A rigorous examination
But doubts and questions have arisen about the impact of agricultural research. Is it
truly effective in reducing poverty? Has it favored some places and groups of people more
In September of this year, about 175 economists, agricultural researchers, and
development specialists gathered at San José, Costa Rica, to conduct a rigorous
examination of these and related questions. The organizers commissioned more than 20
papers for the workshop, and provided a forum for more than 80 researchers to share their
results. In general, they dealt with broad trends, synthesizing numerous case studies of
research that has made a difference in the lives of the poor.
This article summarizes key findings, relying on a presentation made in October by
Douglas Pachico, CIAT's director for Strategic Planning and Impact Assessment, in the
opening session of the CGIAR's annual meetings at the World Bank.
Workshop participants examined three main issues:
- How does agricultural research reduce poverty?
- How is poverty related to the environment?
- How can agricultural research be better managed to help reduce poverty?
Back to top
Avenues of impact
One key theme that cut across the discussion of these questions was the diversity of
the poor. They live in varied environments and sustain themselves through many different
livelihoods. They are small farmers, herders, city dwellers, and landless farm laborers.
The poor are disproportionately old or very young. The majority are women.
Because the poor are highly diverse, so is the impact of agricultural research on
poverty. It affects different people in different ways and to varying degrees. Most of the
benefits, though, reach the poor by four main avenues:
- Raising farm income
- Generating employment for farm workers
- Reducing the price of food
- Fueling economic growth
Back to top
Farm income and jobs
Research improves farm income by offering technological innovations that boost
agricultural productivity. Evidence reviewed by Peter Hazell, Mitch Renkow, and Keijiro
Otsuka points to massive productivity increases during recent decades.
The best-known examples are the widespread adoption of modern rice and wheat varieties.
But other cases were presented as well, dealing with virus-free sweet potatoes for poor
farmers in hillside areas of China (Thomas Walker), livestock technologies in sub-Saharan
Africa (Simeon Ehui), and new cassava varieties in Nigeria (Abiodun Falusi), for example.
Though small farmers have sometimes adopted new technologies more slowly than large
producers, huge numbers of small farmers have adopted and benefited.
The higher farm incomes made possible by improved technologies have enabled rural
people to seize new opportunities. In Asia, for example, families that adopted modern rice
varieties have managed to provide an education for their children, who have then obtained
better paying jobs off the farm. Thus, far from locking rural people into poverty on small
farms, Otsuka noted, agricultural research has helped many of them find an exit.
Research has also benefited landless laborers, who are among the poorest of the poor,
through job creation in a more productive agriculture. Many farm workers have migrated
from areas where modern rice and wheat have not been adopted to more favored regions where
farmers have taken up new varieties.
Recent evidence indicates, however, that employment in Asia's rice production is
declining. Future opportunities for finding work in agriculture will most likely come more
from the production of high-value commodities (such as fruits, vegetables, and livestock)
and from value-added processing of a wide range of tropical products. Papers by Gonzalo
Rodríguez on traditional processing of brown sugar and by María Verónica Gottret and
Melanie Raymond on cassava drying demonstrated the power of research to foment the
development of small agroenterprises.
Back to top
Cheaper food in a global marketplace
Often, one of the greatest benefits of agricultural research in developing countries
has been cheaper food, made possible by more efficient crop production. This has helped
poor part-time farmers, landless labors, and city dwellers in particular, since they spend
much of their income on food.
Lower food prices alone, however, cannot lift people out of poverty. Increased incomes,
noted Derek Byerlee, have far more impact in reducing the numbers of poor.
Moreover, as markets become more global, agricultural innovation at the national level
has less effect on local food prices, especially in urban areas that are well connected to
world markets. In a global economy, gains in food production at the national level are
relatively insignificant. However, in isolated areas cut off from international markets,
explained Byerlee, these production gains can still help the poor by making food cheaper.
