the same period. Agricultural science disciplines are under increasing budget pressures at universities as well as at other research organizations (van der Meer, 1999; Delgado and Ramos, 2006). Also, agriculture has lost its important role in development studies at least in US universities (Falcon and Naylor, 2005). The situation in the CEE is different. At least in Russia the number of agricultural students increased by 50% from 1995 to 2000 (Miller et al., 2000)
     Changes in paradigms, implications of increasing glo­balization and complexity of the rural world, the decline of employment and incomes in the primary sector, complex re­lationships between production and sustainability, cultural resistance to change of traditional societies and a decline in political influence of rural areas all increasingly challenged traditional higher education in agriculture (Delgado and Ramos, 2006). The syllabus in agriculture lagged behind society demands, student numbers decreased and university reorganizations led to the close of more and more agricul­ture related faculties. Initiatives have been started to increase internationalization and cooperation as one component of the drive to help higher education organizations meet these challenges (Delgado and Ramos, 2006).

Changes in research structures and management
Public agricultural research systems in NAE vary in terms of who funds, manages and performs research. Changes in scientific, economic and political factors have caused man­agers of national research organizations serious problems about how the organizations should be restructured over time, especially in face of policy inertia and increased costs (Read et al., 1988; Alston et al., 1998). In the UK and the Netherlands, for example, the public agencies involved with carrying out research have been consolidated and for some important parts commercialized. In the Netherlands, the share of private funding of Wageningen University and Re­search Centre rose from 25% in the 1970s to 40% in the mid-1990s and the research was rationalized and oversight streamlined. In the UK, the number of publicly funded re­search institutes fell by more than half during the same pe­riod. The agricultural extension services were increasingly commercialized or privatized in several countries in NAE, e.g., in the UK, France and the Netherlands (Read et al, 1988; van der Meer, 1999; Labarthe, 2006; OSI, 2006). The changes were usually temporarily linked with the change to more market-oriented "laissez-faire" governmental policy philosophy.
     Comparatively little structural change has taken place in the public research system in the US until recent years. Historically, the US agricultural research system has been characterized by a decentralized, state-led structure, which fosters geographically specific  applied research  (Schultz, 1971; Huffman and Evenson,  1993). While the Federal Government provided about the half of all the funds during the last 50 years, state institutions have played an increas­ingly important role in funding and conducting state-level research. Since 1948 the State Agricultural Experiment Sta­tions (SAES) system has been a considerably larger research enterprise than the USD A. In recent years, the proportion of the public agricultural funds spent on federal in-house research has declined to less than 30% (Rubenstein et al., 2003). The major force behind increasing the state share was

matching federal funding with other (including state) fund­ing. Farmer support for the US public system of research and extension is high although research suggests that the goals of some programs may be at odds with many farmers' needs and that there is a bias in the types of farms benefit­ing from land grant university resources, with smaller and diversified farms being largely underserved (Ostrom and Jackson-Smith, 2005). Fears of bioterrorism in the US led a few years ago to the creation of a National Institute for Agricultural Security (NIAS) to facilitate communication between the federal research system and the state-based ag­ricultural research system (Nipp, 2004).
     The changes towards more managed competition in agricultural research and from formula funds to competi­tive grants have been uneven and the institutions formed are country-specific. In the US the trend towards competi­tive grants in public agricultural R&D was slower than in other OECD countries, representing only 3% of the pub­lic agricultural R&D funds in 1995 (Alston et al., 1998) and 15% of USDA-funded state-level research at the end of the 1990s (Rubenstein et al., 2003). Usually allocation is based on ex ante claims (proposals) rather than ex post assessments about what was achieved. Allocation of funds to competing programs or institutions is at present based on frequent program proposals and reviews. The role of industry has increased in both funding and setting criteria for public funding and notable shifts towards environmental and food safety issues have taken place.

4.5.5 Influence of beneficiaries
There have always been different views of reality and be­hind them different normative visions of the desirable char­acteristics of a target food system and a target world to be promoted and sustained (Thompson,  1992). The values and meanings that are given priority depend on the eco­nomic, social and cultural circumstances and the political contexts of individuals and groups (Visser, 2001). The size and power of different interest groups can have a major im­pact on the funding for and direction of AKST (see IAASTD Global Report). Already in the early 1970s different views existed amongst decision makers about whether either high-tech agriculture or increasing the productivity of small-scale subsistence agriculture was the most appropriate strategy to achieve food security (Falcon and Naylor, 2005). Different approaches are likely to be appropriate for different situa­tions and regions. An important factor in making research relevant to the target group and for successful adoption of R&D is to have strong links between research organizations and the people who are meant to use the results. This is es­pecially important in international AKST where differences between economic, social, cultural and political circum­stances are more pronounced (Buhler et al., 2002). Barriers and risks that integrative and participatory approaches have encountered have been described above (4.4.3 and 4.4.4).
     The establishment of the agricultural research stations and similar institutes in NAE in the first half of the 20th century indicates that research was conducted on the ba­sis of farmer participation. The same is true of the early commodity-based stations run by private enterprises or by the government. This linkage was strengthened by the fact that many of the earlier agricultural scientists came from