000			03913nam a22004337a 4500
001			G77088
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20211006080815.0
008			121211s ||||f| 0 p|p||0|| |
020			_a970-648-076-5
040			_aMX-TxCIM
072		0	_aA50
072		0	_aF01
082	0	4	_a338.91 _bWAT
100	1		_aEvenson, R. _uInternational conference on impacts of agricultural research and development: Why has impact assessment research not made more of a difference?
110	0		_aCentro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT), Mexico DF (Mexico)
111	2		_aInternational Conference on Impacts of Agricultural Research and Development _cSan José (Costa Rica) _d4-7 Feb 2002
245	0	0	_aThe green revolution: _b An end-of-century perspective
260			_aMexico, DF (Mexico) _bCIMMYT : _c2003
300			_ap. 24
340			_aPrinted
500			_aAbstract only
520			_aThis paper reports on the empirical and methodological lessons to be drawn from a multi-year study of the productivity impact of crop research within the CGIAR. This study was commissioned by the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment of the Technical Advisory Committee (SPIA -TAC) of the CGIAR. The overall goal was to document the impact of international research on crop genetic improvement in developing countries. The study focused on eleven major food crops: rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, millet, barley, beans, lentils, groundnuts, cassava, and potato. Eight CGIAR centers participated in the study, which drew together an unprecedented amount of previously unpublished data. From an empirical standpoint, the major lesson of the study was that productivity impacts have been large and have occurred across crops and regions. Contrary to popular opinion, the so-called Green Revolution does not appear to have been limited to rice and wheat in Asia and Latin America; instead, there is convincing evidence of productivity gains in all major crops and all regions. For the most part, impacts have been related to research inputs. In general, where impact has been small, we can attribute this to modest research efforts or comparatively recent research. Where research efforts have been large and sustained, there have been demonstrable impacts. From a methodological standpoint, the study has underscored some of the difficulties inherent in carrying out impact assessment. Too often, data on productivity gains are non-existent or are simply inadequate for deriving convincing conclusions. Traditional approaches to measuring impact often overstate some benefits (such as the added value of production within a crop) while understating other benefits (such as spillovers into the macro economy). There is little nationally representative evidence, and available data are often incompatible with aggregate measures of production such as those reported by FAO. In an effort to move beyond the traditional single-crop impact estimates, the study included two novel features: first, a set of country studies, and second, a series of "meta-analyses" that sought to synthesize data from many crops and regions. Both the country studies and the meta-analyses involved methodological innovations. This paper will report on the results of these analyses, summarize the approaches taken, and briefly describe the methodological innovations required.
546			_aEnglish
591			_a0309|R01CIMPU|AGRIS 0301|AL-Economics Program
593			_aJuan Carlos Mendieta
595			_aCPC
650	1	0	_aAgricultural policies
650	1	0	_aCrop husbandry _91058
650	1	0	_aDeveloping Countries
650	1	0	_aFood crops _91994
650	1	0	_aGenetic control _91694
650	1	0	_aProduction economics
650	1	0	_aProductivity _gAGROVOC _91756
653	0		_aCIMMYT
700	1		_aGollin, D., _ecoaut.
700	1		_9960 _aWatson, D.J. _gResearch & Partnership Program _8INT3479 _eed.
942			_cPRO
999			_c6838 _d6838