In countries whose economies are open to the global marketplace, new agricultural
technology will in the future offer fewer benefits to poor urban consumers but potentially
rich rewards to adopting farmers by making them more productive and competitive. A more
competitive agriculture, in turn, will create jobs and fuel growth in other sectors of
developing country economies.
Back to top
Pathways out of poverty
Rather than passively accept their lot in life, the rural poor actively pursue
different "livelihood strategies" or "pathways out of poverty,"
according to Alain de Janvry and Elizabeth Sadoulet. In various ways research helps these
people find a way forward.
For rural people who have some access to land, markets, and public services, developing
the small farm is clearly a viable strategy. And improved agricultural technology can
speed farmers' progress along this route.
Many rural families, however, cannot derive a living from farming alone but depend on
work outside agriculture. In such households agricultural production is frequently the
responsibility of women, who benefit from innovations in the production of staple foods
and from labor-saving devices. They should also gain new opportunities from research on
small agroenterprise development.
Leaving the countryside altogether is another important pathway out of rural poverty.
Even in this case, agricultural research helps, at least indirectly. First, by raising
farm incomes, creating jobs, and thus enabling farm families to educate their children,
research contributes to an easier transition from village to urban life. Second, a
prosperous agriculture, by fueling growth in other sectors, helps create a more favorable
economic climate for migrants seeking work.
Back to top
¿A blunt instrument?
Despite much evidence of impact, it has become a cliché among economists that
agricultural research is a "blunt instrument" for reducing rural poverty. It
does not reach all of the poor, many point out, and some of its benefits are siphoned off
by the well-to-do. There is certainly an element of truth in these arguments, but are
alternative uses of public funds any more precise or effective in combating poverty?
Workshop participants shared the following insights on this question:
- Credit programs tend to favor the well-off, with some exceptions.
- Land reform is frequently ineffective unless it is massive, and such programs face
formidable political barriers.
- The record of agricultural extension programs is spotty, with only occasional successes.
- Improvements in infrastructure, such as roads and irrigation systems, have large
potential but are not always effective against poverty.
- Education much improves the prospects of the poor but mainly outside agriculture.
It would appear then that these are blunt instruments too. They are not clearly
superior to agricultural research as means of reducing rural poverty. Moreover, research
improves the returns to credit programs, land reform, extension, and infrastructure
improvement, and for that reason, it is a vital component of integrated strategies for
Back to top
The geography of poverty
In addressing a second main issue--the relationship between poverty and the
environment--workshop participants analyzed two sets of questions:
- Where are the rural poor? In favorable environments or in marginal lands where
conditions for agriculture are harsh? Is research effective for reducing poverty in
- Is rural poverty a major driving force behind environmental degradation in the tropics?
That is, do the poor "mine" natural resources (such as soil and biodiversity)
for lack of better ways to support themselves and their families?
There is much that we do not know about the geography of poverty, but the general
picture at least seems clear. In India, Shenngen Fan and others reported, 65 percent of
the rural poor live in marginal environments. Similarly, according to Scott Rozelle, most
of the rural poor in China are concentrated in remote upland areas. Clearly, many rural
poor also live in favorable environments. But if research concentrates exclusively on such
areas, it bypasses the majority of the poor.
Does agricultural research have much to offer the poor in marginal environments? Mitch
Renkow cited the many studies showing the greater impact of rice and wheat research in
favorable areas. Yet, according to Fan and others, a recent study of a wider array of
crops in India found that research in rainfed environments gave higher marginal rates of
return than in irrigated environments and did more to reduce poverty. Similarly, Abelardo
Rodríguez reported that in dry areas of West Asia research has yielded attractive
Others noted that the terms "favorable" and "marginal" are
relative. Locations where rice and wheat are under high stress may be quite adequate for
hardier crops, such as millet and cassava. Obviously, whether organizations give more
weight to favorable or marginal lands depends in part on the crops involved. In any case
this is not a simple either/or question. To reduce poverty, research must cater to both
classes of environments.
