Part II. Capacity Development for Policy Analysis - by Maria Grazia Quieti

Part II of this paper will

Objectives

• define the terms and concepts of training, capacity building and capacity development;
• raise issues concerning food and agriculture policy analysis functions and domains in public sector institutions;
• review the needs and scope of regional and international cooperation in developing policy analysis capacity;
• illustrate selected capacity development experiences and approaches;
• propose issues for consideration and discussion.

1. Key terms and concepts: training, capacity building and capacity development

From training

...to capacity building

Capacity building refers to human resources development as well as organizational development, generally understood as "institution building" or "organizational engineering". Capacity building therefore encompasses activities aimed at acquisition of knowledge, technical skills and attitudinal changes as well as activities related to management skills and effective and efficient functioning of organizations. It goes beyond "training" as it represents a shift from focusing on individuals' abilities only, to individuals in organizational settings as well as a shift in the concept and practice of knowledge acquisition. In "training", knowledge is transferred through transmission techniques, such as lectures and assigned readings and through a series of events. In capacity building, learning occurs through experiential techniques, i.e. discussion, workshops, problem solving, field experience and on-the-job learning, very frequently through group activities.

...to capacity development

The term capacity development is used more and more replacing the term 'capacity building'. Capacity development underlines that each society has capacities, that external agents acknowledge these and contribute to their improvement and enhancement through an endogenously led process (in contrast with capacity building which could have a connotation of building from scratch).

Institution building and capacity development may involve reviewing the organizational set up of public sector institutions in agriculture both at the central and subnational level, supporting information management systems or data bases, introducing new ways of working, creating guidelines, implementing in-service training programmes or other types of activities, etc., as it will be illustrated later on in section 4 on experiences.

2. Food and agriculture policy analysis functions and domains

Functions

'Policy analysts' versus policy researchers

It is generally understood that policy analysts differ from policy researchers, the two being driven by a different set of incentives^[32], policy analysts being more closely tied to public policy. That is why policy analysis is often referred to as a "craft". As opposed to policy researchers, who view themselves as part of an academic community, specialised in a particular discipline and pursuing knowledge-building and disciplinary excellence, policy analysts have to 'craft' policy options for decision-makers. They translate research findings into policies that can be directly implemented, thus acting as interface between researchers and decision-makers. The concern with implementation means paying attention to many practical considerations in addition to, or beyond, the pursuit of disciplinary excellence as well as attention to the practicability of the options proposed in the country's political context at a given time. Policy analysts' work, furthermore, is usually characterised by deadlines, at times very tight, scarce financial resources and difficult access to information sources, be they formal (e.g. libraries) or informal (web-based). Policy analysts in public administrations are therefore similar to practitioners in that they contribute to the adoption and implementation of policies.

Institutional locus of policies

...in various ministries

It should be added that, rarely in government settings, does one find officers whose only task is to conduct policy analysis, whatever their label. Usually, policy analysts come under some combination of the words 'policy', 'planning', 'administration', 'evaluation', 'research', 'studies'. The questionnaires received from the participants in the Workshop reported the following variety of titles: Director of Planning and Policies Administration; Coordinator of Research and Economic Studies; Director of Studies; Agricultural Economist; Senior Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Officer; Director of Agricultural Economic Policy Department; Head of Policy and Agricultural Price Analysis Division of the Ministry of Agriculture; Food, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Information Management Policy Unit; Department of Economic Studies and Statistics.

As mentioned earlier in this document, for the food and agriculture sector, policy analysis work at the national level can be found in the mandate of Ministries in the agriculture and rural sector (Agriculture, Rural Development, Irrigation, Natural Resources, Forestry, etc.) or in the Ministries of Environment, Industry, Trade, Planning and Finance, whose decisions impinge on agriculture, and in some cases, also under the purview of subnational authorities. In many countries, policy analysis is outsourced to research and academic institutes^[33] and to consulting companies.

...in specially created institutions

In other cases it is mandated to specially created institutions and units, such as the National Agricultural Policy Center in Syria, the newly established Agricultural Information and Policy Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry in Afghanistan or the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) Monitoring and Food Security Unit in the Ministry of Agriculture in Tajikistan.

