed
extensively in recent policy debates, but political inertia has to date largely precluded substantial rolling
back of those subsidies. I discuss these in order below.

The Prime Minister’s Rural Roads Programme

The most visible outcome attributable to the GRP-3 research was the formation of the Prime Minister’s
Rural Roads Programme (better known in India by its Hindi acronym, PMGSY). In the late 1990s, Prime
Minister Vajpayee challenged his staff to come up with creative ideas for promoting rural development.
One staff member whom I interviewed recalled having just read—and been impressed by—the discussion
paper version of the then-recent IFPRI public investment research (Fan, Hazell, and Thorat 1998). So
when the prime minister asked for new ideas, this individual recommended that the national government
fund a massive rural road investment program to be paid for by levying a 50 paise cess (or tax) on fuel.
By the staff member’s account, the prime minister liked the idea and, over the objections of the Finance
Ministry, the PMGSY programme was initiated.

The testimony of the former staff member as to his role in linking the specific research product to
formation of the program is about as direct an association between policy-oriented research and on-the-
ground outcomes as one could hope to find. Of course, there is ample reason to be circumspect about such
recollections when the protagonist takes credit for an idea leading to the institution of a large, high-
profile, and politically popular program. That said, discussions with other contacts in India—while not
directly corroborating the former staff member’s story—confirmed that IFPRI’s research conducted in the
late 1990s did indeed have real influence on placing road construction high on the agenda for establishing
spending priorities in the Tenth (2002–07) and Eleventh (2007–12) Five-Year Plans. 6

The PMGSY was formally launched in December 2000, with the objective of providing
connectivity, through good all-weather roads, to all unconnected villages with a population of more than
500 persons by 2007 (later amended to 2012). Table 4 provides information on expenditures and the
amount of road construction completed between 2005 and 2009. Road investments made through the
program have been substantial (and increasing) over time: during the five-year period, more than Rs 218
billion (in 1993 rupees) was spent, and more than 180,000 km of new roads completed.

To put these numbers in perspective, the World Bank’s “Transport in South Asia” webpage puts
the total length of “classified rural roads” connecting villages with main roads and/or local government

5
These included current and former chairs of the Agricultural Costs and Prices Commission, current and former
members of Planning Commissions formulating India’s Tenth (2002–07) and Eleventh (2007–12) Five-Year Plans,
a member of the Steering Committee on Agriculture and Allied Sectors that made recommendations to the Planning
Commission in the run-up to the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, and a former member of Prime Minister Vajpayee’s staff
in the late 1990s.
6
Additionally, in a study on budget-making process in India, Mooij and Mahendra Dev (2004) interviewed a
number of bureaucrats involved in the policymaking process. Mahendra Dev (personal correspondence) reported
that several of these respondents indicated that the Fan, Hazell, and Thorat (1998) study influenced the decision to
increase government allocations to rural roads in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

12
Table 4. Expenditures on rural roads under the PMGSY, 2005–09

Length of road works Expenditure

Year completed (km) (1993 billion Rs.)
2005–06 22,891 21.0
2006–07 30,710 35.4
2007–08 41,231 49.2
2008–09 52,405 64.1
April–Dec. 2009 36,273 49.1
TOTAL 183,510 218.8
Source: Government of India (2010).

centers as having been 1,730,000 km in 2004. 7 Thus, the PMGSY has added somewhat more than 10
percent to the stock of this class of rural roads in the past five years alone. Budget data compiled by the
World Bank (2004) indicate that in the 2003–04 fiscal year, total state and central government capital
expenditures on roads and bridges (for both rural and urban areas) amounted to Rs 150 billion (in 1993
rupees)—and the great majority of this sum was spent on urban roads and the national highway system.
Clearly, then, the PMGSY represents a very large increase in rural road investments over prior levels.

The testimony of the former staff member as to his role in linking the specific IFPRI research
product to formation of the program, as well as discussions with other contacts in India, provides strong
evidence that IFPRI’s research conducted in the late 1990s did indeed have real influence on placing road
construction high on the agenda for establishing spending priorities in the Tenth and Eleventh Five-Year
Plans. In particular, there is compelling reason to believe that a strong causal link exists between IFPRI’s
GRP-3 research and the formation and implementation of the PMGSY.

The logical follow-up to this is to assess quantitatively what have been the impacts of the research
that contributed to the institution of the PMGSY. Details of such an assessment are presented in the
Appendix to this section (and summarized in Table 5). The basis for these computations is estimated
marginal impacts on poverty and agricultural GDP reported in GRP-3 research publications for India.
Using these as a starting point, various assumptions were considered regarding (a) the size of these
marginal impacts; (b) the extent to which road investments made under the PMGSY crowded out other
investments that would have taken place absent the program, and (c) the varying degrees of attribution of
PMGSY spending to IFPRI (see the Appendix for details).

Scenarios 1 and 2 in Tables A2 and A3 provide a range of estimated total impacts of the PMGSY
on poverty and agricultural GDP for the period 2005–09. Over that period, the program is estimated to
have lifted between 180,000 and 3 million people out of poverty—a 0.1 to 1.4 percentage point reduction
in the rural poverty rate. Agricultural GDP is estimated to have grown by between Rs 164 billion to
Rs 656 billion (i.e., between 1 percent and 4 percent). 8

7
The World Bank’s “Transport in South Asia” webpage can be found at
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/EXTSARREGTOP_TRANSPORT/0,,contentM
DK:20694248~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:579598,00.html.
8
These benefits calculations do not take into account the opportunity cost of money spent on rural roads that could have been
spent otherwise. Nonetheless, the benefit-cost ratio of 3 implied by the marginal rate of return on rural-road spending is large
compared to other government expenditures, and hence the PMGSY represents a very sound public investment.

13
Table 5. Estimated impact of IFPRI research on poverty and agricultural GDP (via
PMGSY), 2005–09

Range of Estimated IFPRI Impactsa

Low High

Poverty
• No. of poverty exits 18,057 746,263
• Change in poverty rate (%) –0.01% –0.36%

Increase in agricultural GDP

• Billions 1993 Rs. 16.4 164.1
• Percentage change +0.1% +1.0%
a
These refer to estimates reported for scenarios 6 (low) and 3 (high) in Appendix Tables A2 and A3 using the most
(least) restrictive assumptions regarding the marginal effects of rural roads expenditure on poverty and agricultural
GDP.

Table 5 presents a range of estimated impacts on poverty and agricultural GDP attributable to
IFPRI’s role in the formation of the PMGSY. Even under the most conservative assumptions,9 GRP-3
research is estimated to have lifted 18,000 individuals out of poverty and increased agricultural GDP by
Rs 16.4 billion (1993 rupees; equivalent to Rs 43 billion in 2009 rupees, or approximately US$1 billion)
between 2005 and 2009. These are sizeable impacts, particularly recognizing that the impacts on total
rural income growth would also factor in impacts on the earnings of agricultural laborers and workers in
the rural nonfarm sector. 10 Note further that these estimates only apply to investments made during the
period 2005–09. That the Indian Government has committed itself to continuing PMGSY beyond the
current (Eleventh) Five-Year-Plan—with an emphasis on extending roads into previously unserved
villages—suggests that a substantial stream of net benefits, beyond those found in Table 5, will be
generated in the future as well.

Agricultural R&D
Links between IFPRI’s research findings and actual government investment in agricultural R&D are
much murkier. Some of those interviewed maintained that IFPRI’s work has led to some renewed
government commitment to increasing R&D spending, while others argued that stagnant funding levels
are evidence of a lack of government commitment (and by extension, a lack of influence of IFPRI’s
research). 11

There was general consensus that IFPRI’s findings regarding the beneficial impacts of
agricultural R&D on growth and poverty alleviation have been part of the policy conversation regarding
agricultural R&D, particularly in the run-up to the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2007–12). For example, a

9
In the most conservative estimates, half of PMGSY expenditure is assumed to have replaced other rural road expenditures that
would have taken place; IFPRI’s attribution share is assumed to be 10 percent; and reported marginal benefits on poverty and
agricultural GDP are reduced by seven-eighths and one-half, respectively.
10
Lack of information on the marginal impacts of road expenditure on nonfarm employment and agricultural wages precluded
estimating those effects.
11
Of course, the (counterfactual) question of interest revolves around what R&D spending priorities would have been absent
IFPRI’s research. This is virtually impossible to assess, however.

14
member of the Steering Committee on Agriculture and Allied Sectors—a group charged with making
recommendations to the Planning Commission in 2007—stated that IFPRI’s research was “central” to the
group’s recommendation that investments in agricultural research institutions be increased (India
Planning Commission 2007). This sentiment was echoed by others as well.

In sum, IFPRI’s GRP-3 research has clearly fed into policy discussions regarding allocation of
resources to agricultural R&D. And the fact that projected central government budget outlays for
“Agricultural Research and Education” in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan are more than double those of the
Tenth Five-Year Plan would seem to imply that proponents have had some success in efforts to
reinvigorate the government’s commitment to public agricultural research (India Planning Commission
2008). However, it is not possible to link specific outcomes on this front to IFPRI’s work. Even with
substantial (projected) changes in R&D spending, the agricultural research establishment has so many
“loyal constituents” in various quarters of the government and academia that attribution to one specific
research program (like GRP-3) would be strained at best.

Subsidy Policies
By all accounts research showing a declining payoff to subsidies has been extensively discussed in
policymaking circles within India. A paper published in the widely read Economic and Political Weekly
(Fan and Gulati 2008) was identified as having had a particularly high profile. One person interviewed
suggested that that article had been influential within the prime minister’s Economic Advisory Council,
and that this influence is reflected in the most recent Economic Survey. Support for this contention is
found in the following passage taken from the recommendations of the Steering Committee on
Agriculture and Allied Sectors (India Planning Commission 2007, p. 28):

Burgeoning subsidies are thus competing for scarce resources impinging upon the
government’s ability to invest ... in crucial areas like irrigation and other infrastructure.
Some studies show that a rupee going into public investments is several times more
productive in terms of output growth than when it is deployed as a subsidy.

The “studies” mentioned in the second sentence of this quote doubtlessly refer to IFPRI’s research.

Recent public comments made by Chief Economic Advisor Kaushik Basu similarly reflect
substantial concerns about the need to reduce the overall level of subsidies (Mukul and Beniwal 2010).
And while it seems a bit of a stretch to think that those concerns would not have existed absent IFPRI’s
research—after all, distaste for the distorting effect of subsidies is received knowledge among most
economists—it is also the case that hard empirical evidence such as that published by Fan and Gulati does
provide much-needed empirical support for making those arguments.

There was general consensus among individuals interviewed that while the language in the most
recent (Eleventh) Five-Year Plan may signal a de-emphasis of subsidies over the long run, reducing (let
alone abolishing) subsidies is difficult politically. Hence, current efforts in this regard tend to be oriented
toward improving the efficiency with which subsidies are targeted. GRP-3 research has clearly
contributed to this on-going policy discussion; however, resolution of that discussion appears to remain
on the horizon.

China
As in India, the major research finding associated with GRP-3 research in China revealed high returns
from public investment in rural roads, education, and agricultural R&D. Unfortunately, only three
individuals—one a leading academic, another a high-placed member of the Ministry of Agriculture, and a

15
third a former World Bank country director for China—responded to my queries regarding the impacts of
IFPRI’s prodigious research outputs.

All respondents indicated that IFPRI’s work has been well-publicized and highly regarded in
Chinese policy circles. In recent years, a number of policies have been implemented by the Chinese
government that are consistent with IFPRI’s recommendations. These include sizeable increases in public
spending on agricultural R&D and rural infrastructure; institution of free compulsory education (in 2008);
abolishing agricultural taxes; and a shift in regional resource allocations toward China’s poorer Western
regions.

Increased spending on agricultural R&D and rural education is reflected in data presented in
Table 6. Annual growth rates of public investments in R&D and education do appear to have jumped
substantially during the 1978–97 period (i.e., prior to the initial publication of GRP-3 research) and the
1998–07 period. During those two time periods, the annual growth in R&D spending nearly tripled (from
3.2 percent to 9.2 percent), while for rural education the growth rate increased by over 50 percent.

But while public investments have increased substantially in the last six years, all respondents
cautioned that China is so big that credibly attributing any particular policy change to a specific research
output or institution is not possible. At the same time, however, respondents suggested that IFPRI’s work
has certainly fed into the national policy formation process, particularly in the development of the
Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2006–10)—“an important indirect role,” in the words of one respondent.

Two other comments made by respondents are relevant here. First, mention was made of IFPRI’s
extensive participation in conferences, policy briefings, and policy dialogues (both formal and informal)
as having helped reshape public investment priorities. Second, IFPRI was praised for its efforts over the
past several years to educate professionals—both Chinese and those from other developing countries—in
training sessions on China’s experiences in promoting rural development and poverty alleviation. Taught
by IFPRI staff, nine of these sessions have taken place at Zhejiang University over the past several years.
These observations reinforce the sense that in China IFPRI has succeeded in cultivating a high profile—
and substantial credibility—among both current and future policymakers.

CAADP
The primary outcomes associated with GRP-3 work supporting CAADP are (a) the formalization of
country Compacts and the associated Roundtables at which those Compacts are signed; and (b) the
establishment of the ReSAKSS (including country-level SAKSS in Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi,
Mozambique, Nigeria, and Uganda).

To gain a sense of IFPRI’s contributions to these outcomes, I corresponded with a variety of

individuals having familiarity with IFPRI’s activities in support of the CAADP process. These included
CAADP country leaders, ReSAKKS coordinators, a representative of a Regional Economic Commission,
agriculture ministry officials, World Bank country representatives, and IFPRI country Strategy Support
Program leaders in Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, and Uganda. These interactions lead me to conclude that
IFPRI’s contributions were substantial in the achievement of both of these outcomes, but that much
uncertainty remains as to how those outcomes may translate into on-the-ground impacts in the future.