Back to top
¿A vicious circle?
While reducing poverty in developing countries, does agricultural research necessarily
favor the environment? That is, does it break the hypothesized "vicious circle,"
in which poverty drives natural resource degradation, which in turn further impoverishes
Cross-country analysis finds no relationship between poverty and soil erosion,
according to Dieter Kirschke and others. But in local-level studies, the link appears to
hold. In Honduras, for example, Helle Ravnborg found that poor farmers practice
sustainable soil management less often than their wealthier neighbors.
A review of many case studies, presented by Sara Scherr, concluded that the
"livelihood strategies" of poor farmers determine whether or not they degrade
natural resources. There are plenty of examples of farmers who invest in resource
improvement to raise their incomes. But in many other cases, poor farmers mine resources
before exiting agriculture. Or they allow resources to degrade to some threshold at which
conservation seems necessary or worthwhile.
Overall, the evidence suggests that poverty is not the main driving force behind
environmental degradation in the tropics. The rich control more natural resources than the
poor and often destroy them.
The poor may do likewise but on a more limited scale. In many cases, though, they can
regenerate degraded land, and this has been shown to improve livelihoods in places where
resource destruction is tightly linked to poverty. Such places present the CGIAR centers
and their partners with valuable opportunities to confront poverty and environmental
destruction at the same time.
Back to top
On the issue of research management, the workshop addressed two main questions. First,
can agricultural research be targeted specifically to reduce poverty? And second, can it
effectively accomplish multiple goals?
Many research organizations have given high priority to crops that are grown and
consumed mainly by the poor, and they have targeted regions where especially large numbers
of poor people live. Yet, empirical evidence cited by Derek Byerlee suggests that this
research has not always registered high gains in reducing poverty.
Even so, tools are now available that enable agricultural research to serve these
people and places more effectively. For example, participatory research methods were shown
to improve the design of technology for poor farmers, as illustrated in a paper by
Mauricio Bellón and others on maize variety development in Mexico. In general,
researchers can bring their work more in line with the needs of poor farmers by actively
involving them and giving them a voice in the governing boards of research institutions.
But is it expecting too much for agricultural research to meet the many needs of the
poor in their diverse and complex predicaments--to improve food security, while reducing
poverty, and at the same time improving the management of natural resources? By attempting
to accomplish so much, do researchers run the risk of neglecting what they unquestionably
do so well, which is to produce "a bigger pile of rice"?
Perhaps so, but the record of impact suggests otherwise. As Keijiro Otsuka and Mitch
Renkow amply demonstrated, the increased agricultural productivity made possible by
research has had substantial impact in reducing poverty. Moreover, as Sara Scherr noted,
some poor farmers have succeeded in improving their management of natural resources in
addition to raising productivity.
Back to top
Paying a moral debt
The prospects for continued impact from agricultural research on the food security,
poverty, and environmental fronts have never been better. International centers, together
with their many research partners, have accumulated a huge stock of "social
capital" in the form of networks and other partnerships. And with this capital, they
are generating a wider array of useful products than ever before.
These include improved crop germplasm for marginal and favorable environments as well
as methods and information that help intensify crop and livestock production; protect
water, forests, soil, and aquatic resources; strengthen national and local organizations;
and improve government policies. Each of these products represents a potentially lucrative
investment in better livelihoods for the poor.
Despite the mounds of convincing evidence compiled by this workshop, the debate about
the impact of agricultural research on poverty alleviation will continue. Critics will
remind us that some poor people have not received their fair share of the benefits and
that some of these have actually gone to the rich.
Such criticisms will serve agricultural researchers as a constant reminder that their
work can be better targeted and better managed. It will be a mistake, though, if the
shortcomings of research divert attention from its impressive record of success in
benefiting the poor. On the strength of that record, agricultural research must have a
vital role during the next century in paying society's huge moral debt to the 1.3 billion
people who live in absolute poverty.