5.2 Development of Food and Agricultural Policy Analysis: Review of Institutional Requirements and Approaches - by Luca Salvatici^[10] and Maria Grazia Quieti^[11]

Part I. Research and Policy: Linkages and Governance by Luca Salvatici

Summary

Common under-standing of policy analysis and of capacity development

The purpose of this paper is to provide a common understanding of what is meant by policy analysis, offering a framework for planning and assessing its impact in terms of influence on policy-making as well as a common understanding of capacity development for food and agricultural policies. It reviews the existing literature and experiences drawn from the Near East Region, as derived from the responses obtained from the Workshop participants through a questionnaire (Appendix 2), as well as from international experience.

Link between research and public policy

Although no simple one-way relationship analysis-decision can be assumed, for many social science researchers, influencing policy makers is an intended result or expectation of their research. A considerable literature exists detailing the nature of policy processes and on whether and how research does or does not inform public policy. The main literature on knowledge utilization in decision-making is reviewed, as well as frameworks explaining how policy change occurs. It appears that the various conceptualizations of the policy process have different implications for the extent to which research is able to influence policy, and for how research could be designed to influence policy. Moreover, each conceptualization has different implications with respect to who are considered to be the main decisions makers in society, and/or to whom the research should be addressed. For example, the traditional view of the "enlightenment function" of research is criticized by those who question whether research institutions truly influence policy or whether research is utilized merely for legitimization purposes.

Issues in policy analysis and delivery

Drawing on the existing literature, the first part of this paper discusses at some length by whom and for whom policy analysis is to be developed. In this perspective, the most relevant issues in policy analysis and delivery of its results refer to:

• the pluralistic structure of organizations that can (at least potentially) participate in food and agricultural policy analysis: are there financial and human resources left untapped?

• the source of funds for the analysis: are there opportunities for private funding?

• institutional support: what is the most effective form of providing it?

• the 'status' of the policy analysis institutions: what is the degree of independence and financial autonomy they should be endowed with?

• organization and management: how to recruit (and retain) qualified staff?

• communication channels between policy analysts and policy-makers: what are the most effective strategies in order to bridge research and policy?

• monitoring and evaluation: what mechanisms to ensure relevance of research and accountability in the use of public funds?

Capacity development

While much of the discussion (as well as the literature) is in terms of broad generalities of institutional change, a first step in the exploration of the actual experiences in Capacity development for policy analysis is provided in Part II of this paper.

Part II reviews conceptual issues on policy analysis functions and presents selected cases of different approaches in capacity development in public sector institutions. Such approaches range from institution building aimed at strengthening or establishing special units or organizations with policy analysis tasks to specific targeted capacity development activities at national, regional and international level. The approaches reviewed and the results of the Questionnaires point to the conclusions that institution building and capacity development usually imply a long term sustained effort which includes actions for the effective and efficient functioning of the units/organizations entrusted with policy analysis functions. They also highlight the importance of the link between public sector institutions and academic/research institutions at national, regional and international level as well as of networking among policy research institutions. Finally, the scope and desirability of regional and international capacity development activities on policy domains of relevance to several countries, or policy domains of a regional nature, are discussed and examples are presented.

Part I. Research and Policy: Linkages and Governance by L. Salvatici

1. Introduction

Changing role of the state

In many countries of the Near East Region the role of the state has been changing for the last 15 years. There are several factors that have affected the role of the state, and at least two cumulative processes are worth mentioning: regional integration and the issue of sovereignty and the transition to a market economy and the growing power of private companies and individuals. New roles governments should play have, increasingly, to do with institutions, laws, markets and resource endowments, including farmers' managerial capacity. The development of a flexible institutional structure puts difficult demands on governments, forcing them to embark on new activities while abandoning some of the activities they have pursued historically.

New actors in food, agriculture and rural development

Food policy is increasingly becoming the concern of Ministries of Trade and Industry, Ministries of the Environment, and independent authorities. As a matter of fact, the very concept of agricultural sector has become larger and more diversified, due to the increasing importance of the agro-industrial complex, including transportation networks and the entire distribution system (Timmer, 2003). In addition, the notion of rural development has come to the foreground, which means diversifying the local economy. Finally, environmental concerns are there to acquire more weight, from the need of a better management and conservation of natural resources, to the elimination of various kinds of pollution.

New challenges have arisen that are forcing changes in the organization of food and agricultural policies. Food security is now only one of several goals, while globalization and rapid developments in science, privatization and liberalization of the economy and sustainable resource management and diversification are now presenting new challenges on the organizations of the agriculture and rural sector. For developing countries, the scarcity of expertise and financial constraints is likely to be a significant constraint because of the number of sectors involved and the cost of facing these new challenges (Maxwell and Slater, 2003). Objective analysis, collective wisdom, past experiences and innovative and successful initiatives taken by other countries must guide the paradigm shift for greater effectiveness and efficiency.

This first part is about the relationship between research and policy - specifically about how policy research is developed, and about how policy draws on research. Since one of the objectives of the Workshop is capacity development for food and agricultural policy analysis, it might be thought that the relationship is straightforward: good research is designed to be relevant to policy; its results are delivered in an accessible form to policy-makers; and good policy-making is rationally based on relevant research findings. In fact, this is far from the case.

Review of the literature

There is plenty of literature on these issues in many social science disciplines - in political science, sociology, anthropology, and management, to name a few. The purpose here is to review some of this literature and to draw out the possibilities of addressing policy analysis requirements. Accordingly, the paper begins (Section 2) with a brief discussion of the why of food and agricultural policy analysis and what it consists of. Successively, the question of the value of policy analysis is also addressed.

... on the relationship between policy and research

Governance and modes of operation of policy analysis institutions are discussed in Section 3. A fundamental issue for capacity development is by whom and for whom policy analysis is developed, since the type of analysis being conducted often depends on the type of organization or agency undertaking the research. After that, the question of how research impacts on policy and about how policy draws on research must also be addressed. Finally, there is the important issue of assessing performance: how are the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the research institution to be determined? The Conclusion (Section 4) draws these threads together, raising issues for further discussion.

...on governance, modes of operation and performance of policy analysis institutions

Reference is made as much as possible to the answers to the questionnaire which was sent to elicit information on the institutional capacity for food and agriculture policy analysis.^[12] The review of existing institutional capacity for food and agriculture policy analysis in different countries should help each country to take advantage of the experience of others, establishing links within the Region among institutions having to render similar services to the respective governments and countries, and improve the ability of international donor community to assist them upon request to meet emerging needs for adaptation and improvement. We use the results of the questionnaire to draw some lessons on ways to heighten the impact of economic policy research on policy decisions.

Institutional capacity at the country level

As a matter of fact, the points that need to be examined are likely to differ from country to country, as well as the relative importance of different topics. Accordingly, no attempt has been made to evaluate the single institutions involved, since this would require taking into account the specific context in which each institution operates: the political history and governance regime where the institution is located; the type of research-policy nexus that exists; and the type of research being conducted. Accordingly, the cases referred to are just examples and they are not meant to represent exhaustive empirical 'proof' of the way in which the institutional change manifests itself.

Information on, and relevance of, policy analysis experiences for different countries

Finally, it should be acknowledged that most of the literature on policy analysis is based on the experience of developed countries. Consequently, it may be argued that several of the issues raised in this literature are scarcely relevant for the Near East Region. Although it may be true that at least some of the concerns dealt with are far from the experience of many developing countries, we do believe that there is a value in comparing how different institutions perform the same functions in different environments. Different approaches may indicate better ways of carrying out the policy analysis work: implementing these better ways is what allows an institution to make meaningful changes. Even if the issues raised here should be considered as indicative, they may provide a "basket of ideas" from which the participants to the Workshop will be able to draw out the most useful and relevant lessons for their purposes.

2. Policy-related social science research in agriculture

The foregoing paragraph discusses the why of food and agricultural policy analysis and what it consists of. After the why and what of policy analysis, the question of how much must also be addressed: what is the value of policy analysis?