16
Table 6. Chinese public spending on agricultural R&D, irrigation, and rural education,
1978–2007 (million Yuan)

Year Agricultural R&D Irrigation Rural education

1978 2,612 19,539 17,167
1979 3,009 22,481 20,980
1980 2,954 17,009 24,315
1981 2,765 11,834 25,750
1982 2,785 13,001 28,407
1983 3,458 14,051 31,511
1984 4,026 13,236 36,970
1985 4,024 11,822 43,395
1986 4,037 12,568 51,000
1987 3,750 14,037 60,290
1988 4,181 13,371 61,559
1989 4,001 13,102 52,273
1990 3,707 16,341 57,038
1991 4,083 22,399 65,076
1992 4,888 31,338 73,586
1993 5,087 32,718 86,811
1994 5,226 31,021 79,138
1995 5,171 35,166 77,870
1996 5,356 34,525 88,127
1997 4,950 53,409 93,574
1998 5,202 41,601 91,423
1999 5,887 48,314 98,797
2000 5,846 58,631 104,632
2001 6,373 50,829 124,503
2002 7,909 68,466 144,156
2003 8,844 63,067 153,611
2004 8,393 62,942 178,118
2005 8,836 56,940 206,234
2006 9,359 55,364 228,175
2007 12,105 57,719 298,777

Annual growth rates (%)

1978–1997 3.20 5.03 8.48
1998–2007 8.45 3.27 11.84
Source: Keming Qian (personal communication). The data of public spending on agricultural R&D, irrigation, and
rural education from1978 to1997 are from Fan, Zhang, and Zhang (2002), and the data from 1998–2007 are from
China Statistical Yearbook of Science and Technology, China Water Conservancy Yearbook, and China Education
Expenditure Yearbook, various years.

17
The Compact Process
As of July 2010, 19 countries had signed Compacts committing themselves to plans of action for
achieving CAADP growth and poverty targets. Key IFPRI inputs to this process lay in agricultural sector
stock-taking efforts and in using CGE models (developed by IFPRI researchers under the auspices of
GRP-32) to simulate the impacts of various public investment scenarios (and associated funding needs) to
achieve various poverty alleviation targets. These inputs fed into the development of country-specific
brochures that served as a roadmap for the Compact-writing process.

In several countries, the stock-taking efforts were informed by prior (or on-going) IFPRI projects
associated with GRP-3. Examples include findings from the Nigerian Agricultural Expenditure
Performance Review, IFPRI’s evaluation of Uganda’s National Agricultural Advisory System, and
research on fertilizer subsidies conducted as part of IFPRI’s Ghana Strategy Support Program (all of these
are discussed further below. The stock-taking efforts appear to have generated valuable local public goods
in the form of databases compiled from disparate information sources. In Ghana, for example, spatially
disaggregated databases on public expenditures that were collected in collaboration with Planning and
Finance Ministry staff have proven valuable in enabling government expenditure review activities, and
are boon to researchers (in a variety of contexts) as well. Likewise, the social accounting matrixes
developed to undergird the CGE models represent a similarly valuable compilation of previously
disparate data in a number of countries.

Simulation results emerging from IFPRI’s CGE-modeling efforts have been, by all accounts,
central to defining the actual investment targets contained within the Compacts. A number of respondents
indicated that many of the basic findings of these exercises were not “surprises;” rather, they confirmed
what was already “known.” However, their value lay in the fact that IFPRI researchers were able to
generate concrete, quantitative predictions. One respondent put it this way:

IFPRI’s work was highly influential with the Ministry of Ag [Agriculture] because for the
first time it provided quantitative information that they could bring to the Ministry of
Finance during budget negotiations/allocation exercises. It’s not that the Ministry of
Finance didn’t know about agriculture’s importance; merely that empirical evidence had
previously been lacking.

A recurring theme in correspondence with key informants was that the high quality of IFPRI
research activities was central to these accomplishments in two ways. First, it produced empirical insights
that that were direct inputs—via country background papers and brochures—into formation of the
Compacts themselves. Second, IFPRI’s reputation for doing high-quality research conferred upon those
empirical insights a substantial degree of credibility with government officials within key ministries.

Respondents provided variable opinions regarding the counterfactual issue of whether or not
some institution other than IFPRI could have provided comparable services. Most respondents indicated
that IFPRI’s capabilities were superior to any other organization (and hence indispensable). However,
some respondents were more ambivalent, indicating that other institutions could have done as good a job
as IFPRI. No respondents suggested that the CAADP process would have been better served having an
organization other than IFPRI taking the lead facilitation role.

By signing Compacts, governments have committed themselves to making investments that in

most cases reflected insights generated by IFPRI’s research. This is a significant outcome. However, it
bears mentioning that these commitments are statements of intentions. There is no way of knowing at
present the extent to which governments will follow through on them. And, of course, neither is there any
way of knowing what the ultimate impacts on growth and poverty will be if and when the commitments
contained in Compacts are carried out.

18
ReSAKSS
Enhancing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capability across and within countries is a key goal of
CAADP. ReSAKSS is the primary mechanism that has been developed to pursue this goal, and IFPRI has
been central in facilitating its development—through logistical support, capacity building, and direct
involvement in the research being conducted.

As noted above, substantial public goods have been generated via the compilation of hitherto
unavailable (and/or disparate) data. Many of these are readily accessible on the ReSAKSS website
(http://www.resakks.org), as are annual country reports, ReSAKSS publications, and a variety of data on
key indicators. All of these facilitate information sharing among various stakeholders at the country,
regional, continental, and global levels.12

The regional approach to collecting and maintaining data (and the human capital necessary for
analyzing it) would appear to have had the additional benefit of promoting regional cooperation among
researchers from multiple countries. 13 And of course, the knowledge base embodied within ReSAKSS
(and individual country SAKSS) provides a potentially valuable institutional nexus for future M&E
activities as the public investment commitments made via CAADP Compacts are realized.

Program Evaluations in Africa

IFPRI was contracted by the World Bank to perform program evaluations in Nigeria, Ghana, and Uganda.
In each case, the World Bank was a major consumer of the research. So too were certain government
stakeholders—although in each country policy outcomes are still materializing (and far from certain).
These projects have had varying influence on policy discussions via interactions between IFPRI
researchers and members of the government, as well as by providing research-based empirical
backstopping for World Bank policy advice.14 This assessment emerges out of correspondence (by email
and by telephone) with IFPRI country representatives, Agriculture Ministry officials, and current or
former World Bank country staff. I summarize these below.

Nigeria

The primary findings of the World Bank/IFPRI Nigerian Agriculture Public Expenditure Review centered
on the very low share of agriculture in Nigeria’s federal budget (approximately 2 percent), a large fraction
of which was targeted to fertilizer subsidies. Key recommendations included an overall increase in
agricultural-sector funding, improvements in tracking how money was spent, and further studies to assess
impacts of specific programs (especially fertilizer subsidies). To varying degrees, actions have been taken
in line with those recommendations: agriculture’s budget share has increased (to 12 percent in the 2009
federal budget), and IFPRI has been approached to do some follow-on work to improve data collection
efforts in the context of an upcoming agricultural census.

By all accounts, IFPRI’s research findings played a role in recent increases in budget support.
IFPRI’s influence in this regard revolves around interactions with government officials (particularly via
key contacts in the House of Representatives’ Committee on Agriculture) and through World Bank policy

12
In the twelve-month period ending in August 2010, the ReSAKSS website experienced over 12,000 unique “visitors”
(M. Lambert, personal communication).
13
An example of this is found in ReSAKSS activities during the run-up in food prices that occurred within the last two years. A
set of regional and continental meetings organized through ReSAKSS brought together representatives from COMESA,
ECOWAS, individual member countries, and the donor community to discuss appropriate response strategies.
14
In addition to influencing specific policy discussions, this research has produced one edited volume scheduled for publication
in 2011 (Mogues and Benin forthcoming), as well as six journal articles and one book that are currently in various stages of the
review process.

19
advisors. It would appear that the research output came as something of a surprise to the former, whereas
it essentially validated what was already known, or at least suspected, by the World Bank (and the donor
community more broadly). To this last point, the general perception of the research as being competently
executed has contributed to its resonance within policymaking circles.

Similarly, IFPRI’s Fadama II evaluation validated what those involved with the program already
knew about that program’s positive contributions to rural development in the 12 states in which it
operated. This provided substantial ammunition for efforts to expand the program in its next phase
(Fadama III). That IFPRI has been invited to be part of that effort (by performing the baseline data
collection and, in the future, continuing its evaluative activities) represents another positive outcome.

Ghana

IFPRI’s review of Ghana’s fertilizer subsidy program and its implementation highlighted inefficiencies
and elements of mismanagement within the system. Not surprisingly, this has created friction between
some government and IFPRI country staff—a World Bank staff member termed the relationship
“difficult.” The research results have provided useful input into policy dialogues between the World
Bank and Ministry officials. However, the policy environment appears to have been fractious enough that
policy outcomes are still materializing (and far from certain).

Uganda

As in Ghana, IFPRI’s evaluation of the NAADS took place in a highly charged political environment.
IFPRI’s efforts appear to have cooled down controversies over the program somewhat. In part, this is due
to the fact that the review was conducted by a reputable external institution, but also, the quantitative
nature of the analysis appears to have been a departure from previous, more qualitative assessments.

The NAADS evaluation results, and the data collected as part of the evaluative process, have
been a useful input into the policy dialogue between the World Bank and the Government of Uganda. A
World Bank staff member did express some reservations about the quality of the design of the initial data
collection effort, but also noted that IFPRI staff were quite accommodating with respect to re-designing
survey instruments. The extensive use of these data (and the results of IFPRI’s analysis of it) in the design
of NAADS Phase II is evidence of IFPRI’s influence in the process.

Gauging IFPRI’s influence over specific policies promulgated by the Government of Uganda is
difficult, given the highly uncertain political environment in which those policies are shaped. The recently
produced Agricultural Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan endorses the NAADS as a
framework for pursuing extension activities; IFPRI’s research findings regarding the program’s strengths
were used as key justification for that endorsement. Likewise, government white papers have endorsed
IFPRI recommendations regarding mitigation of input shortages, targeting of extension advice, and
marketing. However, it remains unclear how much these endorsements will translate into actual future
public investment actions.

Prioritization of Research Issues

By way of summarizing the body of work that has been described in this section, it is useful to consider
how these outputs and outcomes stack up against the priority research issues for GRP-3 as laid out in
IFPRI’s overview of the program (reported earlier in Section 2):

(1) Developing monitoring and evaluation systems for assessing public spending decisions;
(2) Understanding why changes occur in the level and composition of public spending;

20
(3) Analyzing the effects of different types of public expenditures on income growth and poverty
outcomes across a range of spatial and socioeconomic dimensions;
(4) Exploring options for financing public investments for achieving development goals; and
(5) Investigating the influence of governance and political economy forces on provision of public
goods and services.

The program of work pursued by GRP-3 researchers clearly has emphasized certain issues more
than others. In particular, issue 3—analysis of income and poverty impacts from different types of public
spending—has by far received the most attention from researchers, both in Asia and in Africa. In
addition, work done in support of CAADP has contributed substantially to the development of monitoring
and evaluation systems in a number of African nations (issue 1).

The other three priority research issues have received some, albeit significantly less, attention.
For example, work on fiscal decentralization in China (Zhang 2005) and some of the work emerging from
program evaluation activities in Africa (e.g., Banful 2010a) focuses on factors explaining why observed
spending decisions are made (issue 2). Political economy issues (issue 5) are the focus of work on local
governance in China (Zhang et al. 2004), and of analyses of revenue-generation options in Ghana
(Mogues, Benin, and Cudjoe 2009; Banful 2010b). Finally, a number of papers that emerged from CGE
work supporting CAADP analyze the extent to which alternative expenditure patterns (on specific crops
or on total agricultural spending) are likely to achieve sectoral growth targets (e.g., Benin et al. 2008)—all
in pursuit of issue 4. 15

These outputs notwithstanding, it remains the case that the bulk of the research emanating from
GRP-3 has been more oriented toward ascertaining the impacts of spending patterns rather than
mechanisms for financing that spending and/or the political forces underpinning observed public
expenditure allocations.

15
In a similar vein, research in Ethiopia pursued this question using an econometric approach (Mogues, Ayele, and Paulos 2008).

21
 4. PERCEPTIONS OF RESEARCH EFFECTIVENESS

Interactions with individuals having knowledge of GRP-3 research activities and their outcomes provided
insight into how those individuals view the effectiveness with which IFPRI staff associated with the
program have pursued its objectives. Many of these have been mentioned in the previous discussion of
research outcomes. However, some reflect more generally on the effectiveness of GRP-3 research
perceived by various stakeholder groups—local and regional institutions, donors, and the broader research
community. In this section I summarize these perceptions.

Data Assembly
A large number of individuals contacted specifically mentioned the assembly of large amounts of data as
an important outcome of the GRP-3 research. The expertise of IFPRI researchers in the design of data
collection efforts—quite apart from their ability to analyze it—is broadly recognized and generally
appreciated.

Creation of country-specific public expenditures databases is a core activity of the work being led
by IFPRI in support of ReSAKSS. The various public expenditure review activities (e.g., in Nigeria and
Ghana) have similarly drawn together information that was previously either unavailable or so widely
dispersed as to be of very limited use to decisionmakers. That IFPRI has been asked to be part of the next
phase of programs in Uganda and Nigeria is an indication that these efforts have been highly valued.

