Peer review

Peer-review: Yes - Open Access: Yes|http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0305-750X

Tables, references p. 1256-1257

Outside sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), agricultural research (AR) yields excellent returns. Why does SSA get so little from its major AR effort? Why do its AR scientists cost more, yet produce less? Smallness (of countries and research stations), dispersion, and high turnover make it hard to attain a “critical mass” of national AR scientists. To remedy this, they could concentrate on a few problems and crops — yet they have neglected many of the most important, e.g. cassava, and overstressed export crops. In other ways, too, European biases have distorted African AR. Socioeconomists, moreover, have entered research design too little and too late. Above all, current domestic funds have been too scanty and unreliable to adequately support international and capital-account AR efforts. This lack of steady commitment illustrates AR's need for direction from clearer agricultural policy — based on radically improved information, and recognizing SSA's dramatic rise in labor/land ratios. Guidelines for such policy are indicated; within these, a formalized and poverty-oriented AR design system is suggested.

Text in English

Elsevier

Reprints Collection