Policy analysis: some general conceptual notions

Policy analysis: definitions

Policy as public policy

From a general point of view, "policy-making can be defined quite broadly including any sets of processes, activities and actions resulting in a decision, and we can think of a broad range of decision makers: from heads of families to government policymakers" (Carden and Neilson, 2002, p. 3). For the purpose of this paper, though, policy is defined as public policy, while policy analysis is performed simultaneously by a series of actors: some within or mandated by the state; others upon their initiative - academics, lobbyists, journalists -, since governments may be listening, even possibly responding, to other stakeholders.

Policy analysis

The term "policy analysis" can be generally referred as "the family of approaches devoted to the study of policy making. Policy analysis, then, is essentially about the development and application of a variety of social-scientific insights to help resolve public problems via concrete policy interventions" (Hajer, 2003, p.181).^[13] According to this definition, policy analysis is characterized on the one hand by the production of knowledge that is for politics but in itself not political but scientific, on the other hand by a problem-orientation attitude, culminating in notions of concrete policy intervention to change a given course of events.

Any policy analysis is both a prescription and a prediction. Analysis prescribes because it tells us what changes in the policies would be necessary to bring about new behaviours.^[14] Analysis predicts because it tells us that if particular changes in the policies are implemented then new behaviours will be likely to result. But of course very often problems are misdiagnosed and therefore it is to be expected that prescriptions and predictions will be mistaken. There must be mechanisms and procedures in place to assess the new policy outcomes against the declared purposes, and to allow correction and modification when discrepancies arise.

According to Barbero (2000) research and analysis applied to food and agricultural policy "can properly be described as a process of producing information of an advanced form (such as, for instance, actual or expected policy effects) by the use of basic information. The latter is currently understood to consist of secondary data, i.e. those collected and made available by statistical bureaus and departments, and of primary data, i.e. those collected directly by a research centre for its own purposes. It is thus clear that the quantity and quality of basic information play a crucial role in any research work and that special attention must be given to fact-finding activities" (p. 8).

One of the attributes of system effectiveness is whether the system is structured and behaves to generate management information about itself. In the case of food and agricultural policies, the information is needed not only to assess the working of the policy delivery system but also to provide feedback to policy advisors and policy makers, i.e., as an input into the dynamic policy process. For example, if there are grounds for believing that the effectiveness of present policies is inadequate, recommendations will be required for improving the working of the system. In other cases, the government may wish to change the policy instruments for reasons unconnected with the effectiveness of the actual policy (e.g., to comply with WTO commitments): accordingly, it would be interesting to know if there are other instruments that can be used.

The economic approach

In this perspective, an economic approach is particularly suited for analysing policy options and outcomes. Economics, more than any other science or discipline, utilizes analytical frameworks designed to evaluate tradeoffs, costs, and benefits. Moreover, these frameworks are flexible enough to encompass a wide array of public concerns and policy objectives.

As well-known, most policies are based on issues that are as much social and political as they are economic. Even so, this cannot be used as an excuse to avoid appropriates economic analyses: an important part of transparency centres on knowledge and understanding of the opportunity costs of public policy decisions. Policy makers and others need to know the opportunity costs of decisions even if economics is subordinated to political and social objectives.

Policy analysis domains as derived from the questionnaires

In the questionnaire, there is a question (4.5) dealing with the major policy domains of the institutions in charge of policy analysis in each country. Agriculture is by far the most important, with an average share close to 45%. Rural development and food security are the only other domains widely acknowledged, though with much lower shares (13% and 10%, respectively). All the other possible domains - forestry, irrigation, environment and rural financial services - are rarely, and marginally, mentioned. It is worth noting that a policy domain of paramount importance in most developed countries, such as food safety, is mentioned in the work programmes of five institutions only. Another interesting indication is provided by the fact that the policy areas of trade and industry are always, at least partially, outside the mandate of the agricultural institutions for policy analysis (question 4.6).

With reference to a specific agricultural sector, which is operating in a given economic, social and institutional context, policy analysis should help to form a strategy essentially embodying both a vision of what the sector should look like in the future, and a road map showing how to fulfil that vision. Within a general policy framework that has previously defined the nature and ranking of the general socio-economic objectives, there are several ways in which policy analysis may help to establish or legitimize a development strategy for the agricultural sector:^[15]

The role of policy analysis for agricultural development

1. Specify - for government intervention - integrated, coherent and effective food and agricultural policies' goals, which should contribute to the pursuit of the overall global objectives.

2. Identify and assess the main sectoral structural features, highlighting the factors representing both development opportunities and constraints, and producing critical reviews of the impact of food and agricultural policies.

3. Analyse and evaluate the options available for the formulation of alternative policies and modes of intervention for the food and agricultural sector broadly conceived as well as rural areas. In this perspective, it may be useful to remember that policy analysis outcomes range from simply ranking alternative options among sets of policies and institutions to specifying a detailed blueprint of policies to be pursued and institutions to be built.

4. Empower the country in international dialogue, so that truly national priorities can serve as guides for multilateral and bilateral negotiations.

5. Enhance the understanding of economic concepts and policy issues among the variety of agents and agencies concerned with the development of a modern agro-food sector and sustainable forms of agricultural production. To this end, there can be a capacity development effort, for example conducting training courses in policy analysis.

6. Act as a highly qualified forum for policy dialogue, between decision makers, managers and experts for the identification of current policy concerns and timely formulation of research areas as a basis for policy review and proposals. This may contribute to the establishment of a collaborative effort among different institutions and groups in society, or provide ammunition for opposition. Indeed, both policy makers and interest groups can draw on research to take an advocacy position, since any positions without a technical justification may run the risk of being characterized as only another set of opinions. However, policy advocacy should not be confused with researchers being reduced to the role of policy advocates, serving the political interests of research users.

Indeed, such a multiplicity of tasks reflects the number of "clients" (potentially) interested in using the results of policy analysis. Many actors participate in the policymaking process and use various sources of information to make policy. The results from the questionnaires confirm that the institutions contacted deliver services to several actors ranging from government and agricultural producers (farmers and agribusiness firms), to universities and international organizations, but also consumers and the general public are mentioned among the main end-users (questions 2.3 and 6.5).

Balancing multiple objectives

Institutions for policy analysis often struggle to balance among multiple objectives, and this has major implications for organization of research and prioritization of the work plan. According to the answers to the questionnaire (questions 4.1 and 4.2), the most widespread objective is to enhance and strengthen capacities to produce and use policy research, as well as the improvement of the capacity to participate in the policy process. Other objectives often quoted include producing critical reviews of policy impact assessments, and facilitating/strengthening policy dialogue between researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholder.

Alternative approaches to the interpretation of the food and agricultural policy process

Decision-making paradigms

In order to explain the possible raison-d'être of food and agricultural policy analysis, it is necessary to look at the policy process. In many cases, the complexity of food and agricultural policy poses a challenge for those who wish to understand it. No single model or theory is likely to explain satisfactorily all the twists and turns of complex policies. And yet, if one does not have in mind some explanations of the motives and actions of decision makers, then policy becomes a random process^[16] where policy analysis cannot possibly play any useful roles. In the following paragraphs some of the main decision making paradigms are reviewed for the insights they provide in understanding the usefulness of policy analysis.

'Rational' model

The rational model outlines policy-making as a problem-solving process which is balanced, objective and analytical. Accordingly, policy analysis is supposed to be the quiet space of scientific rationality, providing largely uncontroversial knowledge that enhances the administrative capacity. In the model, decisions are made in a series of sequential phases:"

• Recognising and defining the nature of the issue to be dealt with

• Identifying possible courses of action to deal with the issue

• Weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives

• Choosing the option which offers the best solution

• Implementing the policy

• Possibly evaluating the outcome" (Sutton, 1999, p. 9).

Knowledge is seen as neutral or apolitical, so that decision makers will be persuaded by the most accurate or scientifically plausible option. Policy-making is construed as a problem-solving activity requiring extensive expert participation. Even if research is rarely convincing or comprehensive enough to exercise a determining impact on policy-making, accumulated research findings gradually alter decision-makers perceptions of both the causes of problems and the likely effects of policy interventions. Consequently, this perspective outlines the processes by which knowledge is simplified and transmitted, but does not analyse the dynamics of what kind of knowledge finds its way into policy and who influences which knowledge is utilised (Stone et al., 2001).