...in regional organizations

Increasingly, with the trend towards regional integration, some policy analysis related to agriculture, particularly in relation to natural resources and environmental threats (such as desertification, pollution and transboundary plant and animal diseases), infrastructures, marketing information and trade facilitation, is also conducted at the regional level by regional economic organizations (e.g. European Union, Council of Arab Economic Unity, the Arab Maghreb Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, etc.).

Policy development and analysis functions

For the sake of capturing the diversity of tasks subsumed under the terms policy development and analysis, a summary classification is sketched in Box 1. Policy analysis functions are grouped under "Desk Officer" function, which involves general observatory and monitoring functions in a particular policy area; "Policy Development" refers to initiating and promoting policy analysis work; "Policy Analysis (Research and Oversight)" covers actual analytical work or supervision of work subcontracted to outside agencies or universities. This is the area where most capacity development efforts are directed, as reported in section 4. The last category, referred to as 'Firefighting', is meant to take into account the myriad of diverse tasks policy analysts may be called on to provide, usually at short notice, drawing on analytical work done or information gathered.

..methods and values

Thus, policy analysis capacity entails methods for designing and predicting the consequences of alternative policies - so that informed choices can be made - and for participating effectively in the political process - so that the choices can be actually implemented. It involves problem setting, provision of technical standards for the analyses and use of persuasive arguments for public discourse, through various media.^[34] Communication to engage citizens in support of policies for agriculture, rural development and food security is considered a core element of good governance, a challenging task, made more complex to implement by the emerging information and communication technologies (OECD, 2001). Finally, policy analysis capacity also implies the acquisition and professional practice of values such as analytical integrity (pursuing objectivity), accountability towards the organization, which requests the analysis, and adherence to, and making explicit, the underlying policy paradigm^[35].

Food and agricultural policy domains

As mentioned earlier in this document and as reported in the background document on Food and Agricultural Policies in the Near East Region, the scope of food and agriculture policies is very broad, encompassing a wide array of policies including: policies for managing natural resources; trade policies in the context of regional and multilateral trade negotiations; rural development policies for increasing incomes and human capital through investments in physical and social infrastructure; institutional reform policies related to decentralization of agricultural services through the public sector, privatization or transfer to non-governmental organizations, to support and development of rural financial institutions, to monitoring and enforcing food safety, plant and animal hygiene standards, etc.

Box 1. Policy Development and Analysis Functions

Adapted from Weimer and Vining (1999:38)

3. The need and scope for regional and international cooperation in developing a food and agriculture policy analysis capacity

The need: general considerations

Are human resources:

...sufficient in number

...qualified

...operational

...up to date?

Many countries lack sufficient staff with appropriate basic and updated qualifications - such as economists, agricultural economists, agronomists with specialised technical knowledge in various technical domains, rural development specialists, rural sociologists or political economists. In other countries, such staff may be available, and yet there may still be the need to strengthen and to continue to develop such capacity, because of a number of coexisting factors. The international development context changes rapidly and there are high risk of obsolescence and technical 'deskilling' through too much routine and firefighting work. Holding higher level degrees (MSc or PhD) in itself does not guarantee that the academically acquired knowledge and skills are transformed into applied operational policy analysis. Changes of attitudes may be required from a command, control and administrative type of behaviour to more developmental and research-oriented behaviour. Policy reforms underway in most economies imply knowledge and analysis of complex processes of political and economic changes in a given institutional environment, away from the uncritical adoption of pre-packaged policy paradigms and recipes, as well as knowledge and understanding of how the international and regional regulatory context impinge on domestic policy making (e.g. in areas such as food safety or phytosanitary standards, multilateral or bilateral trade agreements, biotechnology developments, etc.).

Are there enough 'research editors' and outreach specialists?

Furthermore, the vast quantity of policy research available world-wide, and made easily accessible particularly through Internet, calls for 'research editors' with critical abilities in recognising the high or low quality standard of research and in assessing its relevance and usefulness. Increasing importance is also given to enhancing the qualifications of qualified intermediaries between policy analysts and the general public, such as financial journalists, the press and other media specialists; or other stakeholders (producers' associations, NGOs) to enable them to become informed constituencies in problem setting, analysis and coalition building.

Policy analysis capacity implies concern with ensuring that such capacity, as it exists or when built or strengthened, be put to use, i.e. that the organizational units charged with policy analysis can actually access and manage information and data, produce and communicate the analyses through the appropriate channels and that the staff be not overstretched performing too many 'firefighting' functions, to the detriment of sound analytical work.

