organization of schooling research, easy access to important advances in related sciences and scientific methods seemed to be of major importance for success (Huffman, 1998). In contrast, the inefficiencies in Russian agriculture were a ma­jor factor in several changes in Soviet leadership and finally the collapse of the Soviet socialism (Miller et al., 2000). In the rest of Europe, the integration of universities, agrifood research and extension varies significantly among countries. For example, the Swedish structure is similar to that in the US while in France, Denmark and Finland the higher educa­tion and strategic R&D are organizationally separated.
     International agricultural R&D (see also 4.2.2) repre­sents in comparison a relatively recent institutional inno­vation as it was only initiated in 1943 with the Mexican government—Rockefeller wheat  research  program.  This initial program became a model for many subsequent in­ternational agricultural research initiations in the 1960s, including the four international agricultural centers CIAT (tropical agriculture, Colombia, established in 1967), CIM-MYT (maize and wheat, Mexico, 1966), IITA (tropical ag­riculture, Nigeria, 1967) and IRRI (rice, Philippines, 1960). The subsequent development of the international agricul­tural research centers took place mostly under CGIAR, es­tablished in 1971 to mobilize science and financial support to serve the needs of the poor. CGIAR is a strategic alli­ance of countries, international and regional organizations as well as private foundations supporting international re­search centers, which work with the national agricultural research systems and civil society organizations including the private sector. CGIAR is funded mainly through the de­velopment aid funds of developed countries, either directly to the centers or through contributions to agencies such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the Euro­pean Union. CGIAR established a Technical Advisory Com­mittee (TAC) to ensure the relevance of CGIAR-supported research and the quality of science at the centers. The expan­sion phase of the international AKST was in the 1970s.
     In many developing countries, the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) started to develop based on the inherited colonial export-oriented R&D structures, which were built with the "top-down" principle. Not surprisingly the structures in the developed and developing countries were therefore closely related. It is estimated that approxi­mately 90% of agricultural researchers in Africa were still expatriate in the early 1960s but this proportion had de­clined to 20% by the early 1980s (Buhler, 2002).

4.5.2 Drivers of change
Following decades of government service expansion, the mid-1970s to the late 1980s became an era of less govern­ment. However, a new paradigm emerged for the 90s: not less government, but better government, involving a shift to more enlightened regulation, improved service delivery, de­volution of responsibility, openness, transparency, account­ability, partnership and "new public management" (OECD, 1999).
     In many developed and developing countries, public agricultural R&D policy changed dramatically between the early 1980s and the end of the 1990s. The long period of sustained growth had ended (see 4.5.3) due to general fis­cal constraints and a more skeptical view of the social ben-

efits of R&D. Clearer justification and accountability for R&D funds was requested. In Eastern Europe, the drastic changes in the socio-political system led to a re-orientation towards a market economy from about 1990, although not to the same extent in all affected countries. These changes were associated with a period of disturbance and restruc­turing of agrifood systems and AKST. The large budget deficits in the 1980s forced also US agricultural R&D into a contracting mode (Huffman and Just, 2000; Alston et al., 1998), while individual states largely resisted pressure to shift to peer-reviewed competitive grants (Huffman, 2005) (see 4.5.4).
     On the other hand, new participants emerged in the pri­vate research sector in NAE following the introduction of incentives such as periodic strengthening of intellectual prop­erty rights (IPRs) (e.g., in the 1930s, 1970s and 1980s) and the subsequent shift of the boundary between publicly- and privately-funded research (Fuglie et al., 1996). This devel­opment was intentionally fostered by governmental science policies. During the 1990s, the shortcomings of the public research model then also contributed to the gradual emer­gence of private sector/broadly market-oriented reforms in agricultural R&D investments (see IAASTD Global report). The transition was facilitated by structural adjustment poli­cies imposed in many NAE countries, the global changes in trade regime as well as developments in biotechnologies. Governmental science policies were also modified to broaden the scope of agricultural R&D and increase its efficiency (van der Meer, 1999; Huffman and Just, 2000; Rubenstein et al., 2003). This has made the agricultural R&D environ­ment increasingly competitive and proprietary.
     During the last decade, many OECD countries have ad­opted the explicit goal to change the structure and function of their agricultural R&D organizations. They tended to bring AKST policies closer to the general public KST policies. Also, there was a shift from the unidirectional paradigm of knowledge transfer to a paradigm of interactive knowledge networks involving multiple stakeholders, which led to vari­ous forms of peer review and merit review (OECD, 1999) of research, educational and extension programs.
     In a study (Alston et al., 1998) of public agricultural R&D during the last quarter of the 20th century in devel­oped countries (using the five OECD countries US, Neth­erlands, UK, Australia and New Zealand as case studies) the following major institutional changes were identified: (1) a shift towards using public funds for more basic re­search rather than applied or near-market research, (2) a trend towards joined funding of near-market research us­ing different mechanisms, (3) strengthening of oversight and accountability mechanisms, (4) measures to increase com­petition among researchers for productivity and resource allocation, (5) measures to privatize public agricultural re­search institutions and (6) increasing the cost effectiveness of public agricultural research facilities.
     The similarities between the countries are derived from a common set of "vectors for change," which include (1) the more market-oriented "laissez-faire" role of the govern­ment in the management of the national economy, (2) the changing nature of the scientific and agricultural research, (3) the development of a more skeptical view of the poten­tial benefits of agricultural R&D due to the decrease in the