Given such a normative basis, the approach of economists has often been to analyse policy impacts, assuming (implicitly) that the set of policy measures is embedded in a system in which they always work perfectly and do exactly what they are intended to do. Modern welfare economics has largely focused on the normative theory of public choice, which leads to policy recommendations that will increase some measure of social welfare. However, the widespread failures of the linear model have given rise to a growing awareness that 'first get the facts right' is no longer a credible policy analysis strategy.

The focus on the limits to knowledge has repercussions for our understanding of policy analysis. First of all, there is a growing appreciation that decisions cannot only be made only once the appropriate knowledge is available. Second, "in light of the above, policy analysis might just be as much about the identification of unawareness as about the provision of knowledge" (Hajer, 2003, p.185). Third, we move beyond the notion that the political tradition and culture are to be viewed as a malfunctioning 'black box'. Policies actually adopted are often considerably different from those advocated by economists on welfare grounds, but such a discrepancy tends to be seen by economists as a failure by politicians to resist pressure from interested parties.

Public choice model

Admittedly, rational, apolitical models are a poor guide to policy-making reality. If it is recognised that there are practical constraints on rational decision-making ("bounded rationality"), it should be acknowledged that decision makers choose compromise policies that satisfy (rather than maximise) organizational goals, and which are acceptable in the face of competing demands. The modern positive theory of public choice sheds some light on these competing demands, seeing pressures to further private interests as rational actions by individuals and groups to improve their own welfare, rather than as an obstacle to the optimal functioning of the political process. These models, then, provide a framework for analysing the roles of politicians, bureaucrats and interest groups in an attempt to explain governments' actions: civil servants and politicians are entirely pragmatic, aiming to ensure that government can function, cope with pressure group demands, and deal with crises as they arise.

The progress of change achieved through this type of political bargaining process may appear painfully slow, and there does not seem to be much room for knowledge to find its way into policy. The main reasons why researchers are likely to be sidelined in the policy-making process are summarized as follows by Stone et al. (2001):

• Incremental policy processes reinforce pro-inertia and anti-innovation forces.

• Creativity is discounted and stifled.

• New ideas or research can be discounted as unrealistic.

• There is low emphasis on developing clear goals and plans.

• Difficult problems requiring radical changes to resolve are ignored.

• Even crucial research findings may be ignored given costly investments in existing policies.

• Political crises (scandals or tragedies) are required before a major re-evaluation of policy occurs.

Policies developed through
...bargaining
...creation of inter-subjective knowledge

On the other hand, it could be argued that policies reached through bargaining, consensus-building and mutual adjustment are likely to be of better quality than policies based on 'rational', comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, if expertise is not seen as objective knowledge but as contested information, turning policy-making into a battle of ideas, the presence of competing coalitions can lead to an increased demand for policy analysis. If policy problems and policy belief systems are a social construction, the emphasis is on processes through which "inter-subjective knowledge" (common understandings and shared views) is developed and becomes a dynamic for change. Policy analysis results that become the 'conventional wisdom' can help to build consensus between the different actors, whether they are states engaged in international negotiations or policy makers in policy communities.

...narratives and discourses

In this perspective, research can be influential in providing policy 'narratives' and 'discourses' that support the policy preferences of political leaders, or in providing a foundation for 'counter-discourses', alternative identities and sites of resistance (we will come back to this issue in Section 3). If this is true, it is not only external events, but how these events are perceived, that shape the policy agenda (Stone et al., 2001).

Analytical methods for measuring returns to policy research

Evaluating policy analysis impact

Most policy analysts feel their work has value, but few can say how much. Methodologies for impact assessment of social science research are not well developed. The costs and benefits of a particular technology are certainly more straightforward to calculate than that of a policy finding or recommendation, where numerous political factors and actors complicate the connections between social science research results, outcomes and policy influences. Nevertheless, as accountability concerns have increased, research organizations need to justify to donors, to consumers of their research, and to taxpayers the social and economic value of research. Especially in developing countries, which cannot afford the 'luxury' of pure research, public officials increasingly ask for evidence of research impacts. Policy analysis is therefore unlikely to receive funding unless it can demonstrate practical utility.

A nascent literature on evaluating social science research, including policy analysis, agrees that the primary output is information. Suggested frameworks generally follow models used by economists to measure rates of return to agricultural research, relying on market models or regression analysis to estimate costs of investment and the value of resulting benefits (Ryan and Garrett, 2003). However, there is little consensus on a preferred approach for evaluation, and few realistic quantitative assessments have actually been attempted (a possible approach for the evaluation of the information generated by policy research is presented in Appendix 1).

Willingness to pay for policy research

According to Gardner (1999) it would be going too far even to guess the value of policy analysis by attempting to quantify the real-income effect of the extent to which policy decisions have been influenced by that analysis. There exists a more direct quasi-market indication of policy analysis' value in this sphere. This is the willingness to pay for policy research shown by government agencies that hire researchers because they believe the benefits from the findings justify the staff costs. Accordingly, this approach suggests valuing the output by looking at costs, as is often done in measuring the services of lawyers, accountants, entertainers, and other providers of intangible services. However, if one assumes that anything is paid must be appropriate, the argument quickly becomes circular.

Even if this "public willingness to pay" is a questionable concept, one should not be too quick to write off the research as not worth what is paid for it. The payment, after all, is voluntarily made by people who economists normally assume are rational. Accordingly, it is reasonable to use the budget cost of policy analysis to place an upper bound on value of the services provided by social scientists employed by government agencies.^[17] It is an upper bound because some public research and analysis is conducted largely if not entirely to respond to or refute economic assessments by private-sector interests or foreign governments. To this extent, national income might remain unchanged if both sides reduce their efforts.^[18]

Finally, can information theory tell us whether decision-makers will invest too much or too little in food and agricultural policy analysis? Even if it is not (obviously) possible to cover all the specifics of different situations, there are at least some general indications (Hirshleifer and Riley, 1992):

Investing in policy analysis

• Excessive investment in policy analysis tends to take place when each participant into the decision-making process believes that the additional evidence is likely to convince others of the correctness of his own opinion.

• Insufficient investment in policy analysis tends to take place where agreements on the policy to be undertaken are grounded upon "compensating disagreements" in different dimensions of uncertainty. Suppose that the Ministry of Agriculture is pretty sure that demand is elastic, and also that a production subsidy programme does better in such a case. The Ministry of the environment might be equally sure that demand is inelastic, and that an inelastic demand requires production subsidies as well. Resolving just one of the disagreements, as by financing policy research that would conclusively indicate which policy instrument is to be preferred in case of inelastic demand, will then make it impossible to achieve unanimity. So the government might well refuse information that would resolve the disagreement in one dimension only, even if such information were fully accurate and free of charge.

• Insufficient investment in policy analysis tends also to take place where, with differences of opinion and conflicts of interest as well, elimination of the differences of opinion would make it impossible (or more difficult) to reach a decision on a policy whereby each actor expects to profits at the expense of the others.

The last proposition is particularly relevant, since there are not many cases of policy choices that are perceived as "advantageous" to all. The conclusion, then, is that, where there are conflicts of interest, each member of a group might prefer not making public information that would destroy his chance to exploit (what he perceives to be) the erroneous beliefs of others.

In any case, it must be acknowledged that quantitative approaches cannot provide insight into the policy process and how policymakers use research information. These methods do not illuminate how policy analysis influences policy choices or which policy actors should be targeted with research information: "Policymaking remains a black box, giving little idea of how the research had an impact, if any, or how it could be improved or communicated more effectively" (Ryan and Garrett, 2003, p.3).

3. Policy analysis: incentives and performances

Results of policy analysis as a public or private good^[19]

Pluralistic institutional structure

A variety of organizations can potentially participate in food and agricultural policy analysis, both for funding and execution, such as universities, non-agricultural ministries (e.g., environment), various non-governmental organizations (e.g., farmers' organizations), regional and international organizations (e.g., CAEU, FAO), as well as the private sector (e.g., private research institutes). The inclusion of a wider range of organizations in the conception and execution of food and agricultural policy analysis enhances the quantity and quality of financial and human resources that can be potentially tapped - for example, potential new funding sources from non-agricultural ministries or farmer organizations, and the scientific talent available in universities.