At national level and with regional and international cooperation

The needs according to the questionnaire respondents

All the questionnaires received indicate training as one activity that appears to be a regular feature of the institutions to which the respondents belong (Question 5.1) and is also a point repeated in the recommendations on suggested improvements at national, regional and international level (Question 7.7).

The questionnaires received emphasize (Question 7.5) organizational restructuring as the most needed capacity development element towards their institution's policy performance and delivery. Acquisition of skills is ranked as needed by all countries, followed by altering of incentives and attitudinal changes.

All questionnaire respondents (except three) indicate that they have international relationships and support (Question 5.4.1) and that they participate in national and international networks (Question 5.4.2.). All have answered positively about having relations with other research institutions.

The recommendations (Question 7.7) point to the desirability of continuing to be involved in, and enhancing:

At the country level

• "team work through policy 'think-tanks';
• strengthening the linkages between policy analysis institutions and stakeholders;
• access to accurate data and information for policy analysis;
• training of teams, also at the local level;
• building of a special unit for agricultural policy analysis;

At the regional level

• "networking;
• exchange of information and experience;
• exchange of technical experts among countries with similar interests and problems in the field of policy analysis;
• cooperation in training;
• exchange visits;
• conduct of regional studies and research;
• strengthen relations with similar institutions;
• sharing of research results".

With the cooperation of the international community

• "Funding of activities at national and regional level;

• networking and regional research;

• enhancing relations with civil society and rural households with the aim of collecting correct and reliable information to be used in policy analysis and policy recommendations;

• establishing information centres;

• training;

• implementation of tools and methods for follow up and evaluation;

• assisting countries in improving the institutional setting and providing training".

4. Selected capacity development experiences and approaches

There is ample experience illustrating various modalities through which the broad notion of capacity development - encompassing building individuals' abilities, functioning organizations in both the public and non-public sector, enabling procedures and practices for making policy choices, and for implementing such choices - is transformed into activities.

Following are a few examples drawn from FAO's experience. For FAO, as for other UN agencies, capacity development is an explicit goal of its technical assistance^[37]. For the sake of illustration, the examples have been singled out and categorised. While they could represent individual capacity development models, often they are part of a package of interventions aimed at strengthening both individuals' knowledge and skills in the areas of policy analysis (research and oversight) and policy development as well as organizational settings. They are:

a) Institution building, where the focus is on establishing a new organization or unit, as a locus of policy for the agriculture sector in a country and enhancing its human resources, with focus on policy research and oversight functions (such as the National Agricultural Policy Center in Syria or the policy units in the Ministries of Agriculture of Afghanistan and Tajikistan).

b) Specific various capacity development activities

At national level: on-the-job training, courses and seminars to address the knowledge and skills gaps of individuals in organizational units with policy tasks mandate.

At regional level: workshops, study tours and networking, strengthening regional economic organizations, to learn from experience, to analyse relevance and applicability of prevailing policy paradigms and to work on policy issues with a regional dimension.

At international level: workshops, fora, expert consultations to favour countries' participation in the global governance regulatory and development process (e.g. multilateral trade negotiations on agriculture, international standard setting on food safety or phytosanitary standards, conventions and codes of conduct, etc.).

These examples all refer to endeavours where a specific effort is made to adapt and contextualise capacity development modalities and content to the countries or to a region. This explains the reason for leaving out in this paper, the supply of courses-workshops run by universities or other organizations, available on the market, particularly in industrialised countries.

a) Institution Building

The NAPC in Syria as an example of a policy assistance package

The experience to date shows that international assistance can be instrumental in promoting the creation of new organizations in the public sector with a mandate for applied policy analysis work. The example of the NAPC, summarised in Box 2., shows a 'package' of elements that are constitutive of a food and agriculture policy analysis capacity: an organization which is a locus for policy analysis work in the agriculture sector in the country and a source of information and data on agriculture; a number of staff being trained to be 'policy analysts'; policy studies prepared, both in response to requests or initiated autonomously and a series of activities to disseminate and discuss the results of policy analysis work at the national level. The NAPC experience is reported in detail in the paper by Mr El Hindi and Mr Fiorillo (Section 5.3).