In a similar vein, GRP-3 efforts to assemble a cross-country database on public expenditures

represent a very valuable global public good produced by the project. Interest in using the database has
been expressed by researchers and practitioners from various quarters, including USAID, UNICEF,
academia, and within IFPRI (M. Johnson, personal communication). 16

Usefulness of Research Results to the Donor Community

In Africa, the donor community is a major consumer of GRP-3 research results. World Bank country staff
in Uganda, Ghana, and Nigeria all reported that IFPRI’s research findings provided important empirical
support for their positions in policy dialogues with government officials. Work detailing the inefficiencies
in fertilizer subsidy programs stands out as having been highly useful to Bank officials in Ghana and
Nigeria—even if it created discomfort for some government officials within those countries. Likewise,
the results of IFPRI’s evaluation of the NAADS have been a similarly useful component of policy
discussions between the Bank and the government of Uganda.

On the negative side, concerns were expressed that some IFPRI researchers are better at, and
more committed to, generating policy insights than they are at effectively communicating them to
policymakers—in particular, that they leave that latter portion of the work to others. For example, one
World Bank staff member indicated a certain lack of impact of IFPRI’s analysis of public investment
options on priority setting in Malawi due to “limited effort to explain the significance of this analysis to
key decisionmakers, or to review how the results might be used to guide investment decisionmaking.”
However, he did go on to note that the work was “quite useful to those few who read such reports.”
Another respondent suggested that he “didn’t see IFPRI taking many steps to move beyond the research
to policy dialog other than one-off presentations.”

16
As of this writing, the database is in the process of being made available for download on the IFPRI website. Up to this point,
specific public expenditure data have been made available to individual researchers on an ad hoc basis (S. Malaiyandi, personal
communication).

22
 On the more positive side, IFPRI in-country staff were universally praised for their efforts as
intermediaries between the US-based IFPRI researchers on the one hand and donors and local officials on
the other, sometimes in trying circumstances. IFPRI has greatly increased its in-country presence over the
last decade. By all indications, this decentralization has paid substantial dividends in terms of the
effectiveness with which research and outreach functions have been melded together.

Research Methods and Analytical Rigor

A sentiment shared by most individuals having knowledge of the GRP-3 research is that IFPRI’s
approach to the design and implementation of the research has been rigorous. The impressive number of
research outputs that have been published in scholarly journals is evidence of a broader recognition of the
quality of the work being done. This is particularly true for the work conducted in India and China—work
that has been widely cited and influential within the academic community.

It is a bit early to tell if the work that has been conducted in Africa will be similarly influential.
As of this writing, only one journal article has been published from the African portion of GRP-3.
However, an edited volume that collects a number of case studies and analyses of public expenditure
growth-poverty linkages in a variety of African countries is scheduled for publication in January 2011. In
addition, three other journal articles are forthcoming, and eight other papers are in various stages of the
review process.

As noted earlier, IFPRI’s reputation for doing high-quality research is in itself an important
element in its efforts to influence policy (via the credibility it provides). That reputation is well deserved,
but some individuals raised the issue of whether the dominant role of doing state-of-the-art scholarly
research might get in the way of other important functions—notably communication of key research
results to policymakers. 17

The CGE work supporting CAADP was mentioned in this regard. In particular the presentation of
model results without adequate explanation of where and how those results were generated was noted by
one respondent as problematic.18 Another referred to presentations of CGE-based findings at Roundtables
in Liberia and Ghana as having “come out of left field”—meaning that participants were not well apprised
of where those findings came from. These respondents were quick to note that the intellectual
contributions in this area were solid, and also that the briefs (or brochures) encapsulating the research
findings were very effective. Nonetheless, the basic sentiment expressed was that communication of those
contributions to policymakers and others outside the research community has at times been inadequate.

Supply-Driven versus Demand-Driven Research

GRP-3 research conducted in India and China was essentially supply driven in that it appears to have
been largely undertaken at the initiative of IFPRI researchers. In contrast, much of the work done in
Africa appears to have been largely demand driven in the sense that the work conducted by IFPRI
researchers was undertaken in response to specific requests by NEPAD, individual governments, or the
donor community.

It would appear that this shift from supply-driven to demand-driven research reflects the growing
awareness within the development community of the work that was conducted in Asia—a strong signal of
17
In addition, one respondent alluded to the fact that the exigencies of continually needing to fund new projects have caused the
quality of IFPRI’s work on projects in hand to be “too rushed.” However, there was no indication that this sentiment is shared by
others.
18
This sentiment is echoed in NEPAD’s 2010 review of CAADP: “In some countries, doubts have been expressed about the
added value of the econometric (CGE) modeling aspects of the analytical support” (NEPAD-CAADP 2010).

23
how influential that research has been. In correspondence with individuals knowledgeable about the
Africa component of GRP-3 work, the results from India and China research were frequently mentioned
as one very important reason why IFPRI was an “obvious” choice for conducting public expenditure
research. Thus, it seems clear that the research successes in Asia stimulated substantial demand for
follow-on work in Africa.

This shift in emphasis also reflects an evolution of GRP-3 activities from basic research to
applied research. As was noted earlier, limitations on national research capacity and data availability in
Africa dictated that IFPRI’s research activities focus to a much greater degree on capacity-building and
data-collection efforts. The nature and emphasis of both CAADP-related activities and the program
evaluation work conducted in Africa reflect this. Importantly, these activities have continued to generate
international public goods. However, compared to the Asia research these international public goods have
tended to be more related to institutional operations and developing (shareable) data resources.

The one potential negative in all of this is that pursing a largely demand-driven research agenda
such as that embodied in the program evaluation work conducted in Africa can lead to an erosion of the
overall cohesiveness among the various activities undertaken under the aegis of the GRP-3 research
program. To this point, it bears mentioning that a few observers from the donor community expressed
concerns about IFPRI operating more in a “consulting firm” mode whereby short turnaround
consultancies supplant research emanating from a more unified programmatic approach. However, the
increasingly important role of contract research in providing resources for IFPRI staff (and, more
generally, for researchers at all CGIAR centers) represents an important constraint to pursuing a supply-
driven research agenda—a constraint that has become increasingly binding over time. That GRP-3
research in Africa continues to engender requests for follow-on research suggests that IFPRI researchers
generally have been able to satisfy this constraint without unduly sacrificing the quality of research
outputs.

24
 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As noted in Section 2, GRP-3’s stated objectives are to (1) increase public investment for rural areas and
agricultural sector given that there is an under-spending in the sector, and (2) better target and improve
efficiency of public resources to achieve these growth and poverty reduction goals, as well as other
development goals.

Taken as a whole, it is clear that the program of work described in the previous pages has
substantially achieved these objectives in Asia.

• In India, GRP-3 clearly played a key role in public debates over rural road investment leading to
the institution of the Prime Minister’s Rural Roads Program (PMGSY). The PMGSY directed
huge sums toward construction of roads connecting large numbers of previously unserved
villages, with subsequent positive impacts on agricultural profitability, the rural nonfarm sector,
agricultural wages, and poverty reduction. Conservative estimates of the impact of this increase
in rural road spending indicate that GRP-3 research has contributed substantially to lifting
thousands out of poverty and increasing agricultural GDP by billions of rupees. Additionally,
GRP-3 research has been a part of recent policy conversations on rolling back subsidies
(although that conversation is ongoing).
• In China, increased rural spending on education and agricultural R&D—and allocation of an
increasing share of rural spending to Western regions—is an outcome that would appear to have
been influenced by IFPRI’s work (although informants were unanimous in cautioning that China
is so big that it is not possible to attribute any specific policy change to an individual institution
or research finding).

GRP-3 research in Africa has yet to fully meet the objectives as laid out above, primarily because
the policymaking processes in the places where IFPRI has been active are still not far enough advanced
for the research outputs to have translated into actual policies:

• The work that IFPRI has conducted in support of CAADP has successfully shepherded 19
countries through the Compact process. This has been a significant outcome. However, the
Compacts are intermediate products; it remains to be seen the extent to which governments
follow through on the plans contained within them. And given the slow pace of the CAADP
process to date, one would expect that implementation (and achievement of CAADP targets) will
take place over a similarly lengthy time frame.
• The large body of research conducted under the auspices of the ReSAKSS has been oriented
toward understanding how best to boost rural investment spending in African countries to meet
budgetary targets established by NEPAD. The compilation of disparate public expenditure data
that has underpinned this effort represents a substantial contribution, not least as a local public
good for use by research and practitioner communities outside of IFPRI. In addition, IFPRI’s role
in guiding the formation and operation of ReSAKSS (as well as individual countries’ SAKSS)
represents a notable accomplishment in terms of boosting institutional capacity for future
monitoring and evaluation activities.
• Other GRP-3 research in Africa has generated significant insights on public investments in the
agricultural sector. These have been useful to the donor community by providing solid and widely
respected empirical backstopping for ongoing policy dialogues with governments. However, the
difficult—and often contentious—political environment in which those dialogues occur has
meant that policy outcomes are still materializing (and far from certain).

25
 Finally, IFPRI’s GRP-3 research has generated substantial global public goods. These take many
forms, including an impressive array of scholarly publications, policy briefs geared more toward informed
lay audiences, and multicountry databases used by a variety of individuals from within the research and
practitioner communities. The substantial recognition—and use—of these public goods represents a
significant accomplishment of the GRP-3 program to date and into the future.

26
 REFERENCES

Banful, A.B. 2010a. Do formula-based intergovernmental transfer mechanisms eliminate politically

motivated targeting? Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Development Economics (forthcoming).

Banful, A.B. 2010b. Old problems in the new solutions? Politically motivated allocation of program
benefits and the “new” fertilizer subsidies. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01002. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.

Benin, S., J. Thurlow, X. Diao, C. McCool, and F. Simtowe. 2008. Agricultural growth and investment
options for poverty reduction in Malawi. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00794. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.

Benin, S., M. Johnson, B. Omilola, N. Beintema, H. Bekele, P. Chilonda, K. Davis, J. Edeme, A.

Elmekass, J. Govereh, T. Kakuba, J. Karugia, R. Makunike, S. Massawe, E. Mpyisi, M. Nwafor, F.
Olubode-Awosola, S. Sanyang, B. Taye, M. Wanzala, M. Yade, Y. Zewdie. 2010. Monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) system for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
(CAADP). ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 6. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.

CGIAR Science Council. 2006. Impact assessment of policy-oriented research in the CGIAR: A scoping
study report. Rome: CGIAR Science Council Secretariat.

________. 2008. Impact assessment of policy-oriented research in the CGIAR: Evidence and insights
from case studies. A study commissioned by the Science Council Standing Panel on Impact
Assessment. Rome: CGIAR Science Council Secretariat.

Diao, X., J. Thurlow, S. Benin, and S. Fan, eds. 2010. Agricultural strategies in Africa: Evidence-based
analysis. Unpublished manuscript under revision for resubmission for IFPRI-Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Fan, S., P. Al-Riffai, M. El-Said, B. Yu, and A. Kamaly. 2006. A multi-level analysis of public spending,
growth and poverty reduction in Egypt. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 41. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.

Fan, S. and A. Gulati. 2008. The dragon and the elephant: Learning from agricultural and rural reforms in
China and India. Economic and Political Weekly 43(26): 137–144.

Fan, S., A. Gulati, and S.K. Thorat. 2007. Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural India.
IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00716. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

________. 2008. Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural India. Agricultural Economics
39(2): 163–170.

Fan, S., P.B.R. Hazell, and S. Thorat. 1998. Government spending, growth and poverty: An analysis of
interlinkages in rural India. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 33. Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute.

27
Fan, S., P.B.R. Hazell, and S. K. Thorat. 1999. Linkages between government spending, growth, and
poverty in rural India. IFPRI Research Report No. 110. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.

________. 2000. “Government Spending, Growth, and Poverty in Rural India.” American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 82(4): 1038–1051.

Fan, S., S. Jitsuchon, and N. Methakunnavut. 2004. The importance of public investment for reducing
rural poverty in middle-income countries: The case of Thailand. DSDG Discussion Paper No. 7.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Fan, S., D. Nyange, and N. Rao. 2005. Public investment and poverty reduction in Tanzania: Evidence
from household survey data. DSG Discussion Paper No. 18. Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute.

Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2002. Growth, inequality, and poverty in rural China: The role of public
investments. IFPRI Research Report No. 125. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.

Fan, S., X. Zhang, and N. Rao. 2004. Public expenditure, growth and poverty reduction in rural Uganda.
DSG Discussion Paper No. 4. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Government of India. 2010. Economic Survey 2009–2010. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance.

Gramlich, E.M. 1994. Infrastructure investment: A review essay. Journal of Economic Literature 32(3):
1176–1196.

Gulati, A. and S. Fan, eds. 2010. The dragon and the elephant: Agricultural and rural reforms in China
and India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Gulati, A., T. Shah, and G. Shreedhar. 2009. Agriculture performance in Gujarat since 2000: Can it be a
divadandi (lighthouse) for other states?” New Delhi: International Water Management Institute and
International Food Policy Research Institute.

IFPRI. 2007a. GRP-3: Pro-poor public investment priorities, financing and governance. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.

________. 2007b. Pro-poor public investment program. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.

India Planning Commission. 2007. Report of the Steering Committee on Agriculture and Allied Sectors
for Formulation of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2007–2012). New Delhi: Government of India.

________. 2008. Eleventh five-year plan. New Delhi: Government of India.

Mogues, T., G. Ayele, and Z. Paulos. 2008. The bang for the Birr: Public expenditures and rural welfare
in Ethiopia. IFPRI Research Report No. 160. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.

28
Mogues, T., S. Benin, and G. Cudjoe. 2009. Do external grants to district governments discourage own-
revenue generation? A look at local public finance dynamics in Ghana. IFPRI Discussion Paper No.
934. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Mooij, J., and S. Mahendra Dev. 2004. Social sector priorities: An analysis of budgets and expenditures
in India in the 1990s. Development Policy Review 22(1): 97–120.

