Technological innovations have driven economic development and improvement in living conditions throughout history. However, the majority of smallholder farmers in sub‐Saharan Africa have seldom adopted or used science‐based technological innovations. Consequently, several scholars have been persistently questioning the effectiveness of intervention models in smallholder agriculture.
It is now widely acknowledged that biotechnology will have significant implications for development. While biotechnology’s potential for low income economies is still the subject of controversy, this paper argues that it is precisely in these countries that food and agriculture related biotechnology could efficiently contribute to the achievement of development objectives. To date, however, biotechnological advances have been realized predominantly in industrialized countries.
This paper considers genetically modified (GM) seed adoption decisions by farmers in a developing country under two alternative information regimes (with and without perfect information regarding production conditions) that allows the monopolist producer of GM seeds to either practice perfect discrimination or uniform pricing. Under each regime we analyze two scenarios: when the government can and cannot credibly commit to the announced form of welfare enhancing intervention in the domestic seed market.
Innovations are fast changing the agricultural landscape driven by the increasing need to shift towards sustainable practices without sacrificing the productivity and profitability of farming. Innovations in technology, institutions, processes, and products have contributed to the growth of agriculture, globally and in developing countries including India and Africa, as observed in the cases of green revolution in cereals; and gene revolution in cotton.
This report assesses trends in investments, human resource capacity, and research outputs in agricultural R&D -excluding the private (for-profit) sector- in LAC. It is an update of Stads and Beintema (2009), covering a more complete set of countries and focusing primarily on developments during 2006-2012/2013.
Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies.
This brief on the session of "Partnerships for livelihood impacts" which was held during the the GCARD Second Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (Punta Del Este, Uruguay, 29 October – 1 November 2012), discusses the Empowering Smallholder Farmers in the Markets (ESFIM) programme. ESFIM sought to generate demand-driven research supportive of the policy priorities and activities undertaken by farmers’ organizations that strengthens the advocacy capacities of national farmers’ organisations.
This brief was prepared for the "Session Partnerships for Livelihood Impacts" of the second Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD2), that took place from 29 October to 1 November 2012 in Punta del Este, Uruguay. According to this document, new organizational arrangements which place the user of research central in the definition of research priorities and in uptake processes are required.
The problem being addressed during this session of the Second Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD2), which was held in Punta del Este, Uruguay, in 2012, is how we can bring together the needed diversity – of stakeholders and approaches – and understand better a number of multidimensional and complex questions such as: How can we inform stakeholders on alternative future scenarios and debate the desirability, consequences, winners and losers of diverse scenarios? How to better combine quantitative analyses with qualitative arguments?
This document is about a session of the Second Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD2), which was held in Punta del Este, Uruguay, in 2012. The session focused on how to strengthen institutional capacities as well as multi-disciplinary and multi-organizational networking, including through improved policies, management practices, structures and incentives, so that institutions become more adaptive and responsive, as well as more effective in linking farmers, research, education, extension and development actors.