Funding and execution

Policy analysis can be considered in two dimensions: source of funds for the analysis and type of institution executing the analysis. Coupled with this growing institutional complexity has been a trend toward the separation of funding and execution of research since each requires different inputs and skills.

The responsibility for funding policy analysis should be determined on the basis of who benefits from the results of this analysis. The execution of policy analysis, on the other hand, should be decided on the basis of efficiency considerations. An effective funding mechanism will then be that which allows optimum use of research infrastructure - an issue affected by economies of scale and scope in research, market size and existing institutional and management capabilities - while providing the possibility for those who benefit from the results to assume the financial burden of policy analysis (Echeverria et al., 1996).

Public funding

The question, then, is to what extent food and agricultural policy analysis should rely on public funding. The basic argument is that we face a public goods problem, where there is an inadequate supply of policy relevant research. Since already produced analysis can be made concurrently available to any and all possible end-users,^[20] there is indeed a "public good effect" that would induce underproduction by the market. Consequently, private sector investment in policy research will not be carried as far as the level at which the added (private and social) benefits fall to the level of the cost of funds invested. The presence of 'externalities' (i.e., the difference between the social and private benefits), then, provides an economic rationale for public institutions getting involved, either through a publicly operated policy analysis institution or through contracting with other agents (such as universities).

Although there is a sound economic rationale for public support, it is worth recalling that there may be several potential and interrelated reasons explaining the lack of adequate funding for food and agricultural policy analysis (Echeverria et al., 1996):

• overall government budget cuts as a result of fiscal austerity;

• lack of understanding by national leaders of the crucial role of agriculture and/or lack of recognition of the public-good nature of policy analysis;

• withdrawal of support by donors;

• lack of accountability of the policy analysis institution to those who fund analysis and to those who use the results from the analysis;

• lack of relevant outputs from many policy analysis programmes and/or lack of communication between policy analysts and policy makers.

Private funding

Opportunities for private returns depend upon institutional arrangements that are mutable and may encourage private sector investment in policy analysis. In order to reduce the 'public good effect', intellectual property rights may be granted on research results.^[21] The final goal is to strike a proper balance between the two interrelated goals of inducing the ideal amount of effort aimed at the production of policy analysis versus achieving efficient use of the results of such analysis once produced. However, the literature on intellectual property rights highlighted many trade-offs and unresolved issues. Moreover, food and agricultural policy analysis may be aimed at multiple objectives and users, generating spillovers and external benefits that may still justify public funding of policy research.

Sources of finance

According to the questionnaire, the major (and in several cases the only) source of funding for policy analysis comes from the affiliated Ministry (almost 90% of total sources of finance), with donor-funded projects coming as (distant) second (question 2.5). It is not clear what are the modalities used by the government in financing, but it is likely that public funding takes place through annual block grants, rather than using competitive schemes. Public funding, on the other hand, is fully consistent with the public access to the research results guaranteed by all institutions (question 5.3.3).

Block grants

Historically, in most countries institutional support has been the primary form of support for policy analysis. Public funds are provided as a block grant, usually through the ministry of agriculture, to a centralized policy analysis department or institute, which then set the priorities and execute policy research. Block grants encourage policy analysis institutions to undertake major mission-oriented programmes. They also relieve the staff from the burden of grant seeking, freeing up more time for research activities.

Competitive funding

Project support for policy analysis, on the other hand, provides funds on specific topics and for a fixed term (usually 1-5 years). They are allocated on the basis of peer reviews conducted to determine scientific merit, and by evaluating proposed activities against policy priorities. Consequently, project support can quickly focus resources on newly emerging issues. More generally, competitive funding is regarded as a powerful mechanism to direct (scarce) funds to high priority areas, improve quality and accountability, and promote wider participation of research providers and innovative partnerships. On the other hand it places a greater burden for management on the government, since it shifts responsibility for priority setting from the policy analysis institution to the funding Ministry.

Institutional versus project support

To enhance accountability, quality and efficiency of the system, a higher share of funds should be gradually shifted to competitive funding. Moreover, commissioned research may actually improve the level of impact because stakeholders clearly want the information and plan to use it. However, regular block grants must continue in order to maintain and upgrade research infrastructure and human resources. This means that both systems have merits, and the appropriate question is not whether one system of support is better than another, but what is the appropriate mix of the two systems (Fuglie et al., 1997).

Delivering policy analysis: public vs. private provision

Coming to the actual production of policy analysis, in several developed countries changes have been taking place in the form of the separation or distancing of policy advice and policy formation. This has perhaps been most noticeable in terms of the changing role of the civil service, and the separation of the different functions formerly encompassed by one government department. The consequences of the above-mentioned process for the political system and public accountability are far-reaching, and way beyond the scope of this paper. However, a possible reason why this occurred is the following: since government departments have a vested interest in their own survival and expansion, they should not both advise policy makers and implement policy. As a matter of fact, any organizations that rely on policy analysis to justify or financially support their existence may have a strong private interest in the continuation of that policy (Sandiford and Rossmiller, 1997).

Private companies, on the other hand, are considered more responsive to changing user needs, and market competition should discipline their efficiency. In the attempt to institute markets and market disciplines for the provision of government-produced goods and services, there is a tendency to abolish or undermine a public monopoly over food and agricultural policy analysis advisory services.

There are indeed compelling reasons for concern about government delivery of these services. On the one hand, public production of services that can in principle be produced by the private sector can stifle private sector development. On the other hand, public service production may have an inherent tendency to be ineffective because it is supply, not demand, driven, and public employees may have little incentive to provide services effectively and efficiently, especially as regards timeliness.

Yet privatizing or "marketizing" policy analysis will not automatically overcome these problems. To assert that because public servants will act to further their private interests rather than the public good, they should be replaced by or subjected to the disciplines of the private sector, which is admitted to act in its own private interest, seems a bizarre chain of reasoning. After all, the activities of the private sector are far from being uniformly transparent or efficient.

Incentive-compatible schemes

Although direct public support of research successfully addresses the externality problem^[22], public support itself may contribute to other form of inefficiency: "A real world disadvantage of government funding of programmes is the lack of incentive for cost control in situations where performance monitoring is difficult" (Fuglie et al., 1997, p.7). As a matter of fact, a government deciding to play a role in funding food and agricultural policy research faces a typical agency problem,^[23] where the "principal" (the government) delegates actions to the "agent" (the policy research institute).The economic theory shows that when the principal (i.e., the government) is not able to measure output (in terms of the quality of the results of policy analysis) directly, he has to provide incentives to the agent (i.e. the policy analysis institution) to encourage it to work. Even where competitive funding is not used contractual arrangements between policy analysis funder and policy analysis provider should be established in order to enhance accountability, and monitor outputs rather than inputs in government-provided services.

Delivering policy analysis: public vs. private provision

In practice, the main questions concern the degree of independence and financial autonomy of which the research institution should be endowed, its affiliation and relations with other government institutions, the function, composition and mode of operation of the governing body. An independent institution can more easily diversify its sources of finance (for instance, by participation to projects financed or cofinanced by international agencies), adopt a flexible organization, and mobilize the collaboration of experts, consultants, visiting researchers, part-time and occasional personnel, in such a way as be able of quick responses to new demands on a broad front of agricultural policy issues, and to adequately face peak workloads (Barbero, 2000).

Results from questionnaires

All returned questionnaires indicate that institutions for policy analysis are located within the government (question 2.1). The actors actively involved in the management include public organizations - such as ministries, universities and banks - as well as non-governmental ones - such as producers' organizations and chambers of commerce (question 2.2). However, the appointments to the "supervisory body" - which takes decisions about the work programme and the allocation of the budget - are mostly made by the government (questions 2.2 and 2.4). This indicates that reforms are being attempted from within the existing civil service structure, but the supervising bodies do not seem to be accountable to the major stakeholders. On the other hand, the broadening of governing boards to include major stakeholders and various types of mechanisms utilized in order to seek farmer input into priority setting can be considered a first attempt to promote more demand-driven and responsive organizations.