Mukul, J., and V. Beniwal. 2010. Q&A: Kaushik Basu, Chief Economic Advisor, Business Standard,
June 7, http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/qa-kaushik-basu-chief-economic-
advisor/397296/.

NEPAD. 2001. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development. Abuja, Nigeria: Organization of African
Unity (OAU). http://nepad.org/images/framework.pdf.

NEPAD-CAADP. 2010. CAADP review: Renewing the commitment to African agriculture.

Johannesburg: NEPAD.

Omilola, B. 2009. Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and Regional
Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). Unpublished mimeo, International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

TAC Secretariat. 1998. Report of the third external programme and management review of the
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of
the United Nations.

World Bank. 2004. India financing highways. Report No. 30363-IN, Energy and Infrastructure Sector
Unit, South Asia Region. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Zhang, X., S. Fan, L. Zhang, and J. Huang. 2004. Local governance and public goods provision in rural
China. Journal of Public Economics 88(12): 2857–2871.

Zhang, X. 2005. Fiscal decentralization and political centralization in China: The implication on regional
inequality. DSG Discussion Paper No. 21. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.

29
 ANNEX A: CONTACTS

I. USEFUL RESPONSES
India
Ashok Gulati IFPRI Asia Director
Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat Chairman, University Grants Commission (and former Planning
Commission member)
Prof. S. Mahendra Dev Chairman, Agricultural Costs and Prices Commission
Mr. Pravesh Sharma Principal Secretary for Agriculture, Madhya Pradesh
Prof. G.K. Chadha Former Vice-Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
T. Haque Council for Social Self-Development
Prof. V.S. Viyas Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister
Prof. G.S. Bhalla Professor Emeritus, Centre for the Study of Regional Development
(CSRD), Jawaharlal Nehru University
China
Zuhui Huang Director, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Zhejiang
University
Keming Qian Director General, Agricultural Markets Bureau
Ghana
Shashi Kolavalli IFPRI, Leader of Ghana Strategy Support Program
Chris Jackson Senior Economist, World Bank
Malawi
Dr. Monica Fisher IFPRI, Leader of Malawi Strategy Support Program
Klaus Droppelmann IFPRI, Malawi
David Rohrbach Senior Agricultural Economist, World Bank, Malawi
Nigeria
Valerie Rhoe IFPRI, Nigeria Programme Coordinator
Michael Morris World Bank
Simeon Ehui Sector Manager, ARD, World Bank
Uganda
Geresom Okecho NAADS Secretariat
Godfrey Bahiigwa Director of PMA, CAADP Country Leader
Todd Benson IFPRI, Leader of Uganda Strategy Support Program
Madhur Gautam Senior Economist, World Bank, Dar es Salaam
Zambia
Henrietta Kalinda CAADP Analysis Consultant
CAADP
Dr. Cris Muyunda COMESA Secretariat
Mbaye Yade ReSAKSS Coordinator for Southern Africa node
Dr. Ramatu Alhassan University of Ghana, lead consultant on CAADP process
Dr. Babatunde Omilola IFPRI Coordinator of ReSAKSS
II. NO RESPONSE
China
Edwin Lim First Country Director of World Bank Office
Suoping Li China Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Ghana
Ram Bhavnani Head, Ministry of Agriculture Planning Unit
Lena Otoo Dep. Director, Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture
Robert Myhara CIDA Advisor to Agriculture Planning Unit

31
CAADP
Janet Edeme African Union Commission
Boaz Keizire African Union Commission
Richard Mkandawire NEPAD Planning and Coordination Authority
Martin Bwalya NEPAD Planning and Coordination Authority
Sam Kanyarukiga COMESA Secretariat
Pius Chilonda ReSAKSS Coordinator for Southern Africa node
Joseph Karugia ReSAKSS Coordinator for East and Central Africa node
Ousmane Badiane IFPRI Africa Director
Zambia
E.C. Kalaba CAADP Country leader
Thomson Kalinda University of Zambia consultant
Malawi
George Zimalirana Director of Agricultural Planning Services,
Malawi Ministry of Ag. and Food Security

32
 ANNEX B: GRP-3 PUBLICATIONS 1997–2010

Books (12)
Qian, K., X. Zhu, and S. Fan. 1997. Analysis of research priorities in Jiangsu agricultural research: The
case of rice, wheat, rapeseed, and cotton. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press (in
Chinese).
Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2002. Economic growth, regional inequality, and poverty in rural
China: A study of public investment. Beijing: China Agricultural Publishing House.
Fan, S., and L. Zhang, eds. 2004. WTO and public investment in China. Beijing: China Agricultural
Publishing House (in Chinese).
Fan, S., and K. Qian. 2005. Agricultural R&D and poverty. Beijing: China Agricultural Publishing
House.
Dong, X.-Y., S. Song, and X. Zhang, eds. 2005. China’s rural economy after WTO: Problems and
strategies. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Fan, S., and C. Chan-Kang. 2006. Road development, economic growth, and poverty reduction [in
Chinese]. Beijing: China Agricultural Publishing House.
Ali, A.A.G., and S. Fan, eds. 2007. Public policy and poverty reduction in the Arab region. Kuwait: Arab
Planning Institute.
Fan, S., and L. Zhang, eds. 2007. Poverty reduction strategy in the New Millennium: Emerging issues,
experiences, and lessons. Beijing: China Finance and Economics Publishing House.
Fan, S., ed. 2008. Public expenditures, growth, and poverty in developing countries: Lessons from
developing countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI).
Fan, S., R. Kanbur, and X. Zhang, eds. 2009. Regional inequality in China: Trends, explanations and
policy responses. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Gulati, A., and S. Fan, eds. 2010. The dragon and the elephant: Agricultural and rural reforms in China
and India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Mogues, T. and S. Benin. 2010. Public expenditures for agricultural and rural development in Africa.
London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group (in press).

Journal Articles (47)

Fan, S. 1997. Production and productivity growth in Chinese agriculture: New measurement and
evidence. Food Policy 22(3): 213–228.
Fan, S. 1997. Economic returns to investment in Chinese agriculture. China Journal of Agricultural
Economics 2.
Fan, S., and P.G. Pardey. 1997. Research, productivity, and output growth in Chinese agriculture. Journal
of Development Economics 53(1): 115–137.
Haque, T., S.R. Hashim, and S. Fan. 1998. Spatial patterns of agricultural development and their
investment priorities in India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development 8(1): 5–22.
Fan, S. 1998. Growth of agricultural output and productivity growth: A new method of measurement and
conclusion. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics 108(4): [27-35].

33
Fan, S. 2000. Research investment and the economic returns to Chinese agricultural research. Journal of
Productivity Analysis 14(92): 163-182.
Fan, S., and P. Hazell. 2000. Should developing countries invest more in less-favored areas: An empirical
analysis of rural India. Economic and Political Weekly 35(17, April): 1455-1464.
Fan, S., P. Hazell, and T. Haque. 2000. Targeting public Investments by agro-ecological zone to achieve
growth and poverty alleviation goals in rural India. Food Policy 25(4): 411–428.
Fan, S., P. Hazell, and S. Thorat. 2000. Government spending, growth and poverty in rural India.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(4): 1038–1051.
Fan, S., S. Thorat, and P. Hazell. 2000. Impact of public expenditure on poverty in rural India. Economic
and Political Weekly 35(40): 3581-3588.
Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2001. Growth and poverty in rural China: The role of public investment.
China World Economy (October).
Fan, S., and P. Hazell. 2001. Returns to public investments in the less-favored areas of India and China.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(5): 1217–1222.
Fan, S., and P. Hazell. 2001. Returns to public investment: Evidence from India and China. World
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (April 4) [Japanese].
Fan, S., S. Robinson, and X. Zhang. 2002. Structural change and economic growth in China. China
Economics Quarterly 2(1, October): 181–198.
Liu, C., L. Zhang, and S. Fan. 2002. Factors affecting farmers’ agricultural production investment. China
Rural Survey 4.
Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2002. Growth and poverty effects of government spending in rural
China. Journal of South China Agricultural University (Social Science Edition) 1(1).
Fan, S., and X. Zhang. 2002. Production and productivity growth in Chinese agriculture: New national
and regional measures. Economic Development and Cultural Change 50(4): 819-838.
Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2002. The role of public investment in rural growth and poverty
reduction. Journal of South China Agricultural University (Social Science Edition) 1(1): 1–13 [in
Chinese].
Diao, X., S. Fan, and X. Zhang. 2003. China’s WTO accession—Impacts on regional agricultural income:
A multi-region, general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Comparative Economics 31(2): 332–351.
Fan, S. 2003. Agricultural research and urban poverty in India. Quarterly Journal of International
Agriculture 42(1): 63–78.
Fan, S., C. Fang, and X. Zhang. 2003. Agricultural research and urban poverty: The case of China. World
Development 31(4): 733–741.
Zhang, L., S. Fan, and X. Zhang. 2003. Public investment and the poor: Some methodological issues.
Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (September).
Dorward, A., S. Fan, J. Kydd, H. Lofgren, J. Morrison, C. Poulton, N. Rao, L. Smith, H. Tchale,
S. Thorat, I. Urey, and P. Wobst. 2004. Institutions and Policies for Pro-Poor Agricultural Growth.”
Natural Resources Perspectives 94.
Fan, S., and C. Chan-Kang. 2004. Returns to investment in less-favored areas in developing countries: A
synthesis of evidence and implication for Africa. Food Policy 29(4): 431–444.
Fan, S., and X. Zhang. 2004. Reform, investment and poverty in rural China. Economic Development and
Cultural Change 52(2): 395–422.

34
Fan, S., and X. Zhang. 2004. Infrastructure and regional economic development in rural China. China
Economic Review 12: 203–214.
Fan, S. 2004. New stage of agricultural economics research in China. Journal of Agricultural Economics
Issues (September).
Zhang, X., and S. Fan. 2004. How productive is infrastructure? New approach and evidence from rural
India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2): 492–501.
Zhang, X., and S. Fan. 2004. Public investment and regional inequality in rural China. Agricultural
Economics 30(2): 89–100.
Zhang, X., S. Fan, L. Zhang, and J. Huang. 2004. Local governance and public goods provision in rural
China. Journal of Public Economics 88(12): 2857–2871.
Fan, S., C. Chan-Kang, K. Qian, and K. Krishnaiah. 2005. National and international agricultural
research and rural poverty: The case of rice in India and China. Agricultural Economics 33(Supplement
S3): 369-379.
Kanbur, R., and X. Zhang. 2005. Fifty years of regional inequality in China: A journey through central
planning, reform, and openness. Review of Development Economics 9(1): 87–106.
Fan, S., X. Li, C. Fang, and X. Zhang. 2006. Agricultural R&D and urban poverty. Agrotech Economics
5: 9–15
Mukherjee, A., and X. Zhang. 2006. Rural industrialization in China and India: Role of policies and
institutions [in Chinese]. China Economic Quarterly 5(2): 533–550.
Fan, S. 2007. How can China’s rapid growth benefit African poor through rural and agricultural
development? Entwicklung & Ländlicher Raum 4(1): 16-17.
Kourtellos, A., C.M. Tan, and X. Zhang. 2007. Is the relationship between aid and economic growth
nonlinear? Journal of Macroeconomics 29(3): 515–540.
Luo, X., and X. Zhang. 2007. Social entitlement exchange and balanced region growth. Twenty First
Century Review 99(2): 13–20.
Mukherjee, A., and X. Zhang. 2007. Rural industrialization in China and India: Role of policies and
institutions. World Development 35(10): 1621–1634.
Fan, S. 2008. Comment la Croissance Rapide de la Chine Peut-elle Profiter aux Pauvres d’Afrique Grâce
au Développement Rural et Agricole. Le journal International Du Developpement Rural 13(1).
Fan, S., and A. Gulati. 2008. The dragon and the elephant: Learning from agricultural and rural reforms in
China and India. Economic and Political Weekly 43(26): 137–144.
Fan, S., A. Gulati, and S. Thorat. 2008. Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural India.
Agricultural Economics 39(2): 163–170.
Fan, S., B. Yu, and S. Jitsuchon. 2008. Does allocation of public spending matter in poverty reduction?
Evidence from Thailand. Asian Economic Journal 22(4): 411–430.
Fan, S., and X. Zhang. 2008. Public expenditure, growth, and poverty reduction in rural Uganda. African
Development Review 20(3): 466–496.
Birner, R., K. Davis, J. Pender, E. Nkonya, P. Anandajayasekeram, J. Ekboir, M. Mbabu, D.J. Spielman,
D. Horna, S, Benin, and M. Cohen. 2009. From best practice to best fit: A framework for designing and
analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide. Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension 15(4): 341–355.

35
Banful, A.B. 2010. Do formula-based intergovernmental transfer mechanisms eliminate politically
motivated targeting? Evidence from Ghana.” Journal of Development Economics (in press).
Benin, S., E. Nkonya, G. Okecho, E. Kato, J. Randriamamonjy, G. Lubade, and M. Kyotalimye. 2010.
Returns to spending on agricultural extension: The case of the National Agricultural Advisory Services
(NAADS) Program of Uganda. Agricultural Economics (in press).
Mogues, T. (forthcoming). “The Bang for the Birr: Public Expenditures and Rural Welfare in Ethiopia.”
Journal of Development Studies.

