better regulators than policies. The consequent  "laissez-faire" role of the government in the management of the na­tional economy (Alston et al., 1998) led to budget cuts and to the protection of space for large private companies to act through regulations, e.g., pesticide regulations and IPR (Bauer and Gaskell, 2000). Trade liberalization contributed to giving more voice to transnational companies. Advances in genetics and intentional research policy (Alston et al., 1998) enhanced control by the private sector. The failure of public AKST to serve all the target groups might have left empty niches for private companies too. These develop­ments and the imposition of more targets for low-income countries as a precondition for support (e.g., the increase of restricted funding for CGIAR; World Bank, 2003) left more room for NAE policies after WWII also beyond NAE. The growing position of NGOs in AKST since the 1970s was a reaction to negative externalities, which over and above the increased role of agri-business, again contributed to short -termism and competitive grants. The re-emergence of longer term and bigger programs was fostered by strife for govern­mental efficiency. A paradigm of "new public management" increased stakeholder participation in the 1990s: no more, or less, government, but better government, implying more enlightened regulation, improved service delivery, devolu­tion of responsibility, openness, transparency, accountabil­ity and partnership (OECD, 1999).

5.5.3.2 Uncertainties of the future
There are a number of uncertainties for the future of AKST access, control and distribution in North America and Eu­rope and thus for the impacts on development and sustain-ability goals at global level.

Privatization. Public goods, the poor and hungry, and ru­ral livelihoods are target groups with the least voice on the market at present, and the private sector is led by markets. Markets can be directed to work for the social optimum through internalization of externalities, i.e., including the negative and positive externalities, in prices. Instruments include penalties (Jackson, 2005), reallocation of all taxes, subsidies and incentives, and institutional and participatory mechanisms (Pretty et al., 2001). Regulation can be used to set limitations.
     Will private sector control in NAE AKST continue to grow, or will the public sector take more control, either through direct funding and control, or by helping the mar­ket forces to work for social optimum in terms of sustain-ability and food security? How will incentives to supply public goods through multifunctional farming be created: regulations, internalizing externalities by reallocating sub­sidies and taxes, creating new markets, e.g., for GHG emis­sion quotas, or consumer certificates and price premia?

Integration of perspectives. Access, control and distribution of AKST does not only depend on who pays, they also de­pend on the perspectives and competences represented in AKST processes. There is evidence of reduced efficiency due to excessive introduction of competition and short-term thinking in management of formal public science and de­velopment structures (Huffman and Just, 2000). The risks of short-term thinking are especially serious with regard to

learning-intensive integrated approaches and sustainability objectives which have an inherent long-term perspective. Will time-consuming and learning-intensive integration win the fight for paradigm shift or become impossible in a con­text of potentially declining resources and growing competi­tion based on expert values, disciplinary quality and merit criteria?

Control by beneficiaries: The perspectives of solvent, large-scale industry might steadily be given more emphasis in the knowledge networks if public funding declines and if there are no new creative solutions to diversify perspectives. Mul-tifunctionality of agricultural production and diversification of marketing channels and actor networks could decrease dependence on one market and thus give farmers and the supply chain a better position to negotiate with other actors on the market. Locally-oriented AKST might require less public support to achieve influence and outcomes equal to that of globally-oriented AKST.
     Do policies, demand and formal AKST lead to diver­sification  of supply and distribution channels  and thus increased independence from retail, mainly at the farm, re­gional or national level?
     Will the responsibility be put on consumers and other actors, or will more emphasis be placed on public control as a means to enhance sustainable consumption? Will the com­petence and viewpoint of beneficiaries with the least voice in low-income countries—the poor and hungry—be integrated in knowledge and technology generation in the worldwide influential NAE AKST, to prevent past failures and to shape future food systems to meet D&S goals?

Dissemination of information. In a situation of increasing transfer of control from political decision-makers to the market, adequate, accessible market information is essen­tial. Well-informed choices by consumers and other food system actors through education of "food competent citi­zens" is a precondition for promoting D&S goals through consumer choices. Appropriate standards and price premi­ums create incentives. The option of different consumer seg­ments to influence on the market is not equal, but depends on their purchase power. In addition to economic barriers there are social and psychological barriers for consumption (Jackson, 2005).
     Will the dominant trend for down-sized, client-charged information to farmers continue with the increasing niche being filled in by agri-business companies, or will there be a demand for independent extension services? Or will the in­creasingly integrative approaches and structures extensively incorporate clients in interactive communication networks to generate and utilize knowledge and technologies and thus decrease the significance of separate extension services?
     Will the opportunities offered by modern communica­tion and information technologies be successfully utilized to increase communication and enhance access to knowledge, technologies and markets, avoiding further growth of the "digital barrier"?

5.5.3.3 Consequences for AKST
More and more agri-business companies are transnational, thus creating a risk of homogenization of practices and less