Effectiveness and sustainability factors

The example of the National Agricultural Policy Centre (NAPC) in Syria is emblematic of the long-term nature of the assistance required for building a fully functioning policy analysis capability^[38] as well as of the issues surrounding the effectiveness and sustainability of such an organization:

• the modalities and channels for the relevant agriculture-related institutions to commission policy work and, inversely, the modalities and channels of the NAPC for alerting such institutions on a policy problem;

• the ways for communicating and disseminating policy research results and for obtaining feedback on the research needs of the users;

• the ability of an organization such as the NAPC to maintain a system for its own policy research as well as for evaluating the relevance and usefulness of research done by other organizations, both national and international;

• its degree of autonomy in decision-making and in managing financial resources;

• its ability to retain qualified staff, to provide incentives to staff in order to remain motivated and professionally updated and

• its ability to network professionally with research and academic institutions in the country and at international level.

The Agricultural Information and Policy Unit in Afghanistan

The choice of locating policy analysis work in a single unit has also been made this year by the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (MAAH) in Afghanistan. The Ministry has established an Agriculture Information and Policy Unit (FAAHM, which means "knowledge" in the Afghan language), directly under the supervision and guidance of the Ministry's top management (Minister and Deputy Ministers). The mandate of this unit comprises: analysis of information; formulation and analysis of policies and strategies; cooperation/liaison with other Ministries, provincial administrations, NGOs and other stakeholders within its mandate. A long-term capacity building programme is being formulated for the eight staff of the Policy Unit as well as for staff of the other Ministries in the agriculture and rural sector. Initial training activities have started comprising knowledge of economics, basic agricultural policy concepts and tools of analysis and communication skills (English, use of computers).

The PRSP Monitoring and Food Security Unit in Tajikistan

In Tajikistan the Ministry of Agriculture has recently established a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) Monitoring and Food Security Unit (PMFSU). Training activities are being formulated in food and agriculture policies and in project formulation.

In addition to enabling staff to be more focused on policy research work, the advantage of having a locus for food and agricultural policies is that such organizations or units may have the potential of creating 'policy entrepreneurship' style of research. They can encourage a corollary set of activities aimed at marketing knowledge and popularising research through a variety of training, information and other mediatic activities. They have thus the potential of setting the agenda and the power to create "consensual knowledge, i.e. a shared understanding and interpretation of the problems and solutions" (Stone, 2003).

b. Specific various capacity development activities

At the National Level

Capacity development in response to specific needs

Capacity in agricultural policy analysis can be developed according to various modalities, in response to individual countries' specific needs concerning policy issues and products (e.g. the formulation of an agricultural strategy, the production of a particular study, as shown by the examples provided in Boxes 3 and 4).

On-the-job training aims at imparting knowledge and skills to enable people to perform better in their profession. As the expression implies, training is given with minimum disruption of people's work and is geared to help them in their actual policy tasks. The end product of such capacity development is on the one hand the acquisition of knowledge, skills and new behaviours of the trainees and, on the other, actual policy products, e.g. an agricultural strategy or a policy study. Box 3 provides an example of a training programme, developed following a request for assistance from Armenia to FAO.

Box 4. shows another example of on-the-job training related to the production of an annual report on trade in Syria, as part of the functions of the National Agricultural Policy Center (NAPC).

issues for consideration

Such cases of on-the-job training are generally considered very effective for learning. The outputs produced through iterations with experts' support, methodological workshops and distance backstopping represent what the trainees can produce and are definitely 'owned' by them. Critical issues for consideration in these cases include the stability of trained cadre and ensuring that the acquired knowledge and skills remain with the individuals (e.g. through refresher training) but also with the organization in a given country. Usually, the association of national academic/research institutes in such on-the-job training endeavours is particularly important as such institutes are professionally interested and tend to retain and consolidate the knowledge in their own curricula and programmes. In addition to the studies themselves, ways of consolidating the acquired knowledge include turning the policy studies carried out into 'case studies' for teaching purposes and preparing training and resource materials that are then incorporated in the regular curriculum of the academic or training institutions of the country.

Capacity development to:

...customise knowledge

Courses, seminars, in-service training and workshops at national level, are particularly suitable for sensitizing/training on new topics or for customising knowledge with respect to a particular country, as shown in Box 6, where trade policy issues have been presented, discussed and developed with specific reference to Jordan's agricultural sector.

...update knowledge and skills

They are also a good vehicle for imparting general skills on information management, data search and communication, as done recently for staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform in Syria (Box 6), or on basic economics and statistics.

