No abstract

No abstract

SUMMARYThis study examines the role of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in promoting pro-poor productivity-enhancing technological innovation in the international agricultural research system. The study examines the extent to which PPPs are being used to overcome market and institutional failures that otherwise inhibit the development and dissemination of technologies targeted specifically to small-scale, resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Drawing on a survey of 75 PPP projects in the international system, findings suggest that while PPPs are changing the way the system manages its research agenda, few partnerships lead to joint innovation processes with the private sector. This indicates the need for closer examination of organizational practices, cultures, and incentives in the international agricultural research system.

Public–private partnerships are a potentially important means of conducting pro-poor agricultural research in many developing countries. Yet within the international agricultural research sector, there are few examples of successful collaboration that have contributed to food security, poverty reduction or agricultural development. This study hypothesizes that partnerships between public research agencies and private, multinational firms are constrained by fundamentally different incentive structures; prohibitive costs, both direct and indirect; mutually negative perceptions between the sectors; and high levels of competition and risk associated with valuable assets and resources. Based on a survey of key stakeholders and a review of the literature, findings suggest that the primary impediments to partnership are perceptions, competition and risk, while issues of costs and conflicting incentives are secondary. These findings suggest that investment in innovative organizational mechanisms and supportive public policies could facilitate more, and more successful, public–private partnerships in pro-poor agricultural research. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006agricultural development, research and development, public-private partnership, L33, O3, Q16,

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a multidimensional measure of hunger that considers three dimensions: (1) inadequate dietary energy supply, (2) child undernutrition, and (3) child mortality. The initial version of the index included the following three, equally weighted, non-standardized (i.e. unscaled) indicators that are expressed in percent: the proportion of the population that is calorie deficient (FAO's prevalence of undernourishment); the prevalence of underweight in children under five; and the under-five mortality rate. Several decisions regarding the original formulation of the GHI are reconsidered in light of recent discussions in the nutrition community and suggestions by other researchers, namely the choice of the prevalence of child underweight for the child undernutrition dimension, the use of the under-five mortality rate from all causes for the child mortality dimension, and the decision not to standardize the component indicators prior to aggregation. Based on an exploration of the literature, data availability and comparability across countries, and correlation analyses with indicators of micronutrient deficiencies, the index is revised as follows: (1) The child underweight indicator is replaced with child stunting and child wasting; (2) The weight of one third for the child undernutrition dimension is shared equally between the two new indicators; and (3) The component indicators of the index are standardized prior to aggregation, using fixed thresholds set above the maximum values observed in the data set. The under-five mortality rate from all causes is retained, because estimating under-five mortality attributable to nutritional deficiencies would be very costly and make the production of the GHI dependent on statistics about cause-specific mortality rates by country and year that are published irregularly, while the expected benefits are limited.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper explores how framing discussions about biotechnology in different ways influences how scientists, policy makers, and members of the public communicate with each other, to either inhibit or promote acceptance. It argues for the use of new techniques to create a rational dialogue with the public, based on scientific knowledge, that allows them to fully participate as informed stakeholders in debates about new technologies. Several different outlooks on the role of science in society are presented. Effectively communicating these different positions to the public requires innovative approaches. Drawing on advances in scientific communication practices, we briefly describe four principles that consider not only the scientific content, but also its delivery. New views need to be delivered with confidence, to be sensible within existing frameworks of understanding and not overwhelming, to reveal both potentially positive and negative aspects, and to promote interactive discussion with stakeholders. The authors conclude using the regional initiative in Southern Africa--the African Policy Dialogues on Biotechnology--as an illustration of this approach, where discussions started by first seeking agreement about establishing a process for dialogue, rather than initially trying to achieve consensus on any substantive points.