Book Chapters and Published Conference Proceedings (35)

Fan, S. 1998. Agricultural investment in China: Measurement and policy issues. In Agriculture in China:
1949–2030, edited by T.C. Tso, F. Tuan, and M. Faust. Beltsville, MD: Ideals, Inc.
Fan, S., and P. Pardey. 1998. Government spending on Asian agriculture: Trends and production
consequence. In Agricultural public finance policy in Asia. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.
Hazell, P., and S. Fan. 2000. Balancing regional development priorities to achieve sustainable and
equitable agricultural growth. In Tradeoffs or synergies? Agricultural intensification, economic
development and the environment, edited by D.R. Lee and C.B. Barrett, chapter 9. Wallingford, Oxon,
UK: CABI Publishing.
Fan, S. 2001. Agricultural research and rural poverty reduction: Evidence from India and China. Chapter
in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Agricultural Sciences and Technology, November
7–9, Beijing.
Zhang, X. 2001. FDI and regional inequality. In WTO and China: Development through globalization,
edited by J. Wen, Z. Zheng, X. Wang, and X. Zuo, pp. 347–359. Beijing: China People’s University
Press.
Hazell, P., and S. Fan. 2002. The importance of public investments and institutions for the functioning of
food markets in developing countries. Seminar paper presented by Peter Hazell to the Faculty of
Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, January 31.
Zhang, X. 2003. How do industrialization and urbanization affect land use? In Urbanization
transformation in China: Theory, evidence, and policy, edited by A. Chen and K. Zhang, pp. 175–189.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Fan, S. 2004. Public investment and the poor: Initial evidence from East Africa and policy implications
for West Africa. Proceeding chapter in “Food and Nutrition Security Policies for West Africa
Implementation Issues and Research Agendas,” IFPRI 2020 Regional Workshop, January 13–15,
Bamako, Mali.
Fang, C., X. Zhang, and S. Fan. 2004. Urban poverty and inequality in the era of reforms. In Urbanization
and social welfare in China, edited by A. Chen, G. Liu, and K. Zhang, pp. 307–324. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Fan, S. 2005. Investment or subsidies: Where should China and India be heading? In China’s agricultural
and rural development in the early 21st century, edited by B.H. Sonntag, J. Huang, S. Rozelle, and J.H.
Skerritt, pp. 35–37. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
Fan, S., K. Qian, and X. Zhang. 2006. Agricultural R&D policy in China. In Agricultural R&D in the
developing world: Too little, too late?, edited by P.D. Pardey, J.M. Alston, and R.R. Piggott. Washington,
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

36
Fan, S., and X. Zhang. 2006. Production and productivity growth in Chinese agriculture: New national
and regional measures. In China’s agricultural development: Challenges and prospects, edited by X.
Dong, S. Song, and X. Zhang, pp. 129–151. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Yao, Y., and S. Fan. 2006. Evolution of income and fiscal disparity in rural China. Annual Meeting,
August 12–18, Queensland, Australia, item 25671, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
Fan, S., K, Qian, and X. Zhang. 2005. Agricultural R&D policy in China. In Agricultural R&D in the
developing world: Too little, too late?, edited by P.D. Pardey, J.M. Alston, and R.R. Piggott. Washington,
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Ayele, G., Z. Paulos, and T. Mogues. 2007. Trends in public investment, poverty and growth in Ethiopia.
In Reversing rural poverty in Ethiopia: Dilemmas and critical issues, edited by E. Wale, S. Regassa, D.
Gebre-Michael, and B. Emana, pp. 169-191. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the
Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia.
Ali, A.A.G., and S. Fan. 2007. Introduction. In Public policy and poverty reduction in the Arab region,
edited by A.A.G. Ali and S. Fan, pp. 1–12. Kuwait: Arab Planning Institute.
Ali, A.A.G., L. Horowitz, and S. Fan. 2007. Public policy and poverty in the Arab region: Major findings
and lessons learned. In Public policy and poverty reduction in the Arab region, edited by A.A.G. Ali and
S. Fan, chapter 10, pp. 361–374. Kuwait: Arab Planning Institute.
Fan, S., P. Al-Riffai, M. El-Said, B. Yu, and A. Kamaly. 2007. Public spending, growth, and poverty
reduction in Egypt: A multi-level analysis. In Public policy and poverty reduction in the Arab region,
edited by A.A.G. Ali and S. Fan, chapter 5, pp. 117–167. Kuwait: Arab Planning Institute.
Fan, S., and C. Chan-Kang. 2007. Regional inequality in China: Scope, sources and strategies to reduce it.
In Dragons with clay feet? Transitions, sustainable land use, and rural environment in China and
Vietnam, edited by M. Spoor, N. Heerink, and F. Qu, pp. 49-69. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Fan, S., A. Gulati, and S. Dalafi. 2007. Introduction. In The dragon and the elephant: Agricultural and
rural reforms in China and India, edited by A. Gulati and S. Fan, pp. 3-9. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Fan, S., A. Gulati, and S. Dalafi. 2007. Overview of reforms and development in China and India. In The
dragon and the elephant: Agricultural and rural reforms in China and India, edited by A. Gulati and S.
Fan, pp. 10-44. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI).
Fan, S., A. Gulati, and S. Dalafi. 2007. Synthesis: Lessons and challenges. In The dragon and the
elephant: Agricultural and rural reforms in China and India, edited by A. Gulati and S. Fan, pp. 465-488.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI).
Fan, S., and S.K. Thorat. 2007. Public investment, growth, and poverty reduction: A comparative analysis
of India and China.” In The dragon and the elephant: Agricultural and rural reforms in China and India,
edited by A. Gulati and S. Fan, pp. 121–140. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press for the
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Xing, L., S. Fan, X. Luo, and X. Zhang. 2007. Village inequality in Western China: Implications for
development strategy in lagging regions. In Poverty reduction strategy in the New Millennium: Emerging
issues, experiences, and lessons, edited by S. Fan, and L. Zhang, [Chapter 16]. Beijing: China Finance
and Economics Publishing House.
Yao, Y., and S. Fan. 2007. Ups and downs in income and fiscal disparities in rural China: Implications for
future growth and poverty reduction. In Poverty reduction strategy in the New Millennium: Emerging

37
issues, experiences, and lessons, edited by S. Fan, and L. Zhang, Chapter 18. Beijing: China Finance and
Economics Publishing House.
Zhang, X., and S. Fan. 2007. Fiscal decentralization, nonfarm development, and spatial inequality in rural
China. In Dragons with clay feet? Transitions, sustainable land use, and rural environment in China and
Vietnam, edited by M. Spoor, N. Heerink, and F. Qu, pp. 71-81. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Zhang, X., and R. Kanbur. 2007. Spatial inequality in education and health care in China. In Market
development in China: Spillovers, growth and inequality, edited B.M. Fleisher, H. Li, and S. Song, pp.
41-60. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Diao, X., S. Fan, S. Kanyarukiga, and B. Yu. 2008. Agricultural growth and investment options for
poverty reduction in Rwanda. In Poverty alleviation: 21st century issues and challenges, edited by L.B.
Veritta, pp. 63-124. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.
Fan, Shenggen, Yu, Bing Sarkar, Anuja. 2008. Public spending in developing countries: Trends,
determination and impact. In Public expenditures, growth, and poverty: Lessons from developing
countries, edited by S. Fan, pp. 20-55. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Diao, X., S. Fan, and X. Zhang. 2009. China’s WTO accession: Impacts on regional agricultural
income—A multi-regional, general equilibrium analysis. In Regional inequality in China: Trends,
explanations and policy responses, edited by S. Fan, R. Kanbur, and X. Zhang, chapter 9. London and
New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Fan, S. 2009. Linkages between government spending, growth and poverty in Uganda and Tanzania. In
Case studies in food policy for developing countries. Volume 3: Institutions and international trade
policies, edited by P. Pinstrup-Andersen and F. Cheng, chapter 1. Ithaca, NY: Connell University Press.
Fan, S. 2009. Linkages between government spending, growth and poverty in India and China.” In Case
studies in food policy for developing countries. Volume 3: Institutions and international trade policies,
edited by P. Pinstrup-Andersen and F. Cheng, chapter 2. Ithaca, NY: Connell University Press.
Fan, S. 2009. Public investment and regional inequality in rural China. In Regional inequality in China:
Trends, explanations and policy responses, edited by S. Fan, R. Kanbur, and X. Zhang, chapter 11.
London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2009. Reforms, investment and poverty in rural China. In Regional
inequality in China: Trends, explanations and policy responses, edited by S. Fan, R. Kanbur, and X.
Zhang, chapter 12. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Fan, S., and X. Zhang. 2009. Infrastructure and regional economic development in rural China. In
Regional inequality in China: Trends, explanations and policy responses, edited by S. Fan, R. Kanbur,
and X. Zhang, chapter 10. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

IFPRI Research Reports (4)

Fan, S., P.B.R. Hazell, and S. Thorat. 1999. Linkages between government spending, growth, and poverty
in rural India. Research Report No. 110. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2002. Growth, inequality, and poverty in rural China: The role of public
investment. Research Report No. 125. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., and C. Chan-Kang. 2005. Road development, economic growth, and poverty reduction in China.
Research Report No. 138. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Mogues, T., G. Ayele, and Z. Paulos. 2008. The bang for the Birr: Public expenditures and rural welfare
in Ethiopia. Research Report No. 160. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI).

38
IFPRI Discussion Papers (51)
Fan, S., and P.B.R. Hazell. 1997. Should India invest more in less-favored areas? EPTD Discussion Paper
No. 25. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., P.B.R. Hazell, and S. Thorat. 1998. Government spending, growth and poverty: An analysis of
interlinkages in rural India. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 33. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Fan, S., and P.B.R. Hazell. 1999. Are returns to public investment lower in less-favored rural areas? An
empirical analysis of India. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 43. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Fan, S., X, Zhang, and S. Robinson. 1999. Past and future sources of growth for China. EPTD Discussion
Paper No. 53. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2000. Growth and poverty in rural China: The role of public investment.
EPTD Discussion Paper No. 66. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Zhang, X., and S. Fan. 2000. Public investment and regional inequality in rural China. EPTD Discussion
Paper No. 71. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., C. Fang, and X. Zhang. 2001. How agricultural research affects urban poverty in developing
countries: The case of China. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 83. Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute.
Zhang, X., and S. Fan. 2001. How productive is infrastructure? New approach and evidence from rural
India. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 84. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Diao, X., S. Fan, and X. Zhang. 2002. How China’s WTO accession affects rural economy in the less-
developed regions: A multi-region, general equilibrium analysis. TMD Discussion Paper No. 87.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S. 2002. Agricultural research and urban poverty in India. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 94.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Ito, J. 2002. Why TVEs have contributed to inter-regional imbalances in China. EPTD Discussion Paper
No. 91. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Pardey, P.G., J.M. Alston, C. Chan-Kang, E.C. Magalhaes, and S.A. Vosti. 2002. Assessing and
attributing the benefits from varietal improvement research: Evidence from Embrapa, Brazil. EPTD
Discussion Paper No. 95. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Zhang, X., S. Fan, L. Zhang, and J. Huang. 2002. Local governance and public goods provision in rural
China. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 93. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., C, Chan-Kang, K, Qian, and K. Krishnaiah. 2003. National and international agricultural research
and rural poverty: The case of rice research in India and China. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 109.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., and N. Rao. 2003. Public spending in developing countries: Trend, determination and impact.
EPTD Discussion Paper No. 99. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Dorward, A., S. Fan, J. Kydd, H. Lofgren, J. Morrison, C. Poulton, N. Rao, L. Smith, H. Tchale, S.
Thorat, I. Urey, and P. Wobst. 2004. Institutions and policies for pro-poor agricultural growth. DSGD
Discussion Paper No. 15. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., and C. Chan-Kang. 2004. Road development, economic growth and poverty reduction in China.
DSGD Discussion Paper No. 12. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

39
Fan, S., S. Jitsuchon, and N. Methakunnavut. 2004. The importance of public investment for reducing
rural poverty in middle-income countries: The case of Thailand. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 7.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., X. Zhang, and N. Rao. 2004. Public expenditure, growth and poverty reduction in rural Uganda.
DSGD Discussion Paper No. 4. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Zhang, X., M. Johnson, D. Resnick, and S. Robinson. 2004. Cross-country typologies and development
strategies in Africa. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 8. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Dorward, A., S. Fan, J. Kydd, H. Lofgren, J. Morrison, C. Poulton, N. Rao, L. Smith, H. Tchale, S.
Thorat, I. Urey, and P. Wobst. 2004. Institutions and economic policies for pro-poor agricultural growth.
DSGD Discussion Paper No. 15. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Diao, X. (with M. Gautam, J. Keough, D. Puetz, J. Chamberlin, C. Rodgers, L. You, and B. Yu). 2004.
Growth options and investment strategies in Ethiopian agriculture—A spatial, economy-wide model
analysis for 2004–2015. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 20. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Fan, S., and C. Chan-Kang. 2005. Road development, economic growth, and poverty reduction in China.
DSGD Discussion Paper No. 12. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., C. Chan-Kang, and A. Mukherjee. 2005. Rural and urban dynamics and poverty: Evidence from
China and India. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 23. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Fan, S., D. Nyange, and N. Rao. 2005. Public investment and poverty reduction in Tanzania: Evidence
from household survey data. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 18. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Gulati, A., S. Fan, and S. Dalafi. 2005. The dragon and the elephant: Agricultural and rural reforms in
China and India. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 22. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Mukherjee, A., and X. Zhang. 2005. Rural nonfarm development in China and India: The role of policies
and institutions. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 24. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Zhang, X. 2005. Fiscal decentralization and political centralization in China: The implication on regional
inequality. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 21. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Diao, X., S. Fan, S. Kanyarukiga, and B. Yu. Agricultural growth and investment options for poverty
reduction in Rwanda. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 689. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Fan, S., P. Al-Riffai, M. El-Said, B. Yu, and A. Kamaly. 2006. A multi-level analysis of public spending,
growth and poverty reduction in Egypt. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 41. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Xing, L., S. Fan, X. Luo, and X. Zhang. 2006. Village inequality in Western China: Implications for
development strategy in lagging regions. DSGD Discussion Paper No. 31. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Chemingui, M.A. 2007. Public spending and poverty reduction in an oil-based economy: The case of
Yemen. IFPRI Discussion Paper 701. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