Institutional arrangements

Even if food and agricultural policy research institutions are affiliated to specific ministries, such as the ministry of agriculture, it is important that they maintain scientific, organizational, administrative, and financial autonomy. They should collaborate and coordinate with all other ministries, agencies, and organizations which are possible end-users of its activities, such as producers' and cooperative organizations, credit and investment institutions, agro-industrial and marketing firms: "Today more than ever agricultural policy must be coordinated with other areas of policies and the agencies in charge of them: for example, with the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance in the case of rural financial policy, with the Ministry of Economy or Trade for agricultural trade policy, with the Ministry of Finance for expenditure programmes on irrigation and research, and with a Ministry of the Environment or Natural Resources for irrigation policy... Equally, good design and implementation of agricultural policy require participation from local governments, producers associations, water users associations, NGOs, regional offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, and other decentralized organizations" (Norton, 2003, Chap. 2, p. 20).

Organization and management

The public sector in many countries suffers from centralization and bureaucratization that imposes high transaction costs at all levels. Public research organizations should thus attempt to reform their management and governance to allow them more flexibility in financial, human resource, and asset management (Byerlee, 1998). In this respect, the positive feedback from the questionnaire is that in most cases the adjustment of work resources to workload includes monetary and career incentives rather than command and control (question 3.3).

Human resources

Finally, it must be acknowledged that the educational qualification of professional staff and specialists working in the institutions covered by the questionnaire can still be improved. On average, around one third of the staff holds a Ph. D. degree, though at least two-thirds have a University degree (questions 3.1 and 3.2). Further analysis should be devoted to investigate the ratio of specialists to administrative staff.

Using policy analysis

End-users

End-users of policy analysis include both private economic agents and those involved in the public policy-making:

• politicians (ministers or members of parliament),

• senior civil servants and appointed officials,

• government appointed experts, specialists and advisors on advisory panels, appointed to commissions of inquiry or in cabinet,

• non-state actors that can also play a decision-making role in public policy (foundation officials, NGO leaders, international civil servants, or corporations.

Results from the questionnaire show that confirm that senior civil servants are the main end-users, followed by politicians and government appointed experts. However, in many cases a single group, different for each institution, turns out the main 'client' for which the analysis is performed (question 6.5).

The 'policy cycle'

The policy process is not linear, or continuous, as argued by the so-called "rational model" presented in section 2. Policymakers at different levels can make decisions on the same issue at the same time, and gaps, jumps, and lags in this process are present from the time an issue first arises to when choices are implemented (Ryan and Garrett, 2003). Nonetheless, the traditional way of understanding the 'policy cycle' is to divide it into four neat stages: problem definition and agenda-setting, formal decision-making, policy implementation, and evaluation.

Agenda setting

Agenda setting. It is about influencing which issues receive attention and which are excluded from public discussion. Researchers are one small group in this process, competing against other actors to influence the policy agenda. However, researchers can exert influence through their role in establishing the 'received wisdom' (what constitutes relevant and accepted knowledge). This seems consistent with "Weiss' enlightenment model" illustrating the idea that knowledge gained through research can enlighten or broaden the existing knowledge base of policy makers which can create a gradual shift of conceptual thinking about policies (Neilson, 2001). However, the experts' role in defining problems is more than an analytical activity: "the fact that experts tell people a problem exists sets a 'social dis-equilibrium' which can be translated by politicians into a political demand for compensatory action" (Sutton, 1999, p. 27).

Another useful concept, specifically on the initial stages of agenda-setting and the identification of alternative courses of action, is that of "discourse", that is "an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to phenomena" (Sutton, 1999, p. 13). As a matter of fact, dominant discourses work by setting up terms of reference by disallowing or marginalising alternatives (the issue of the use of language in policy-making will be also addressed below).

Decision- making

Decision-making. This is the phase where the critical decisions are taken: according to the linear model, politics surrounds decision-making activities (while implementation is considered an administrative activity). In terms of knowledge utilization, the appropriate concept seems to be Caplan's definition of 'conceptual use', associated with macro-level decisions as well as shifts in terms of policy-makers' awareness and reorientation of their basic perspectives (Neilson, 2001).

Implementation

Implementation. Research can play an important role in pointing out reasons for policy failures. These failures might result from one or more of several factors -flawed policy design, insufficient resources, or problematic implementation. The 'implementation gap', in particular, refers to the difference between the policy-makers objectives and what actually happens at the point of policy delivery. The management of the implementation process is a complex task, since it may require consensus building, participation of key stakeholders, conflict resolution, compromise, contingency planning, resource mobilisation and adaptation (Sutton, 1999). In terms of knowledge utilization, the appropriate concept seems to be Caplan's definition of 'instrumental use', which is associated with micro-level decisions or small, incremental decisions based on empirical knowledge or data (Neilson, 2001).

Monitoring

Monitoring is a further aspect of the policy process over which researchers can have a significant impact. Evaluative research has the potential to generate knowledge that is of use to future policy-makers, suggesting possible further alternative approaches.

Results from questionnaires

According to the results of the questionnaire, the institutions concerned are involved in all the stages of the cycle, though results of policy analysis seem to play a relative major role in the ex post account for the use of funds and the efficiency/effectiveness of the policy instruments (question 4.7). This seems to be broadly consistent with the finding that the slowness and complexity of the policy process is the main factor inhibiting policy influence, while the resistance of powerful interest groups also plays a crucial role (question 7.4).

Governance and modes of operation of policy analysis institutions

Main activities

We can think of four main groups of activities carried out by the policy research institution:

• Routine studies and analysis to provide, at regular intervals, critical comments on the current situation: this type of studies should provide systematic and objective reports of the agricultural sector with a critical review of achievements, problematic areas, emerging trends in foreign and domestic fronts. The answers to the questionnaire show that studies carried out on a routine basis on issues demanding systematic analysis represent on average the most important activity (question 5.2.1).

• In depth studies of areas, sectors and branches of production as a basis for analyses of agricultural policy problems of particular importance: for instance, farmers' income situation and the impact of market conditions or policy changes; changes in land tenure and land use patterns; labour market conditions, level and sources of employment and income in rural areas; regional cooperation in technology transfer; effects of technological changes, farm size adjustments, land and rental markets, etc.); international trade agreements and commitments; processing activities and marketing channels, of specific commodities; food consumption trends. On average this group of studies is ranked second among the main activities of the institutions that answered the questionnaire (question 5.2.1).

• Studies related to new directions of research and consultant work in which it is planned to gain sufficient expertise (through special courses, studies abroad, collaborations) in order to be able to supply competent services to end-users, especially to potential new clients. Accordingly, these are activities that may acquire a special significance for acquiring or consolidating reputation, as well as for expanding and diversifying funding sources. This type of studies is carried out only by some of the institutions that returned the questionnaire (question 5.2.1).

• Conduct of courses and seminars: trainees might include participants from the government, farmers' organizations and other NGOs, and from the private sector. Capacity development activities shall be planned and carried out as the logical extension of the research activities and policy analyses to ensure that the content of courses and seminars (for the benefits of officials involved in policy design, implementation and monitoring) is based on concrete knowledge of problems, programmes and professional fields. Such activities should also be held for internal purposes, in particular to keep improving and updating the staff professional competence and for integrating new recruits to replace leavers or when required by a growing demand for services and related financing (Barbero, 2000). Indeed, the vast majority of the questionnaires indicate the training among the main activities carried out by the policy analysis institutions (question 5.1.1).

Economies of scale

An important issue is the possible existence of economies of scale and scope in policy analysis. As far as the former are concerned, "substantial economies of scale in agricultural research are not evident, once one moves beyond the size of, roughly, the average U.S. college of agriculture" (Gardner and Lesser, 2003, p. 696). More likely are economies of scope: since different services can be produced through policy analysis (see above), increasing the output of one of them may decrease the cost (or increase the effective provision) of another.

Economies of scope

Classical economies of scope refer to combining two activities in one institution, but the same result can be achieved through "external economies of scope" with separate entities. In this perspective, networks and collaborations between think tanks and research institutes are an important means for increasing both effectiveness and efficiency of the policy analysis process.^[24] Coalitions of research organizations (i.e. global partnerships of research institutions across countries or policy sectors) are formed to achieve collectively held aims. They are characterised by relatively stable (and often non-hierarchical) inter-relationships between varieties of actors with common interests.