Policy makers and policy analysts are usually supported by staff who carry out basic research work and assist in the finalization and presentation of reports. Basic research work involves evaluating and managing information and results of existing research (both nationally and internationally), searching and presenting data and information, synthesizing results of policy work in simple convincing language and/or in tabular format. Updating such skills periodically is important for ensuring that the policy analysts and their support staff have full command of the 'nuts and bolts' for policy analysis work.

The critical issues for consideration in the case of customised courses are how to ensure that their elaboration is not done in isolation either by public sector organizations or by academic and research institutions and how to promote communication and collaboration between the two on a regular basis. Possibilities could be sabbaticals of academics in government to enable them to acquire a minimum experience in policy formulation and, vice-versa, 'sabbaticals' for government officials in research and academic institutes, or attendance of conferences or at a minimum, giving them time to read journals.

Scope of regional cooperation

At regional level cooperation through workshops, study tours and networking and strengthening regional economic organizations. This is an area where international and regional organizations can play an important role in relation to policy harmonization (FAO, 2003): e.g. policy studies on measures for promoting intra-regional trade and for removing trade barriers; common standardization of food safety control systems and standards, and of phytosanitary and zoosanitary standards; development of a coordinated international trade policy stance in WTO agricultural negotiations; coordination of fiscal incentives to encourage foreign investment; establishing a common framework for the protection of intellectual property; management of national resources and preparing regional programmes for food security^[39]. Regional cooperation is also important to promote sharing of information^[40] and for creation of knowledge (e.g. the production of knowledge in Arabic language, both in terms of translations and production of resource and training materials).

... and development of regional policies

Box 7 provides an example of a regional workshop on water policy analysis and management. The benefit stems from the different countries' participation, water management being in their case a trans-national policy issue. Such workshops are particularly suitable for discussing, sharing information and experiences, working in groups to review a policy topic and to foster the formation of regional policy views and recommendations.

Other forms of regional cooperation for capacity development are study tours in relation to a specific policy issue and joint formulation of programmes where domestic policies are considered in a regional policy context.

Issues for consideration:

...capitalization

...link with academia

...role of REOs

In order to avoid that these types of regional activities are ad hoc, or only carried out once, it is important to consider at their formulation stage how to disseminate their results, the knowledge accumulated or common positions built, at the national level, i.e. how to continue the communication established among policy-analysts or policy makers of the participating countries. As for the other types of capacity development activities, the link with academic and research institutes on a sustained basis is also crucial. A particularly important role could also be played by the Regional Economic Organizations (REO) or Regional Development Banks.

Learning from international experience

...and deriving best practices

At international level. It is in the mandate of international agencies to promote the participation of developing countries in the global governance regulatory and development process, thereby to encourage multiplicity of views, spreading of ideas, sharing and discussing the prevailing policy paradigms, promoting policy debate and facilitating access to information and to alternative views on food and agriculture policies. In particular, in the area of food and agriculture policies, there is a demand from countries to know which policy reform measures have worked or not worked in other countries and the conditions for their success and reasons for failure; in other words, there is a demand for learning from, and sharing, experiences among countries. Such activities are initiated by the agencies themselves on request of their governing bodies. These initiatives result in the formation of loose networks of professionals involved or interested in food and agriculture policy analysis.

Box 8 illustrates the example of a programme launched and carried out by FAO to enable developing countries' participation in the multilateral trade negotiations on agriculture.

issues for consideration:

...cost effectiveness

...distance learning

...networks

These types of activities are particularly effective for sensitizing and informing about emerging international issues, for enabling communication and exchange of information among countries as well as among agriculture-related organizations within the country. Because of the high costs involved and the limited number of participants from each country, they can only be the seeds of further country-based activities. Ways of reducing costs and reaching a higher number of persons are being explored; for example, FAO is running distance learning courses (via Internet) on food, agriculture and rural development policies courses in Latin America and has built a formal network of academic and research institutes on food and agriculture policies in the region^[41]. A critical consideration is how such networking among individuals, public sector and academic institutes can be continued on a sustained basis.

Conclusions and proposed leading questions for discussion

The conclusions from the needs, experiences and approaches reviewed point to the following proposed issues which were discussed and on which participants made their recommendations (Section 4. of this document).

