the farming community. During the Second World War and thereafter, the top-down emphasis and governmental intervention in R&D increased to ensure food security. Even during this time farmers' interest in guiding R&D was strong and they had a major influence in policy (Buhler et al., 2002). In the latter part of the 20th century, the influence of farmers in public R&D diminished while that of larger companies increased. Levy boards remain one avenue through which farmers exert influence on agricultural research agendas (Accenture, 2007). In recent years farmer participation in the development of AKST has increased again in NAE (Romig et al., 1995, 1996; Walter et al. 1997; Wander and Drinkwater, 2000; Dik, 2004; Groot et al., 2004; Morris, 2006; Ingram and Morris, 2007; Timmer et al., 2007). Public consultation processes have been extended to include a wider range of voices in the setting of agendas for publicly funded agricultural research (OSI, 2006).
Concerns have been expressed that the increased influence of some sections of the private sector in the setting of public research agendas have the potential for biased benefits (Ulrich et al., 1986; Constantine et al., 1994). For example, in the US the agricultural research agenda is today heavily influenced by the private input sector and, to a lesser extent, by processing industries. There is also concern that less research is made available in the public domain due to the increased extent of research being conducted and funded by industry, which needs confidentiality to protect investments and stay ahead of competitors (Buhler et al., 2002). The central role of AKST as a driver of industrialization and structural change, especially but not solely of agriculture, has also raised debate about whether even publicly funded agricultural research is targeted to the full range of user and citizens' groups (BANR, 2002).
The number of civil society groups (or non-governmental organizations, NGOs) in Western Europe and North America has increased dramatically since the end of the Second World War, with most of this increase post 1970. In Central and Eastern Europe the number and influence of policy of civil society groups increased substantially after 1989. Civil society groups include e.g., community groups, women's groups, consumer groups, environmental organizations, labor unions, indigenous peoples' organizations, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations and foundations. At a national level, civil society groups are still more influential in Western Europe and North America than they are in Eastern Europe. However, this may change in the future as the general tendency towards liberalization continues. Civil society organizations are now included in consultations on national (and also EU) agricultural policy as stakeholders. At an international level, there has been a policy to invite civil society groups to meetings of UN agencies as observers (UNEP, 2002). Consultations are held with civil society groups at a regional level. However, many civil society organizations doubt the extent of civil society influence on agricultural policy, compared with that of agricultural business interests. Others are concerned that the pressure applied by single issue NGOs on agricultural policy is not always evidence-based and often only represents small segments of society.
The current research climate has been criticized as being characterized by short-term perspective and responsive |
|
science and as being dominated by industrial and political influences with only a small role for farmers and consumers in setting of agendas (Buhler et al., 2002). Others see the increasing influence of consumers and NGOs on the setting of agendas as one of the main changes in influencing the evolution of AKST in recent years. There is also mistrust amongst consumers and some NGOs that farmers and farmer organizations have too much influence on the setting of agricultural research agendas.
In the international research, the colonial period was characterized by a top-down approach and a focus on cash crops (see 4.3.2). Then few people with influence in agenda setting came from developing countries. After the end of the colonial period, the national R&D structure, methods and even personnel changed only slowly and thus linkage of agricultural R&D to clients was weak. Indigenous agricultural systems received negative rather than positive attention (Boserup, 1965). Since the late 1970s, participatory approaches involving farmers have become the mainstream. The international donor organizations and contributing governments are influential beneficiaries and clients. Their importance has increased further during the last decade, due to the increasing constraints set by donors in respect of the use of funding (see 4.5.3).
4.5.6 Consequences of the changes in structures and funding
The consequences of the changes described have been critically studied and discussed. Questions posed from an economic point of view include: Have the changes improved the economic efficiency of R&D? Has the emphasis on topics changed, such as farming and environment or processing, or between basic and applied research and extension, or among programs and institutions? Are administrational and transaction costs lower? Other questions that need to be posed include: Have there been changes in who now benefits?
At least since the 1950s, studies have shown unusually high productivity gains stemming from public agricultural research (e.g., Schultz, 1953; Griliches, 1958; Ruttan, 1982; Huffman and Evenson, 1993; Fuglie et al., 1996; Alston et al., 1998) with no evidence of a decline (Alston et al., 2000). This would have justified an even higher share of funds allocated to public agricultural research. However, budget pressures have induced administrators and public decision makers to reduce budgets while striving to avoid a significant loss of productivity.
Competitive grants and short-term contracts
To improve productivity the share of funding given out as competitive grants has been increased since the 1970s (Huffman and Just, 2000; Rubenstein et al., 2003). Also, the increasing role of the private sector in management of the public agricultural R&D has caused concern. In response, debates about how to foster, organize and manage agricultural research (as well as of research in general) have intensified during the 1990s (e.g., Buttel, 1986; Just and Huffman, 1992; Alston et al., 1995, 1998; Huffman and Just, 1994, 1999, 2000). This debate builds on earlier discussions surrounding controversial topics such as national priority setting, central planning of agricultural research, over-organization of institutional research, top-down ap- |