Partnerships

The interaction between (more or less) private- and public-sector policy analyses can take place through several channels. Formal links include contract research, consultancies, cooperative research projects, and joint ventures. Public institutions may purchase technical information for their research activities by hiring experts from universities and consultancy firms. Experience shows that no research institution can thrive and prosper without a continuous exchange and interaction with higher learning institutions, such national and foreign universities. Sound policy research should incorporate worthwhile analyses and well-founded recommendations that already have been developed in other contexts. Indeed, using and/or incorporating previous work done by other institutions can be one of the means of consolidating a societal consensus and mobilizing support for the policy's conclusions.^[25]

In this respect, the answers provided to the questionnaire present mixed evidence. On the one hand, secondments to other institutions are very rare, and there are almost no cases of sabbaticals and exchanges of staff in other national or international institutions (questions 3.4 and 3.5). Moreover, there are only few cases of staff who are members on boards of academic or other research institutions (question 3.7). On the other hand, all respondents (question 5.4.3) acknowledge relations with other research institutions, such as universities.

Networking

Any food and agricultural policy institution need to develop strategies to keep abreast of advances in knowledge about policy analysis. One implication of the growing complexity of food and agricultural policy analysis is the need to develop partnerships to gain access to complementary skills, and to participate in research networks that promote exchange of knowledge and data. The impact of research, as a matter of fact, may actually occur through global effects, "such as when country policy analysts employ methodologies or policy findings developed in another context in their own or when findings change common ways of looking at problems, leading to multiple changes in policy decisions across countries, institutions, and individuals" (Ryan and Garrett, 2003, p. 4). The objective to improve regional learning by enabling those involved in similar activities in neighbouring countries to benefit from each other's experiences is particularly relevant in the Near East Region.

The context of policy making is changing. More than before, solutions to pressing problems cannot be found within the boundaries of sovereign states. Several of the questionnaires (questions 5.4.1 and 5.4.2) indicate the existence of international relationships and support (especially from FAO), and membership with regional networks (as in the case of the Near East and North Africa Network for Agricultural Policies - NENARNAP; or the Intergovernmental Authority on Development - IGAD).^[26]

Outsourcing

In this perspective, another option available to policy analysis institutions is to contract out research work. The major economic motive for such behaviour is that it may be cheaper to contract certain types of highly specialized human and physical resources rather than establish or expand their own structure. Indeed, it is often possible to tap into latent national talent: "In every country there are experts familiar with issues... The challenge sometimes is to familiarize them with broader policy frameworks and also with policy options that have been explored in other countries,... and to give them an opportunity to work on policy issues that may not have had previously" (Norton, 2003, Chap. 9 p. 436). Moreover, researchers who live and work in country are likely to more aware of the political environment, the key issues, and critical windows of opportunity for the generation, provision, and utilization of policy analysis.

The previous conclusion is confirmed by the behaviour of policy analysis institutions of the Near East Region. The majority of them contract out some research work (question 5.4.4), though it is not possible to quantify the contribution of external researchers in universities or think tanks.

Saleable services

Finally, the amount of paid services that can be rendered is constrained by the priority to be accorded to the main institutional functions. But it should be understood that such services might play a useful and fully justified role for at least two reasons. First, they may prove essential for the acquisition of additional financial resources, thus enhancing the degree of autonomy of the institution. Second, closer relations with the market demand for services represent an external control on the work's quality (Barbero, 2000). Accordingly, even if policy research is not performed by profit-seeking enterprises, a desirable production mix should be a combination of saleable services and public goods. On the contrary, only in one case (and for a small percentage) paid services are included among the sources of finance of the policy analysis institutions covered by the questionnaire (question 2.5).

Bridging research and policy

Building bridges

This section is about the relationship between research and policy - specifically about how research impacts on policy, and about how policy draws on research. It could be the case that the main issue is not the absolute level of investment in policy research; rather the problem may be defined as one of a lack of access to research, data and analysis for policy makers. Researchers must be encouraged to take advantage of the increased availability of information technology to disseminate information to disparate groups and generate important public debate to better inform the policy process. Strategies to improve both access to and the diffusion of knowledge - 'building bridges' or constructing 'conveyor belts' - takes form, for example, of: starting newsletters; building websites; organizing events to present publications and research reports or moderating e-dialogues to create occasions for interchanging views on agricultural policies among policy makers and researchers.

Targeting

However, generalised lists of techniques to encourage the use of research often ignore the importance of targeting particular research-user groups with different dissemination strategies. Different methods are needed depending on the target audience. Dissemination never occurs in a social and political vacuum, for example there are not many governments which like to have policy research findings appear in the media before they are disseminated internally.^[27] Accordingly, strategies that work well in one country may fail elsewhere (Stone et al., 2001).^[28]

In the Region, there does not seem to be a high level of awareness that targeting research requires different presentation and dissemination strategies, as well as different medium to make research policy relevant and publicly accessible. Only in few cases there have been strategies of targeting particular research-user groups with different dissemination strategies and/or different versions of research findings suited to different target audiences (question 6.2). On the other hand, in a multi-level governance structure, it is worth recalling that quite often policy influence is targeted to multiple levels (national, local, communities, households), even if the national level always is the main target (question 6.4).

Dissemination

At one extreme a particular datum may be possessed by only a single individual (private information); at the other extreme, it may be known to everyone (public information): dissemination is the process of loss of privacy. At first glance, it could seem difficult to provide the policy research institutions with the incentives to disseminate effectively the results of their analysis. But we see similar behaviours quite often by sellers advertising their products, or by professors submitting their papers to journals for publications. In the case of advertising, each seller has to push his message through a noisy and congested channel, since consumers have only limited time and capacity for analysing the news they are bombarded with. In the same vein, it can be expected that policy research institutions would put a considerable effort to "push" their results, when their "survival" will be assured only if policy-makers are convinced of their worth.

Dissemination strategies

It is widely acknowledged (26% average weight) that "dissemination of research results to policy makers in appropriate formats" is the most important factor in order to facilitate policy influence (question 7.3). According to the answers to the questionnaire, organizing professional events and public presentations is the main dissemination strategy (question 5.3.1). However, most of the policy analysis institutions rely on a wide range of strategies ranging from the traditional ones, such as publishing, to the most innovative (i.e., use of internet and media exposure).

Policy analysts are from Mars, policy-makers are from Venus

If a policy research institution provides public information, it is often assumed that decision-makers throughout the economy, and especially policy-makers, should attempt to revise their choices in the light of their changed beliefs. However, the extensive literature about the use of research in policy making developed several hypotheses in order to explain the under/non-utilization of knowledge or research for decision-making purposes (Neilson, 2001). One of the most influential is the 'two communities' theory who explained the use, or non-use, of research as a symptom of the dichotomy existing between two autonomous communities - researchers, scientists and experts in a scholarly realm versus the political realm of politicians, administrators and appointed officials. Researchers and policy makers often have different ideas even about what constitutes or characterizes knowledge: "Social scientists generally see knowledge as something that is theoretically and methodologically sound and/or defensible. Policy makers see knowledge as something that comes from experience" (Neilson, 2001, p. 5). This generates concerns about the contested validity of research, issues of censorship and control, and epistemological issues relating to the question: what is knowable?

Overcoming this lack of understanding on the one hand requires researchers to study the policy process, to demonstrate the relevance of research, and to build methodologies for evaluating research relevance. On the other hand, key ministries and departments should possess research and analysis wing, which can interact with civil society organizations, Universities, policy institutes and think tank groups.

In any case, the transmission of policy analysis results is normally a costly and noisy process, since research results are types of information whose nature and value are not transparent. Policy analysis outputs are diverse and hard to absorb even for desirous users, as they are embedded in technical recommendations and quantitative results. On the one hand, this problem requires improvement in governmental capacity to recognise and absorb research, as well as in the capacities, personnel and resources of the government structure more generally. On the other hand, training researchers in communications (presentation skills, interaction with the mass media, and public awareness) can have high payoffs. These skills allow policy analysts to work comfortably to broaden the audience for research findings beyond the original clients or partners and hasten the policymaking process with information as input.