40
Diao, X., S. Fan, B. Yu, and S. Kanyarukiga. 2007. Agricultural growth and investment options for
poverty reduction in Rwanda. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 689. Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., A. Gulati, and S. Thorat. 2007. Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural India. IFPRI
Discussion Paper No. 716. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Kourtellos, A., C.M. Tan, and X. Zhang. 2007. Is the relationship between aid and economic growth
nonlinear? IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 694. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Mogues, T., G. Ayele, and Z. Paulos. 2007. The bang for the Birr: Public expenditures and rural welfare
in Ethiopia. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 702. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Zhang, X., L. Xing, S. Fan, and X. Luo. 2007. Resource abundance and regional development in China.
IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 713. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Benin, S., J. Thurlow, X. Diao, C. McCool, and F. Simtowe. 2008. Agricultural growth and investment
options for poverty reduction in Malawi. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 794. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Benin, S., J. Thurlow, X. Diao, A. Kebba, and N. Ofwono. 2008. Agricultural growth and investment
options for poverty reduction in Uganda. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 790. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Benin, S., J. Thurlow, X. Diao, H. Kalinda, and T. Kalinda. 2008. Agricultural growth and investment
options for poverty reduction in Zambia. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 791. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Benin, S., and J. Randriamamonjy. 2008. Estimating household income to monitor and evaluate public
investment programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 771. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Benin, S., T. Mogues, G. Cudjoe, and J. Randriamamonjy. 2008. Reaching middle-income status in
Ghana by 2015: Public expenditures and agricultural growth. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 811.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Breisinger, C., X. Diao, J. Thurlow, B. Yu, and S. Kolavalli. 2008. Accelerating growth and structural
transformation: Ghana’s options for reaching middle-income country status. IFPRI Discussion Paper No.
750. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Diao, X., S. Fan, D. Headey, M. Johnson, A. Nin Pratt, and B. Yu. 2008. Accelerating Africa’s food
production in response to rising food prices: Impacts and requisite actions. IFPRI Discussion Paper No.
825. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., M. Johnson, A. Saurkar, and T. Makombe. 2008. Investing in African agriculture to halve
poverty by 2015. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 751. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Mogues, T., M. Morris, L. Freinkman, A. Adubi, E. Simeon, C. Nwoko, O. Taiwo, C. Nege, P. Okonji,
and L. Chute. 2008. Agricultural public spending in Nigeria. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 789.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
You, L., and M. Johnson. 2008. Exploring strategic priorities for regional agricultural R&D investments
in East and Central Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 776. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.

41
Mogues, T., S. Benin, and G. Cudjoe. 2009. Do external grants to district governments discourage own-
revenue generation? A look at local public finance dynamics in Ghana. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 934.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Banful, A.B. 2010. Old problems in the new solutions? Politically motivated allocation of program
benefits and the “new” fertilizer subsidies. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 1002. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.

IFPRI Issue/Policy/Research Briefs (11)

Fan, S., and M.J. Cohen. 1999. Alternativas criticas para a politica agricola da China. 2020 Vision Brief
No. 60PO. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., and M.J. Cohen. 1999. Critical choices for China’s agricultural policy. 2020 Vision Brief No. 60.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., and P.B.R. Hazell. 2000. Utilidades de la inversion publica—Datos de la India y China: Fomentar
el desarrollo sustentable en las zonas poco favorecidas. 2020 Vision Focus Brief No. 4(5). Washington,
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., and D. Resnick. 2004. Public spending on agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Policy Brief.
Fan, S., D. Nyange, and X. Zhang. 2006. Uganda and Tanzania: Pro-poor public investment. Issue Brief
No. 45UT. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., J. Brzeska, and G. Shields. 2007. Investment priorities for economic growth and poverty
reduction. Focus Brief for 2020 Conference on the World’s Poor and Hungry People. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., A, Saurkar, and G. Shields. 2007. How to mobilize public resources to support poverty reduction.
Focus Brief for 2020 Conference on the World’s Poor and Hungry People. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Fan, S., and M.W. Rosegrant. 2008. Investing in agriculture to overcome the world food crisis and reduce
poverty and hunger. IFPRI Policy Brief No. 3. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Mogues, T., M. Morris, S. Ehui, L. Freinkman, A. Adubi, a. Kaga, and M.D. Olurunfemi. 2008. Nigeria
agriculture public expenditure review. The World Bank Report No. 44000-NG. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
Fan, S., T. Mogues, and S. Benin. 2009. Setting priorities for public spending for agricultural and rural
development in Africa. IFPRI Policy Brief No. 12. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute
Fan, S., T. Mogues, and S. Benin. 2009. Setting priorities for public spending for agricultural and rural
development in Africa. IFPRI Policy Brief No. 12. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.

Annual Report Essays (2)

von Braun, J., A. Gulati, and S. Fan. 2005. Agricultural and economic development strategies and the
transformation of China and India. Annual Report Essay. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
von Braun, J., A. Gulati, S. Fan, M.S. Ahluwalia, and J. Liu. 2005. Lessons learned from the Dragon
(China) and the elephant (India). Annual Report Essay. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.

42
Non-IFPRI Working Papers, Reports, and Periodicals (9)
Fan, S., and S. Robinson. 2000. Why China should invest more in rural areas: Sources of growth analysis.
A Report of ACIAR funded project on public investment in Chinese agriculture.
Fan, S. 2000. The profile of China’s regional inequality: The importance of nonfarm sector and public
inputs. A Report of ACIAR funded project on public investment in Chinese agriculture.
Fan, S., X. Ma, and L. Zhang. 2000. Priorities of public investment in rural China: A county-level
analysis. A Report of ACIAR funded project on public investment in Chinese agriculture.
Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2001. Public spending spurs growth. China Daily, August 16.
Kanbur, R., and X. Zhang. 2001. Fifty years of regional inequality in China: A journey through
revolution, reform and openness. Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Discussion Paper No.
2887.
Fan, S., and S. Throat. 2007. Public investment and poverty reduction: Lessons from China and India.”
Economic and Political Weekly 42(8): 704–710.
Fan, S., R. Kanbur, and X. Zhang. 2008. Regional inequality in China: An overview. Department of
Applied Economics and Management Working Paper No. 2008-18, Cornell University.
Fan, S., B. Omilola, V. Rhoe, and S.A. Salau. 2008. Towards a pro-poor agricultural growth strategy in
Nigeria. NSSP Brief No. 1. Abuja, Nigeria: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Mogues, T., M, Morris, L. Freinkman, A. Adubi, S. Ehui, C. Nwoko, O. Taiwo, C. Nege, P. Okonji, and
L. Chete. 2008. Nigeria agriculture public expenditure review. NSSP Brief No. 2. Abuja, Nigeria:
International Food Policy Research Institute.

GSSP Working Papers (4)

Benin, S., and J. Randriamamonjy. 2007. Reaching middle-income status in Ghana by 2015: What are the
constraints and opportunities for raising agriculture productivity? GSSP Background Paper No. 5.
Kolavalli, S., R. Birner, and S. Benin (with S. Babu, K. Asenso Okyere, N.M. Thompson, and J. Poku).
2008. Public expenditure and institutional review: Ghana’s Ministry of Food and Agriculture. GSSP
Working Paper.
Banful, A.B. 2009. An assessment of the 2008 Fertilizer Subsidy Program in Ghana. GSSP background
paper.
Kolavalli, S., R. Birner, S. Benin, L. Horowitz, S. Babu, K. Asenso-Okyere, N.M. Thompson, and
J. Poku. 2009. Public expenditure and institutional review: Ghana’s Ministry of Food And Agriculture.
Ghana Strategy Support Program (GSSP) Working Paper 17. Accra, Ghana: GSSP, International Food
Policy Research Institute.

ReSAKSS Briefs (3)

“Investing in African Agriculture to Halve Poverty by 2015,” May 2008, IFPRI (ReSAKSS Issue Brief
No. 4)
“Tracking Agricultural Spending for Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction in Africa,” May 2008,
IFPRI (ReSAKSS Issue Brief No. 5)
“Rising Global Food Prices—Policy Challenges and Options for Southern Africa,” November 2008,
IFPRI (ReSAKSS Issue Brief No. 6)

43
ReSAKSS-Africa Wide Working Papers (7)
Benin, S., and M. Johnson (with the Technical Working Group). 2008. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
system for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). ReSAKSS
Working Paper No. 6, International Food Policy Research Institute.
Benin S., A. Nin Pratt, S. Fan, C. Breisinger, T. Mogues, J. Thurlow, and X. Diao. June 2008. Growth
and poverty reduction impacts of public investments in agriculture and rural areas: Assessment
techniques, tools and guide for practitioners. ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 7, International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Benin, S., J. Thurlow, X. Diao, A. Kebba, and N. Ofwono. 2008. Agricultural growth and investment
options for poverty reduction in Uganda. ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 17, International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Benin, S., J. Thurlow, X. Diao, C. McCool, and F. Simtowe, F. 2008. Agricultural growth and investment
options for poverty reduction in Malawi. ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 18, International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Diao, X., S. Fan, S. Kanyaruukia, and B. Yu. 2008. Agricultural growth and investment options for
poverty reduction in Rwanda. ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 21, International Food Policy Research
Institute.
ReSAKSS 2008. ReSAKSS Africa wide annual trends report 2007: Monitoring agricultural sector
performance, growth, and poverty in Africa. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Thurlow, J., S. Benin, X. Diao, H. Kalinda, and T. Kalinda. 2008. Agricultural growth and investment
options for poverty reduction in Zambia. ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 19, International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI).

NSSP Brief (1)

“Constraints to Fertilizer Use in Nigeria: Perspectives and Insights from the Agricultural Extension
Service,” NSSP Brief No. 6

GRP-3 Work Currently Under Review

Books (1)
Diao, S., J. Thurlow, S. Benin, and S. Fan, eds. Forthcoming. Agricultural strategies in Africa: Evidence-
based analysis (book manuscript under revision for resubmission for IFPRI-Johns Hopkins University
Press).

Journal Articles (8)

Banful, A.B. Forthcoming. Old problems in the new solutions? Politically motivated allocation of
program benefits and the “new” fertilizer subsidies. Submitted to World Development.
Banful, A.B., E. Nkonya, and V. Oboh. Forthcoming. Constraints to fertilizer use in Nigeria: Insights
from agricultural extension service. Revision for Food Policy.
Benin, S., T. Mogues, G. Cudjoe, and J. Randriamamonjy. Forthcoming. Public expenditures and
agricultural productivity growth in Ghana. Revised and resubmitted to Journal of African Economies.

44
Dillon, A., M. Sharma, and X. Zhang. Estimating the returns to rural public expenditures in Nepal: Do
differing econometric approaches yield coherent policy advice? To be revised and resubmitted to Food
Policy.
Mogues, T., S. Benin, and G. Cudjoe. Forthcoming. Do external grants to district governments discourage
own-revenue generation? A look at local public finance dynamics in Ghana. To be revised and
resubmitted to World Development.
Mogues, T. Forthcoming. Shocks, livestock asset dynamics, and social capital in Ethiopia. Re-revised and
re-resubmitted to Economic Development and Cultural Change.
Nkonya, E., D. Phillip, T. Mogues, J. Pender, E. Kato. Forthcoming. Impacts of community-driven
development programmes on income and asset acquisition in Africa: The case of Nigeria. To be revised
and resubmitted to World Development.
Yu, B., and S. Fan. Forthcoming. Rice production response in Cambodia. Revised and resubmitted to
Agricultural Economics.

IFPRI Research Reports (2)

Benin, S., E. Nkonya, G. Okecho, E. Kato, J. Randriamamonjy, G. Lubade, M. Kyotalimye, and
Byekwaso. Forthcoming. Impacts of and returns to public investment in agricultural extension: The case
of the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) Program of Uganda. Under revision for IFPRI
Research Monograph.

Nkonya, E., D. Phillip, T. Mogues, J. Pender, E. Kato. 2010. From the ground up: Impacts of a pro-poor
community-driven development project in Nigeria. IFPRI Research Monograph. Washington, D.C.:
International Food Policy Research Institute.

45
 ANNEX C: CITATIONS OF GRP-3 PUBLICATIONS

Table C1. Citations of Selected GRP-3 Publications from ISI Web of Science
Author (date) Journala Title Cites
Fan, Hazell, &
AJAE Government spending, growth and poverty in rural India 27
Thorat (2000)
Fan & Pardey Research, productivity, and output growth in Chinese
JDE 22
(1997) agriculture
Fan, Hazell, & Targeting public investments by agro-ecological zone to
FP 17
Haque (2000) achieve growth and poverty alleviation goals in rural India
Fan, Zhang, &
EDCC Reforms, investment, and poverty in rural China 15
Zhang (2004)
Fan & Zhang Production and productivity growth in Chinese agriculture:
EDCC 13
(2002) New national and regional measures
Zhang et al.
JPUB Local governance and public goods provision in rural China 10
(2004)
Fan & Hazell Should developing countries invest more in less-favored
EPW 10
(2000) areas? An empirical analysis of rural India
Research investment and the economic returns to Chinese
Fan (2000) JPA 9
agricultural research
Zhang & Fan
AE Public investment and regional inequality in rural China 8
(2004)
Production and productivity growth in Chinese agriculture:
Fan (1997) FP 8
New measurement and evidence
Fan & Hazell Returns to public investments in the less-favored areas of
AJAE 8
(2001) India and China
Fan & Zhang Infrastructure and regional economic development in rural
CER 6
(2004) China
Diao, Fan, & China's WTO accession: impacts on regional agricultural
JCE 6
Zhang (2003) income—a multi-region, general equilibrium analysis
Fan, Fang, &
WD Agricultural research and urban poverty: The case of China 4
Zhang (2003)
National and international agricultural research and rural
Fan et al. (2005) AE 4
poverty: the case of rice research in India and China
Zhang & Fan How productive is infrastructure? A new approach and
AJAE 3
(2004) evidence from rural India
Fan & Chan-Kang Regional road development, rural and urban poverty:
TP 2
(2008) Evidence from China
Fan, Gulati, &
AE Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural India 1
Thorat (2008)
a
AJAE = American Journal of Agricultural Economics; JDE = Journal of Development Economics; FP = Food
Policy; EDCC = Economic Development and Cultural Change; JPUB = Journal of Public Economics; EPW =
Economic and Political Weekly; JPA = Journal of Productivity Analysis; AE = Agricultural Economics; CER =
China Economic Review; JCE = Journal of Comparative Economics; WD = World Development; and TP =
Transport Policy.

