Farm input subsidies are often criticised on economic and ecological grounds. The promotion of natural resource management (NRM) technologies is widely seen as more sustainable to increase agricultural productivity and food security. Relatively little is known about how input subsidies affect farmers’ decisions to adopt NRM technologies. There are concerns of incompatibility, because NRM technologies are one strategy to reduce the use of external inputs in intensive production systems.
Though extension services have long since proved their value to agricultural production and farmer prosperity, their record in sub-Saharan Africa has been mixed. To study the impact of such programs on farmers' learning about agricultural technologies, we implemented a quasi-randomized controlled trial and collected detailed panel data among Malawian farmers. Based on those findings, we develop a two-stage learning framework, in which farmers formulate yield expectations before deciding on how much effort to invest in learning about these processes.
We analyse the impact of intensity of tillage on wheat productivity and risk exposure using panel household-plot level data from Ethiopia. In order to control for selection bias, we estimate a flexible moment-based production function using an endogenous switching regression treatment effects model. We find that tillage has a complementary impact on productivity and risk exposure. As the intensity of tillage increases, productivity increases and farmers’ exposure to risk declines. Our results suggest that smallholder farmers use tillage as an ex-ante risk management strategy.
Mobile phones fit well into the lives of pastoralists in low-income countries. The technology is firmly integrated into most pastoralist communities, affecting and transforming several core activities. Most studies concerned with this relationship, however, have narrow regional and thematic foci. The complementarity or discrepancy between relevant research is unknown, and a critical assessment of the current state of research is lacking.
This article departs from the assumption that the challenge of putting the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) into action stems from the broader challenge of attaining cross-sectoral policy integration. Policy integration has been part of the EU's policy approach for a long time and has predominantly been achieved in the form of environmental policy integration (EPI). However, the scope of the F2F extends beyond EPI, as it includes the integration of climate-related concerns into sectoral policies, for instance.
Research and the dissemination of evidence-based guidelines for best practice in crop production are fundamental for the protection of our crop yields against biotic and abiotic threats, and for meeting ambitious food production targets by 2050.
We present a model for research and development (R&D) investment in food innovations based on new plant engineering techniques (NPETs) and traditional hybridization methods. The framework combines uncertain and costly food innovation with consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for the new food. The framework is applied with elicited WTP of French and US consumers for new improved apples. NPETs may be socially beneficial under full information and when the probability of success under NPETs is relatively high. Otherwise, the traditional hybridization is socially optimal.
Early applications of the innovation systems framework to developing-country agriculture suggest opportunities for more intensive and extensive analysis. There is ample scope for empirical studies to make greater use of the theoretical content available in the literature, and to employ more diverse methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative. Further, there is room to improve the relevance of empirical studies to the analysis of public policies that support science, technology, and innovation, as well as to policies that promote poverty reduction and economic growth.
The article provides a conceptual framework and discusses research methods for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. The framework can also assist policy-makers in identifying reform options. It addresses the following question: Which forms of providing and financing agricultural advisory services work best in which situation? The framework ‘disentangles’ agricultural advisory services by distinguishing between (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods.
This paper takes a closer look at innovation systems, including the various actors involved, their interrelationships, and governance mechanisms. Innovation systems operate at different levels, in terms of structure, functioning, and performance at the national level, and from two different angles: as a macrostructure that involves different functions and key organizations working on these functions, and as the composite of different innovation networks comprising individuals and local and national organizations.