Quality of the analysis

It is hard to give a balanced view of policy issues, since there is no "average truth" to be discovered.^[29] Quality of research is one aspect of its likelihood to influence policy makers, since they want policy analysis coming from recognized institutions and experts.^[30] Accordingly, research institutes need to establish a reputation as authoritative sources of opinion. Research quality will often determine the credibility of the organization that conducts policy analysis, but the credibility of research can not be taken for granted. Certain practices, such as adhering to recognized standards of peer review, are essential to maintaining the public stature of policy analysis producers. In order to gain an authoritative position, as a matter of fact, the institution needs to be perceived as an independent body, i.e. an institution capable of providing services that are not necessarily conditioned by its affiliation.

Objectivity, independence, and peer-reviewed outputs seem prerequisites for the acceptability of policy advice, but these attributes take time to cultivate. On the other hand, time lags in the production, use, and ultimate impact of research information have a negative impact on the value of research. Policy analysis that is readily available when policymakers need it greatly reduces time lags between "production" and "adoption". Yet the need to present results quickly to have impact poses a risk to quality, and inappropriate advice can offset any gains from timeliness (Ryan and Garrett, 2003).

Another problem is that the practical orientation of policy analysis makes it always vulnerable to become the intellectual handmaiden of government agencies. In this respect, it is somewhat worrying that "relevant and high quality of research and outputs" does not have a significant weight among the factors facilitating policy influence (question 7.3), while the "lack of accessibility and poor quality of publications" is not considered as one of the main problems (question 7.6). On the other hand, it is more encouraging that the "visibility, reputations and positioning of researchers and/or the institution itself in policy arenas" is ranked third (average weight 12%) among the factors facilitating policy influence (question 7.3).

However, it should always be kept in mind that research quality is a necessary, but not sufficient condition: "even technically 'good quality' results must be able to find their relevant audience and present themselves in user-tailored format" (Neilson, 2001, p. 8). While the chances of a policy analysis' paper to be influential depend crucially on the conceptual strength of the document, on the respect it commands, "this does not mean that it should be an academically written and abstruse document but rather one whose logic is clear and convincing and whose empirical foundations are firm" (Norton, 2003, p. 23). Formal and quantitative analyses of issues do play a supportive role, indeed it is essential that policy analysis has rigorous underpinnings, but the results should be expressed in language understandable to wide audience.

Policy discourses

A possible communication strategy is to simplify very complex issues and results into 'stories' on which policy makers can base their decisions. As we already mentioned discussing the agenda-setting stage of policy-making, if policy reforms are presented as "reasoned arguments", language not only depicts reality, but also shapes the issue at hand in these debates: "It is a means of communication of ideas, but also serves to reflect certain political stances, moulding social reality according to outlook and ideology" (Sutton, 1999, p. 10). As a matter of fact, policy discourses affect policy-making in several ways, such as:

• naming and classifying ('labelling') of groups;
• 'framing' issues to be tackled;
• making policy solutions seem obvious and unquestionable;
• 'depoliticising' policy decisions, recasting them in the (supposedly) neutral language of science.

'Faking influence'

Related to the issue of (perceived) quality of research is the issue of 'faking influence'. Especially in the case of developing countries, the influence of certain 'think tanks' on policy may not be explained by the strength of their research but by the weakness of other players. The latter may be explained by different factors, such as the lack of confidence between the government and the administration, the weak policy capacities of the political parties and interest groups, the unwillingness of universities and academics of science to commit themselves to policy research, and the underdeveloped business community. Ultimately, then, quality and credibility of policy analysis can be guaranteed only as competitive mechanisms as well as institutions of accountability and transparency take root.

Involvement of decision makers

The bridging of research and policy could also be achieved through the involvement of policy makers/government officials in the policy analysis project. Experience suggests that involving policymakers as collaborators in the research helps to reduce lags in achieving influence and impact from policy changes (Ryan and Garrett, 2003). In order to clarify the notion and the implications of direct involvement, this is a tentative list of the possible tasks of the "contact officer" or "policy desk officer":

• to interact directly with the policy analysis institution on issues related to the preparation of the programme of work,
• to collect from the government technical and/or statistical information needed for the implementation of the programme of work,
• to inform the government of the work in progress and, if deemed necessary, to obtain reactions on specific problematic issues.

According to the results from the questionnaire, several institutions attempted to involve decision makers in implementing, monitoring and interpreting the policy analysis work (question 6.6). Moreover, the interaction between researchers and policy makers during the policy analysis process is considered the second most important factor (average weight 20%) in order to facilitate policy influence (question 7.3).

Dialogue with the stakeholders

Non-governmental institutions concerned with the technical, economic and social implications of food and agricultural policy should also be involved in the definition of the programme of work for policy analysis. The questionnaires provide only sporadic examples of comments, proposals, and reactions provided by the stakeholders (question 7.2).

Resource allocation needs to be linked to policy analysis planning based on 'bottom up' approaches involving relevant stakeholders and feedback from monitoring and impact assessment. However, an increasing interaction between knowledge producers and knowledge users is a long term and complex process that cannot be shortcut simply 'incorporating' the relevant stakeholders.

Building consensus

Finally, there is a common criticism of policy analysis as being 'top-down', not taking into account the opinions of individuals, agencies and social groups that have a stake in how a system evolves. A possible answer is provided by Participatory Rural Analysis, which addresses implementation and monitoring problems through 'grass-roots' or participatory style of research, building relations between researchers and those whom the research is about or for whom it is intended. Such a focus on personal interaction through participatory and consultative structures allows the utilisation of traditional (informal and common) communicative in disseminating research, as well as in the provision of technical information and training.

Most of the questionnaires show that institutions were involved in some forms of participatory analysis (question 5.3.4), but participation may range from simply commenting on drafts to formulating the overall strategy. It can be expected, then, that the quality of participation in terms of the diversity of the stakeholder groups that were included, the timing of consultations, and the processes that were used to organize participation, vary considerably from country to country.

Evaluating research and assessing performance

Relevance, utility and influence

Even if the evaluation of public policy is a difficult task, as we already mentioned in Section 2, governments, private foundations, corporations and charities are increasingly imposing requirements on policy analysis institutions to account for their use of funds and the relevance of their research. Evaluation should look at the quality of the research outputs, the effectiveness of communicating those outputs and contributing to policy debates, and the potential (rather than necessarily actual) outcomes of the policy recommendations, or choices, based on research findings (Ryan and Garrett, 2003). However, the criteria or indicators are multiple: how is the relevance, utility and influence of research to be determined?

Many actors participate in the policymaking process, and they rely on various sources of information when making or influencing policy decisions: it is difficult, then, to attribute impact to any one source, as the multitude of actors, themselves with differential influence on the decision, rely on a multitude of sources. From our previous discussion it should be clear that, in spite of methodological advances, utility and influence of policy analysis can still reside in the eye of the beholder. A more objective evaluation seems to be possible in the case of the relevance criterion, where possible indicators have been proposed in the literature (Stone et al., 2001):

...and possible indicators

• column inches in newspapers or number of citations,
• number of web-site hits and/or page requests,
• incidence of interviews on radio or television,
• number of peer-reviewed publications,
• public, professional and political attendance at institute events, lectures and conferences,
• increased capacity to attract foundation grants, government contracts and other sources of funds on previous years,
• establishment of new programmes, recruitment of new staff, renewal of projects,
• appointment of research staff to government advisory bodies,
• career progression of researchers into government or international organizations.

These criteria are not proof of influence, but represent potential correlates of research recognition in public and policy venues.

Another approach to impact evaluation is suggested by IFPRI which categorizes the products from economic policy research and related activities as outputs, outcomes/influences, policy responses, and welfare impacts (Table 1). "Outputs are activities or effort that can be expressed quantitatively or qualitatively. Outcomes or influences are measures of the use that clients or partners make of the outputs...Policy responses imply a degree of attribution of the effects of the ....outputs and outcomes/influences on the formulation or reinforcement of policy. Impacts are measurable effects of the attributed policy response on the well being of the ultimate beneficiaries of the research" (Ryan and Garrett, 2003, p.16).