47
Table C2. Book Visits and Pages Viewed of Selected GRP-3 Publications from Google Books

Book Pages
Author (date) Title
visits viewed
Growth, inequality, and poverty in rural China: The
Fan, Zhang, & Zhang (2002) 6,510 72,933
role of public investments
Linkages between government spending, growth, and
Fan, Hazell, & Thorat (1999) 5,361 52,718
poverty in rural India
Agricultural growth and investment options for
Benin et al. (2008) 3,617 38,683
poverty reduction in Malawi
Road development, economic growth, and poverty
Fan & Chan-Kang (2004) 321 4,101
reduction in China
Assessing the impact of the National Agricultural
Benin et al. (2007) Advisory Services (NAADS) in the Uganda rural 330 1925
livelihoods
Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural
Fan, Gulati, & Thorat (2007) 99 1226
India
The bang for the Birr: Public expenditures and rural
Mogues, Ayele, & Paulos (2007) 97 1,076
welfare in Ethiopia.
Mogues et al. (2008) Agricultural public spending in Nigeria 54 462
Investing in African agriculture to halve poverty by
Fan et al. (2008) 33 346
2015
Agricultural growth and investment options for
Benin et al. (2008) 22 264
poverty reduction in Uganda
National and international agricultural research and
Fan et al. (2003) rural poverty: The case of rice research in India and 24 233
China
Resource abundance and regional development in
Zhang et al. (2007) 17 189
China
Agricultural growth and investment options for
Thurlow et al. (2008) 22 174
poverty reduction in Zambia
Reaching middle-income status in Ghana by 2015:
Benin et al. (2008) 18 108
Public expenditures and agricultural growth
Estimating household income to monitor and
Benin & Randriamamonjy (2008) evaluate public investment programs in Sub-Saharan 8 70
Africa
Do external grants to district governments discourage
Mogues, Benin, & Cudjoe (2009) 4 20
own-revenue generation?

48
Table C3. File Downloads and Abstract Views of Selected GRP-3 Working Papers from
RePEc
File Abstract
Author (date) Title
downloads views
Government spending, growth and poverty: an
Fan, Hazell, & Thorat (1998) 378 1,600
analysis of interlinkages in rural India
Public spending in developing countries: trends,
Fan & Rao (2003) 558 1,291
determination, and impact
Public expenditure, growth, and poverty reduction
Fan, Zhang, & Rao (2004) 415 1,106
in rural Uganda
Public expenditure, growth, and poverty reduction
Fan, Zhang, & Rao (2004) 415 1,106
in rural Uganda
Fan, Jitsuchon, & Methakunnavut The importance of public investment for reducing
328 962
(2004) rural poverty in middle-income countries
Fifty years of regional inequality in China: A
Kanbur & Zhang (2007) 426 929
journey through revolution, reform and openness
Road development, economic growth, and poverty
Fan & Chan-Kang (2005) 294 858
reduction in China
Fan, Chan-Kang, & Mukherjee Rural and urban dynamics and poverty: Evidence
246 807
(2005) from China and India
Linkages between government spending, growth,
Fan, Hazell, & Thorat (1999) 225 773
and poverty in rural India
Road development, economic growth, and poverty
Fan & Chan-Kang (2004) 242 715
reduction in China
Institutions and economic policies for pro-poor
Dorward et al. (2004) 268 696
agricultural growth
Growth and poverty in rural China: the role of
Fan, Zhang, & Zhang (2000) 203 643
public investments
Growth and poverty in rural China: the role of
Fan, Zhang, & Zhang (2000) 203 643
public investments
How China’s WTO accession affects rural economy
Diao, Fan, & Zhang (2002) 231 622
in the less-developed regions
Growth, inequality, and poverty in rural China: the
Fan, Zhang, & Zhang (2002) 285 595
role of public investments
Growth, inequality, and poverty in rural China: the
Fan, Zhang, & Zhang (2002) 285 595
role of public investments
Zhang, Fan, Zhang, & Huang Local governance and public goods provision in
219 583
(2002) rural China
Fan (2002) Agricultural research and urban poverty in India 88 518
Public investment and poverty reduction in
Fan, Nyange, & Rao (2005) 136 512
Tanzania
Gulati, Fan, & Dalafi (2005) The dragon and the elephant 168 446
Public investment and regional inequality in rural
Zhang & Fan (2000) 169 376
China
Public investment and regional inequality in rural
Zhang & Fan (2000) 169 376
China
How productive is infrastructure? A new approach
Zhang & Fan (2001) 120 333
and evidence from rural India
How productive is infrastructure? New approach
Zhang & Fan (2001) 120 333
and evidence from rural India
How agricultural research affects urban poverty in
Fan, Fang, & Zhang (2001) 61 329
developing countries: the case of China

49
Table C3. File Downloads and Abstract Views of Selected GRP-3 Working Papers from
RePEc
File Abstract
Author (date) Title
downloads views
Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural
Fan, Gulati, & Thorat (2007) 102 318
India
National and international agricultural research and
Fan et al. (2003) rural poverty: the case of rice research in India and 77 297
China
Fan, Zhang, & Robinson (1999) Past and future sources of growth for China 144 295
Is the relationship between aid and economic
Kourtellos, Tan, & Zhang (2006) 131 294
growth nonlinear?
Mogues et al. (2008) Agricultural public spending in Nigeria 75 277
Assessing the impact of the National Agricultural
Benin et al. (2007) Advisory Services (NAADS) in the Uganda rural 55 271
livelihoods
Are returns to public investment lower in less-
Fan & Hazell (1999) 92 265
favored rural areas?:An empirical analysis of India
Public expenditures, growth, and poverty in
Fan (2008) developing countries: Lessons from developing 87 233
countries
Fan & Hazell (1997) Should India invest more in less-favored areas? 60 211
A multi-level analysis of public spending, growth
Fan et al. (2006) 92 188
and poverty reduction in Egypt
Gulati, Fan, & Dalafi (2005) The dragon and the elephant 30 164
Reaching middle-income status in Ghana by 2015:
Benin et al. (2008) 46 158
Public expenditures and agricultural growth
Is the relationship between aid and economic
Kourtellos, Tan, & Zhang (2007) 59 112
growth nonlinear?
Agricultural growth and investment options for
Diao et al. (2007) 51 112
poverty reduction in Rwanda
Zhang, Rockmore, & Chamberlin A typology for vulnerability and agriculture in Sub-
48 109
(2007) Saharan Africa
The bang for the birr: Public expenditures and rural
Mogues, Ayele, & Paulos (2008) 42 107
welfare in Ethiopia
Agricultural growth and investment options for
Diao et al. (2007) 48 106
poverty reduction in Rwanda
How effective is public spending? Public
Mogues et al. (2006) investment composition and rural welfare in 52 101
Ethiopia
Investing in African agriculture to halve poverty by
Fan et al. (2008) 41 100
2015
Estimating household income to monitor and
Benin & Randriamamonjy (2008) evaluate public investment programs in sub-Saharan 26 98
Africa
Agricultural growth and investment options for
Benin et al. (2008) 41 95
poverty reduction in Malawi
Investing in agriculture to overcome the world food
Fan & Rosegrant (2008) 40 87
crisis and reduce poverty and hunger
The dragon and the elephant: Learning from
Gulati & Fan (2008) 62 86
agricultural and rural reforms in China and India

50
Table C3. File Downloads and Abstract Views of Selected GRP-3 Working Papers from
RePEc
File Abstract
Author (date) Title
downloads views
Setting priorities for public spending for agricultural
Fan, Mogues, & Benin (2008) 47 85
and rural development in Africa
International agricultural research for food security,
poverty reduction, and the environment: What to
von Braun et al. (2008) 45 81
expect from scaling up CGIAR investments and
“Best Bet” programs
Agricultural growth and investment options for
Benin et al. (2008) 30 81
poverty reduction in Uganda
Agricultural growth and investment options for
Benin et al. (2008) 47 80
poverty reduction in Zambia
Is the relationship between aid and economics
Kourtellos, Tan, & Zhang (2006) 22 75
growth nonlinear?
Fifty years of regional inequality in China: A
Kanbur & Zhang (2004) journey through central planning, reform, and 42 75
openness
Agricultural and economic development strategies
von Braun, Gulati, & Fan (2005) 31 58
and the transformation of China and India
The bang for the birr: Public expenditures and rural
Mogues, Ayele, & Paulos (2007) 21 58
welfare in Ethiopia
Fiscal decentralization and political centralization in
Zhang (2006) 30 56
China: Implications for growth and inequality
Infrastructure, openness, and regional inequality in
Zhang & Fan (2002) 25 54
India
How agricultural research affects urban poverty in
Fan, Fang, & Zhang (2001) 9 51
developing countries? The case of china
Fan, Nyange, & Zhang (2006) Uganda & Tanzania: pro-poor public investment 15 33
Lessons learned from the dragon (China) and the
von Braun et al. (2005) elephant (India): Essays from IFPRI's 2004–2005 11 32
Annual Report
Lessons learned from the dragon (China) and the
von Braun et al. (2005) elephant (India): essays from IFPRI's 2004–2005 10 32
Annual Report [In Chinese]
Investment priorities for economic growth and
Fan, Brzeska, & Shields (2007) 9 26
poverty reduction
Economic development and public goods
Zhang & Fan (2003) 7 23
dependency
National and international agricultural research and
Chan-Kang, Fan, & Qian (2003) 8 19
poverty: Findings in the case of wheat in China

51
Table C4. File Downloads and Abstract Views of Selected GRP-3 Journal Articles from RePEc

Author (date) Title File Abstract

downloads views
Zhang et al. (2001) Local governance and public goods provision 8 12
Fan, Zhang, & Robinson (2003) Structural change and economic growth in China 298 675
Infrastructure and regional economic development
Fan & Zhang (2004) 244 509
in rural China
Fifty years of regional inequality in China: A
Kanbur & Zhang (2005) journey through central planning, reform, and 212 413
openness
Research, productivity, and output growth in
Fan & Pardey (2000) 196 642
Chinese agriculture
Government spending, growth and poverty in rural
Fan, Hazell, & Thorat (2005) 181 755
India
Spatial inequality in education and health care in
Zhang & Kanbur (2005) 142 369
China
Is small beautiful? Farm size, productivity, and
Fan & Chan-Kang (2004) 140 433
poverty in Asian agriculture
Local governance and public goods provision in
Zhang, Fan, Zhang, & Huang (2002) 123 299
rural China
Fan (2004) Agricultural research and urban poverty in India 88 518
Institutions and agricultural productivity in Sub-
Fulginiti, Perrin, & Yu (2004) 86 247
Saharan Africa
Institutions and Policies for Pro-poor Agricultural
Dorward et al. (2003) 74 173
Growth
Agricultural growth, poverty reduction and agro-
Hazell & Fan (2003) 69 291
ecological zones in India: an ecological fallacy?
China's WTO accession: impacts on regional
Diao, Fan, & Zhang (2000) agricultural income-- a multi-region, general 64 206
equilibrium analysis
Targeting public investments by agro-ecological
Fan, Hazell, & Haque (2004) zone to achieve growth and poverty alleviation 58 187
goals in rural India
How productive is infrastructure? A new approach
Zhang & Fan (2000) 40 110
and evidence from rural India
Fan (2005) Structural Change and Economic Growth in China 40 93
Agricultural research and urban poverty: The case
Fan, Fang, & Zhang (2003) 30 86
of China
Resource abundance and regional development in
Zhang, Xing, Fan, & Luo (2008) 28 68
China
Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in
Fan, Gulati, & Thorat (2008) 27 61
rural India
Does allocation of public spending matter in
Fan, Yu, & Jitsuchon (2008) 25 60
poverty reduction? Evidence from Thailand
Returns to investment in less-favored areas in
Fan & Chan-Kang (2004) developing countries: a synthesis of evidence and 22 74
implications for Africa
Regional road development, rural and urban
Fan & Chan-Kang (2008) 12 32
poverty: Evidence from China

52
Table C4. File Downloads and Abstract Views of Selected GRP-3 Journal Articles from RePEc

Author (date) Title File Abstract

downloads views
Production and productivity growth in Chinese
Fan & Zhang (2002) 0 576
agriculture: New national and regional measures
Fan, Zhang, & Zhang (2004) Reforms, investment, and poverty in rural China 0 125

53
 APPENDIX: IFPRI’S IMPACT (VIA PMGSY)
ON RURAL POVERTY AND AGRICULTURAL GDP

As indicated in Section 3, IFPRI’s contribution to the institution of India’s Prime Minister’s Rural Roads
Programme (PMGSY) was substantial. Here I attempt to quantify the magnitude of that contribution in
terms of (a) the reduction in the number of individuals below the poverty line and (b) the growth of
agricultural GDP. These indicators of impact were chosen because they were outcomes for which the
India research reported the marginal impact of increased spending on rural road construction.

Table A1 presents estimates of these marginal impacts reported in different publications emerging
from the India research. There is substantial variability in parameter estimates and resulting marginal
benefits estimates. To be as conservative as possible, I selected the smallest value for each for baseline
computations: –0.65 percent change in the rural poverty rate per 100 billion 1993 rupees spent; and 3.0
rupees of agricultural GDP growth per rupee spent. I subsequently reduced these baseline values in
different scenarios as follows:

• For the poverty estimates, I first recomputed the percentage change in poverty rate per 100
billion rupees spent generated by the parameter estimates reported in the Fan-Hazell-Thorat
American Journal of Agricultural Economics paper by lowering those parameter estimates by
one standard deviation (and setting to zero parameter estimates that were within one standard
deviation of zero). This reduced the implied marginal impacts by about one-quarter. I then
lowered these (new) imputed marginal impacts by an additional 50 percent to account for the fact
that it would be progressively more difficult to lift additional persons out of poverty—i.e., those
lying further below the poverty line.

• For the agricultural GDP estimates, I reduced the marginal impacts reported in Fan-Gulati-Thorat
discussion paper (no. 716) by 50 percent to account for the possibility that marginal benefits of
new roads may be declining over time. There is some evidence of declining marginal impacts on
agricultural GDP in the estimates for different time periods (although more so for those reported
in the Agricultural Economics article than in the discussion paper estimates used in this analysis).

It is possible that the roads constructed as part of the PMGSY might have crowded out some
rural-roads expenditure (particularly by state governments) that would have taken place absent the
program. To account for this possibility, I considered scenarios in which PMGSY spending crowded out
other rural road construction by 50 percent. This is very likely a substantial overestimate, given that the
roads being built via the PMGSY are directed toward connecting villages that were previously
unconnected (and therefore not likely to have been built absent the program). Still, to be as conservative
as possible, I used the 50 percent reduction.
Finally, there is a question of the extent to which the PMGSY’s existence—and the increased
expenditure on rural road construction associated with it—can be credibly attributed to IFPRI. The
discussion in the text highlighted testimony by a former member of Prime Minister Vajpayee’s staff
claiming credit for having used IFPRI’s research to argue (successfully) for institution of the program.
This is as clear a statement of attribution of the program’s existence to IFPRI as one could hope to find.
Nonetheless, common sense dictates that there were other arguments in the room that would have
influenced the program’s coming into being. I therefore considered two different attribution shares for
IFPRI’s research—25 percent and 10 percent—in separate scenarios.

55
 Tables A2 and A3 present the various scenarios of IFPRI’s impact on poverty and agricultural
GDP for the period 2005–09. 19 I present the scenarios in which IFPRI’s attribution share is set to 100
percent purely for illustrative purposes—effectively, these are estimates of the impacts of the PMGSY
program itself. Under the most conservative estimates for the marginal poverty impacts (column (3) in
Table A2), IFPRI’s research led to between 18,000 and 90,000 individuals lifted above the poverty line
over the period 2005–09. Similarly, the most conservative estimates of marginal impacts on agricultural
GDP (column 2 in Table A3) suggest that IFPRI’s research increased real agricultural GDP by between
Rs 16 billion and Rs 82 billion over the same time period. 20
Note that the impacts on agricultural GDP are only a part of overall rural GDP, which would also
factor in earnings of agricultural laborers and workers in the rural nonfarm sector. Lack of information on
the marginal impacts of road expenditure on nonfarm employment and agricultural wages precluded
including those effects in this analysis. Note further that these estimates only apply to investments made
during the period 2005–09. That the Indian government has committed itself to continuing PMGSY
beyond the current (Eleventh) Five-Year Plan—with an emphasis on extending roads into previously
unserved villages—suggests that a substantial stream of net benefits, beyond those found in Table 5, will
be generated in the future as well.

19
Poverty impact computations applied a rural (headcount) poverty rate figure of 28.3 percent for 2004 reported in the Eleventh
Five-Year Plan to the rural population reported in the 2001 Census as an estimate of the number of persons below the poverty
line in 2004. Agricultural GDP for each year was computed by applying the agriculture sector share of total GDP
(www.economicswebinstitute.org/ecdata.htm) to aggregate GDP values. These were then deflated using the wholesale price
index reported at http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/india_statistis/spb_pg238_index_wp.pdf.
20
This translates to a range of Rs 43 billion to Rs 217 billion in 2009 rupees, or approximately US$1 billion to US$5 billion at
prevailing exchange rates.

56
Table A1. Estimates of the Marginal Impacts of Road Expenditure on Poverty and Agricultural GDP

Fan-Gulati-Thorat Fan-Gulati-Thorat
c d
Fan-Hazell-Thorat (Discussion Paper) (Agricultural Economics)
a b
RR 110 AJAE 1970s 1980s 1990s 1970s 1980s 1990s
% reduction in poverty rate per billion
Rs. expenditure –0.87 –0.65

Increase in Ag GDP (Rs) per

Rs of expenditure 3.8 3.0 3.2 20.0 8.9 7.7
a
IFPRI Research Report No. 110 (Fan, Hazell, and Thorat 1999)
b
The American Journal of Agricultural Economics
c
Fan, Gulati, and Thorat (2007)
d
Fan, Gulati, and Thorat (2008)

57
Table A2. IFPRI’s Impact on Poverty Reduction (via PMSGY) under Varying Assumptions about Marginal Impacts of
Rural Road Expenditure, Crowding Out of Other Rural Road Expenditure, and Attribution Shares, 2005–09

Marginal poverty impact per 100 billion Rs

a
road expenditure
0.65% 0.16% 0.08%
Scenario Poverty impact (1) (2) (3)
1. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 0% No. of poverty exits 2,985,054 722,263 361,132
IFPRI attribution share: 100% Change in rural poverty rate –1.42% –0.34% –0.17%

2. Other rural road expenditure crowded

out by PMGSY expenditure: 50% No. of poverty exits 1,492,527 361,132 180,566
IFPRI attribution share: 100% Change in rural poverty rate –0.71% –0.17% –0.09%
3. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 0% No. of poverty exits 746,263 180,566 90,283
IFPRI attribution share: 25% Change in rural poverty rate –0.36% –0.09% –0.04%
4. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 50% No. of poverty exits 373,132 90,283 45,141
IFPRI attribution share: 25% Change in rural poverty rate –0.18% –0.04% –0.02%
5. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 0% No. of poverty exits 298,505 72,226 36,113
IFPRI attribution share: 10% Change in rural poverty rate –0.14% –0.03% –0.02%
6. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 50% No. of poverty exits 149,253 36,113 18,057
IFPRI attribution share: 10% Change in rural poverty rate –0.07% –0.02% –0.01%
a
Column (1) computed using marginal poverty impact of roads on rural poverty computed from Fan, Hazell, and Thorat (2000). Column (2)
computed by reducing the Fan, Hazell, and Thorat (2000) parameter estimates by one standard deviation (and setting nonsignificant estimates
to 0). Column (3) computed by reducing the marginal impacts in column (2) by 50% to correct for the depth of poverty.

58
Table A3. IFPRI’s Impact on Agricultural GDP (via PMSGY) under Varying Assumptions about Marginal Impacts of Rural
Road Expenditure, Crowding Out of Other Rural Road Expenditure, and Attribution Shares, 2005–09

Increase in agricultural GDP

a
(Rs) per rupee spent on roads
3.00 1.50
Scenario Impact (1) (2)
1. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 0% Δ Ag. GDP (billion 1993 Rs.) 656.4 328.2
IFPRI attribution share: 100% Δ Ag. GDP (%) 4.1% 2.1%
2. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 50% Δ Ag. GDP (billion 1993 Rs.) 328.2 164.1
IFPRI attribution share: 100% Δ Ag. GDP (%) 2.1% 1.0%
3. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 0% Δ Ag. GDP (billion 1993 Rs.) 164.1 82.1
IFPRI attribution share: 25% Δ Ag. GDP (%) 1.0% 0.5%
4. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 50% Δ Ag. GDP (billion 1993 Rs.) 82.1 41.0
IFPRI attribution share: 25% Δ Ag. GDP (%) 0.5% 0.3%
5. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 0% Δ Ag. GDP (billion 1993 Rs.) 65.6 32.8
IFPRI attribution share: 10% Δ Ag. GDP (%) 0.4% 0.2%
6. Other rural road expenditure crowded
out by PMGSY expenditure: 50% Δ Ag. GDP (billion 1993 Rs.) 32.8 16.4
IFPRI attribution share: 10% Δ Ag. GDP (%) 0.2% 0.1%
a
Column (1) computed using marginal poverty impact of roads on agricultural GDP reported by Fan, Gulati, and Thorat (2007). Column (2)
computed by reducing the marginal impacts in column (1) by 50 percent.

59
 IMPACT ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION PAPERS

31. Impacts of IFPRI’s “Priorities for Pro-Poor Public Investment” Global

Research Program, by Mitch Renkow (October 2010)

30. Case Study on the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
and conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) and Non-Conditional Cash
Transfer (NCCT) Programs, by Jere Behrman and Maria Cecilia Calderon
(December 2009)

29. The Food Crisis of 2008: Impact Assessment of IFPRI’s

communications Strategy, by Ingeborg Hovland (December 2009)

28. Impact Evaluation of Research by the International Food Policy

Research Institute on Agricultural Liberalization, Developing
Countries, and the WTO’s Doha Negotiations, by Joanna Hewitt
(September 2008)

27. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the
Mexican PROGRESA Anti-Poverty and Human Resource Investment
Conditional Cash Transfer Program, by Jere R. Behrman (December 2007)

26. The Impacts of IFPRI’s Global Research Program on the Sustainable

Development of Less-Favored Areas, by John English and Mitch Renkow
(September 2007)

25. Impact Assessment of Food Policy Research: A Stocktaking Workshop

— Synthesis Report, by Jock Anderson, Maria Soledad Bos, and Marc J.
Cohen (December 2005)

24. Regional Policy Networks: IFPRI’s Experience with Decentralization,

by Robert Paarlberg (April 2005)

23. Strengthening Food Policy Through Gender and Intrahousehold

Analysis: Impact Assessment of IFPRI Multicountry Research, by Cecile
Jackson (April 2005)

22. The Impact of the Food-for-Education Program in Bangladesh on

Schooling Outcomes and Earnings and the Contribution of IFPRI
Research, by James G. Ryan and Xin Meng (November 2004)
 IMPACT ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION PAPERS

21. Impact Assessment of IFPRI’s Research and Related Activities Based

on Economywide Modeling, by Kym Anderson (December 2003)

20. The Impact of Economic Policy Research: Lessons on Attribution and

Evaluation from IFPRI, by James G. Ryan and James L. Garrett (October
2003)

19. Impacts of IFPRI/ICARDA Policy and Property Rights Research on the

Mashreq and Maghreb Project, by John H. Sanders and Hassan Serghini
(October 2003)

18. Institutional Learning and Change in the CGIAR: Summary Record of

the Workshop Held at IFPRI, Washington, DC, February 4-6, 2003, by
Ronald Mackay and Douglas Horton (October 2003)

17. Evaluating the Impact of Agricultural Projection Modeling Using the

IMPACT Framework, by James G. Ryan (February 2003)

16. The Impact of the International Food Policy Research Institute's

Research Program on Rural Finance Policies for Food Security for the
Poor, by Jeffrey Alwang and V. Puhazhendhi (December 2002)

15. Synthesis Report of Workshop on Assessing the Impact of Policy-

oriented Social Science Research in Scheveningen, The Netherlands
November 12–13, 2001, by James G. Ryan (March 2002)

14. The Production and Diffusion of Policy Knowledge: A Bibliometric

Evaluation of the International Food Policy Research Institute, by Philip
G. Pardey and Jason E. Christian (January 2002)

13. Impact of IFPRI's Policy Research on Resource Allocation and Food

Security in Bangladesh, by Suresh Babu (February 2000)

12. A Review of Food Subsidy Research at IFPRI, by Curtis Farrar (January

2000)

11. Assessing the Impact of Policy Research and Capacity Building by

IFPRI in Malawi, by James G. Ryan (December 1999)
 IMPACT ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION PAPERS

10. External Impact Assessment of IFPRI's 2020 Vision for Food,

Agriculture, and the Environment Initiative, by Robert Paarlberg (June
1999)

9. Returns to Policy-Related Social Science Research in Agriculture, by

Bruce L. Gardner (May 1999)

8. Assessing the Impact of Rice Policy Changes in Viet Nam and the
Contribution of Policy Research, by James G. Ryan (January 1999)

7. The Value of Economic Research, by David Zilberman and Amir Heiman

(January 1999)

6. Policy for Plenty: Measuring the Benefits of Policy-Oriented Social

Science Research, by George W. Norton and Jeffrey Alwang (December 1998)

5. Some Useful Methods for Measuring the Benefits of Social Science

Research, by Henry E. Kilpatrick, Jr. (October 1998)

4. Adding Value through Policy-Oriented Research: Reflections of a

Scholar-Practitioner, by C. Peter Timmer (October 1998)

3. A Proposal for Measuring the Benefits of Policy-Oriented Social

Science Research, by Donghyun Park (August 1998)

2. Measuring the Benefits of Social Science Research, by Vincent H. Smith

(July 1998)

1. IFPRI and the Abolition of the Wheat Flour Ration Shops in Pakistan:
A Case-Study on Policymaking and the Use and Impact of Research, by
Yassir Islam and James L. Garrett (December 1997)