Accountability and research impact

Selecting the best portfolio of research projects requires information on what is the value of the analysis to society. Scarce resources for the public budget place an increasing burden on policy analysis administrators to allocate funds to high-priority areas. In this respect economic cost-benefit analysis can be a useful tool, although assessing the benefits from analysing basic policies that cut across several commodities and generate non-market benefits remains rather problematic.

A number of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be in place at the national, system, institute and project level to ensure relevance of research and accountability in the use of public funds. Among the respondents to the questionnaire, only few institutions seem to have external review systems in place, while others seem to have neither an external, nor an internal evaluation system (question 7.1).

Performance

The performance component of institutional analysis is an assessment of how well the organization meets the original objectives in terms of delivering the scheduled services to the targeted recipients. The main criteria for this assessment of performance are effectiveness and efficiency.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness. This is the top-level criterion in that it is the overall measure of whether the mission is being achieved. Effectiveness means that the institution operates in such a way as to be successful in producing the desired result, i.e., it is capable of delivering the required services to the targeted recipients and, indeed, does so. In order to achieve effectiveness, as a matter of fact, there is a need to examine the extent to which and the ways in which the research the institution supports influences policy; and to examine the factors which affect the extent of policy influence resulting from policy analysis. A fruitful avenue might be to understand how policymakers learn and how they absorb ideas into policy processes. This will also provide learning, which can enhance the design of projects and programmes to address policy issues.

Table 1. Some Indicators of the Products of Policy Research

Source: adapted from Ryan and Garrett, 2003, p.17.

According to the answers provided in the questionnaire, the institutions carrying out the policy analysis were mostly able to contribute to the development of policy alternatives and proposals (question 6.3). Rather significant is also the contribution to advancing policy relevant knowledge, to provide inputs into policies, and to play an active role (acting as advisors or taking important government positions). Less relevant seems to be the effectiveness in increasing capacity for policy analysis, and in disseminating successfully the research outputs.

Efficiency

This criterion looks at the cost of delivering the policy analysis to the targeted recipients. It is contingent upon effectiveness: what if the institution produces the results but the targeted end-users do not receive them? Efficiency therefore needs to consider efficiency of research work and also efficiency of results dissemination. There is generally a trade-off between the level of effectiveness and the dissemination cost: for example, additional resources to disseminate results add to the cost, but improves effectiveness. In efficiency terms, the main question to be addressed is whether the total cost of achieving a given level of effectiveness is as low as is reasonably possible. All other things being equal, economics can throw some light on the relative efficiency of the different approaches being used.^[31] For example, one can look at the "unit costs" of research and dissemination, and whether there are economies or diseconomies of scale or scope.

Difficulties in assessing performance

Assessing performance is obviously a complicated process, and will produce a great deal of information that needs to be assimilated purposively. We therefore need to be quite clear about what we want the process to lead to. Ideally, the approach should be to look at the institution from the outside, much like a consultant, and determine if the organization can be improved upon or totally changed. In any case, the best assessment will look not only at quantitative data, such as costs, but also at how other issues and aspects such as organizational culture might be affected by change. For example, government agencies often must operate under many statutory requirements that may make change difficult.

Although there is certainly room for improving the management of policy-related social science research in agriculture, it is not the case to be overly optimistic about the possibility, with better management, that less policy research can be funded without a loss of expected future net benefits. The flaw in that conclusion is the presumption that better management would allow to "pick the winners in advance". On the contrary, if the policy research budget were to be significantly cut, it is likely that almost as many productive activities would be cut as unproductive ones. As a matter of fact, in policy analysis, "as with drilling for oil, recruiting football players, or breeding racehorses, one has to back the low-return efforts to get the successes" (Gardner, 1999, p. 20).

Conclusions

Value of policy analysis

In the previous sections it was firstly argued the relevance of a deeper understanding of how policy-related research contributes to public policy processes. Firmer scientific understanding can identify problems requiring government intervention, can explain that a perceived problem is less severe than generally believed, and can be necessary to estimate the effectiveness and cost of proposed remedies.

The evidence available indicates that the returns to policy-related research in agricultural economics have been larger than the costs of the research, most likely by a substantial amount. However, it has to be admitted that such a bold statement looks rather suspicious coming from a European economist. For the past 40 years, EU farm policy has been dominated by the direct intervention of government, costing taxpayers and consumers many billions of euros, but accomplishing much less for farmers: if these are the results, one may legitimately wonder what has been the contribution (if any) of food and agricultural policy analysis.

Provision versus production

Looking at the dichotomy among public and private sector provision of policy analysis' services, it is useful to distinguish two components: funding the provision vs. the actual production process. The important point is that, at least in principle, there is no necessity for both functions to be carried out by the same organization (or by the same sector of the economy).

Sustainability of research funding

According to the questionnaire, excessive costs and lack of incentives do not seem to be among the most serious problems (questions 7.5 and 7.6). Competitive funding may have the potential to enhance accountability, quality and efficiency of the system despite somewhat higher costs in terms of overheads and time of specialists. Accordingly, a higher share of funds should be gradually shifted to competitive grants that are open to public sector organizations, including universities, and even to private organizations. Of course, regular block grants must continue in order to maintain and upgrade the existing infrastructure.

Development of human resources

There is a problem in the quality of scientific human resources owing to professional isolation and weak global scientific linkages. The "acquisition of technical skills" is often ranked second between the most needed capability developments (question 7.5); while "ineffective capacity strengthening and training" is widely considered one of the main problems (question 7.6). This could be obtained through assessment of human resource needs and use of foreign grants and loans for human resources development, and to support participation in international networks and other initiatives (question 7.7). Human capital accumulation, however, it is not effective, if it is not accompanied by performance-based evaluation of specialists that is linked with incentives and the reward system.

Institutional reforms

Food and agricultural policy analysis must respond to a changing agricultural, scientific and economic environment. In the industrialized countries, reforms included separating research funding from research execution, encouraging contestability of funds through competitive mechanisms, improving accountability of research institutions, and shifting near-market research to the private sector. The new paradigm underscores pluralistic institutional structure, new sources and mechanisms for research funding, organization and management reforms of public institutions (Byerlee, 1998). These same reforms are generally proceeding more slowly in developing countries. This is confirmed by the results of the questionnaire, since "organizational/institutional restructuring" is considered the most needed capability development (question 7.5). Policy analysis bodies require much improved accountability through institutionalization of objectives and transparent evaluation mechanisms for planning, monitoring and impact assessment of food and agricultural policies. Indeed, the "deteriorating or lack of supportive policy environment and weak governance structures" is quoted among the most important factors inhibiting policy influence (question 7.4).

Balancing multiple demands

Since there are increasing demands on the public policy analysis institutions, these must work closely with key stakeholders to define priorities that address multiple objectives, employing formal research prioritization approaches. This is particularly important when resources are scarce, objectives may be conflicting and clients are poor in articulating their research needs. According to the questionnaire's results, the fact that "the organization sets own priorities with little consultation" is considered one of the main problems at least in a couple of cases (question 7.7); while the "weak or lack of involvement of the stakeholders" (together with the "resistance of powerful interest groups to policy reforms") is found to be one of the main factors inhibiting policy influence.

Final remarks

The efficiency and effectiveness of policy analysis will depend on critical institutional and management reforms to drastically improve its performance. These reforms must evolve around autonomy, financial flexibility, and accountability, in order to create institutions for food and agricultural policy analysis that have a long-term strategic vision, a transparent priority-setting mechanism, and excellent quality of staff. Institutional restructuring should focus on creating more pluralistic funding and a more diversified institutional base for policy analysis. This will ensure that a wider range of opinions is known when setting priorities and managing and disseminating analysis results. However, despite the growing role of public and private entities and a diversification of funding sources, public funding and execution of food and agricultural policy analysis will remain central in the Near East Region.

The currency of the topic, timeliness of the research, and sense of ownership by the collaborators, as well as by the key policymaking audiences, are critical ingredients for success. Accordingly, national capacity for food and agricultural policy analysis should be maintained and possibly increased, since the increasing complex, technical, uncertain or theoretical nature of many food and agricultural policy problems - e.g., incentives policies, marketing systems, land tenure framework, irrigation policies, rural financial system, development and transfer of farming technology - means that policy makers need scientific advice and judgement to inform or guide decision-making.