• the long term nature of institution building and capacity development requiring sustained on-the-job learning;

• how to ensure that the units/organizations entrusted with policy analysis function effectively and efficiently (retaining qualified staff, evaluating its own research, linking with government and other research institutions, having resources to access data and information, etc.);

• for both institution building and different capacity development approaches, how to foster, promote and maintain in a sustained manner the link with academic/research institutions at national, regional and international level, and how to build and disseminate knowledge created through policy research;

• the usefulness of networking and participating in regional and international activities on policy domains of relevance to several countries or emerging policy issues.

At national level there is a demand for improving the capacity for food and agriculture policy analysis in the countries of the Near East Region:

• what is the need at the national level which is unmet by domestic efforts? Are the units/organizations in charge of policy analysis adequately staffed in terms of number and in terms of qualified human resources including both specialists and support staff? How are they organized? Do they have access to information resources and data bases? Can they carry out policy analysis? Can the communicate the results of policy analysis with reports, briefs, press releases and other media? If not, why? Is it due to inadequate knowledge and skills? Is there a need for developing the capacity of other stakeholders?

• What type of capacity development activity would be required? For whom?

• In which critical and priority policy functions and policy domains?

• Can such capacity be built or strengthened by national or regional academic/research institutes? Is there a need to develop also the capacity of the academic and research institutes?

At international and regional level: while acknowledging that policy analysis is to be carried out taking into account each particular country's economic and political context, it is also true that there is ample experience world-wide from which to learn and methodologies to draw from. Developing capacity for policy analysis can benefit from such experience.

• How can the existing experience, both in applied policy analysis and in capacity development, be best capitalised on, shared and further disseminated between governments and academic and research institutes, both within countries and regionally?

• There is scope for country-based activities complemented by regional and international capacity development endeavours; this requires identification of what can be done by the countries themselves and identification of the gaps to be filled by regional and international assistance. Which organizations/institutes with a regional scope can assist? In which emerging policy domains would regional and international capacity development activities be required?

The newly established Near East and North Africa Network for Agricultural Policies (NENARNAP) will be a forum where institutional and capacity development issues will continue to be discussed and communication and cooperation will be fostered among governments in the Region and regional and international organizations.

Bibliography

Barbero G. 2000. Establishment of the National Agricultural Policy Center, Project GCP/SYR/006/ITA, Damascus Syria.

Blandford D. 1990. "The costs of agricultural protection and the difference free trade would make" in Agricultural protectionism ed. F. Sanderson, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., USA.

Brock A., S. N. Durlauf, and K. N. West. 2003. "Policy Evaluation in Uncertain Economic Environments", Working Paper 10025, NBER, Cambridge (MA), USA.

Byerlee D. 1998. "The search for a new paradigm for the development of national agricultural research systems", World Development, 26.

Carden F. and S. Neilson. 2002. IDRC-supported research in the public policy process: a strategic evaluation of the influence of research on public policy, International Development Research Center (IDRC) Evaluation Unit, Ottawa, Canada.

De Benedictis M. 2000. A Framework on the Elaboration of an Agricultural Development Strategy for Syria, Project GCP/SYR/006/ITA, Damascus, Syria.

Echeverria R. G., E. J. Trigo, and D. Byerlee. 1996. Institutional Change and Effective Financing of Agricultural Research in Latin America, World Bank Technical Paper 330.

FAO. 2003. Regional Integration and Food Security in Developing Countries by A. Matthews, Rome (TMAP 45).

FAO. 2002. Report of the Twenty-Sixth FAO Regional Conference for the Near East, Teheran, Islamic Republic of Iran, 9-13 March 2002.

Fuglie K., N. Ballenger, K. Day, C. Klotz, M. Ollinger, J. Reilly, U. Vasavada and J. Yee. 1997. Agriculture Research and Development. Public and Private Investments Under Aletrnative Markets and Institutions, AER-735, USDA-ERS.

Gardner B. L. 1999. Returns to policy-related social science research in agriculture, Impact Assessment Discussion Paper n. 9, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA.

Gardner B. L. and W. Lesser. 2003. International Agricultural Research as a Global Public Good, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(3).

Hajer M. 2003. Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void, Policy Sciences, 36.

Harberger A. C. 1954. "Monopoly and resource allocation", American Economic Review 44.

Hirshleifer J. and J. G. Riley. 1992. The analytics of uncertainty and information, Cambridge University Press, USA.

Hopkins J.W and M. A. Taylor. 2001. Are U.S. Farm Programmes Good Public Policy? Taking Policy Performance Seriously, paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, USA.

Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, Yale University Press, Haven and London.

Maxwell S. and R. H. Percy. 2001. "New trends in development thinking and implications for agriculture" in Food, Agriculture and Rural Development ed. K. G. Stamoulis, FAO Roma, Italy.

Maxwell S. and R. Slater. 2003. "Food Policy Old and New", Development Policy Review, 21 (5-6).

Neilson S. 2001. Knowledge Utilization and Public Policy Processes: A Literature Review, International Development Research Center (IDRC) Evaluation Unit, Ottawa, Canada.

Norton R. D. 2003. Agricultural Development Policy: Concepts and Experiences, FAO and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

OECD. 2001. Citizens as Partners. Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, Paris.

Ryan J. G. and J. L. Garrett. 2003. The Impact of Economic Policy Research: Lessons on Attribution and Evaluation From IFPRI, Impact Assessment Discussion Paper 20, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

Sandiford F. and E. Rossmiller. 1997. "Many a slip: studying policy delivery systems" in The Political economy of the common market in milk and dairy products in the European Union, FAO Economic and Social Development Paper 142.

Schimmelpfenning D. E. and G. W. Norton. 2003. What is the value of agricultural economics research? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(1).

Smith L., J. Gray and E. Chapman. 1999. Institutional Analysis for Food and Agricultural Policies, TCAS Working Document, FAO Roma, Italy.

Stone D., S. Maxwell and M. Keating. 2001. Bridging Research and Policy, paper prepared for an international workshop at Warwick University, United Kingdom.

Sutton R. 1999. The Policy Process: an Overview, Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 118, London United Kingdom.

Timmer C. P. 2003. Food Policy in the Era of Supermarkets: What's Different?, for a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Scientific Workshop on "Globalization, urbanization and the food systems of developing countries: Assessing the impacts on poverty, food and nutrition security," October 8-10 Rome, Italy.

Tyers R. and K. Anderson. 1992. Disarray in world food markets, New York Cambridge University Press.

World Bank. 1986. World development report, New York Oxford University Press.

Weimer, D.L. and A.R. Vining. 1999. Policy Analysis. Concepts and Practice, Prentice Hall, N.J.07458

Appendix 1 The use of policy analysis results to revise beliefs

An analytical framework

For an evaluation of the information generated by policy research, in this section we follow the approach used by Gardner (1999). He assumes that policymakers take into account all the effects of what they do and can use the research or not as they see fit. The valuation of policy research requires estimation of the difference the research makes in policymakers' actions and its value. Policy research is an intermediate product,^[42] an input into a political decision. It is helpful to think of the product of policy research as twofold: information as knowledge and information as news. Following Hirshleifer and Riley (1992, Chapter 5), knowledge is a stock magnitude - an accumulated body of data or evidence about the world. But information is not only a stock of certain knowledge, but also a flow or increment of "news" or "messages" of uncertain reliability about a state of affairs that is itself uncertain. This characterization of policy research output lends itself naturally to a treatment of policy actors as Bayesian decision-makers under uncertainty.

The flow-chart of a Bayesian political-economy model, drawing on Schimmelpfenning and Norton (2003), for assessing the contribution of policy analysis is provided in Figure 1. A variety of feasible actions are assumed open to decision makers. The consequences of those actions depend on the prior probabilities of different states of nature occurring. If additional information becomes available from policy analysis, policy makers and interest groups may revise their prior probabilities (knowing the probability of the research message being true) and reassess the available actions. The value of the new information is the difference between the maximum value of the policy action with and without the information. To see how this characterization works analytically, Appendix 1 provides a graphical analysis and small numerical example.

Figure 1. Bayesian political-economic model for impacts of social science research

Source: Schimmelpfenning and Norton (2003, p. 83)

Information requirements of the Bayesian approach

The model has demanding requirements for information. One needs not only the probabilities of true states of the world given researchers' estimates, but also the ex ante probabilities of the accuracy of researchers' findings. Moreover, establishing causality between policy analysis results and specific decisions or institutional changes is a challenge, as these results are only one of the many inputs in a decision-making process involving political decisions, strategic behaviour, and other factors. Accordingly, Schimmelpfenning and Norton (2003) argue that "the theoretical framework for agricultural economics research evaluation should be cast as a political-economic model that allows for multiple interactions among interest groups, policy centers, and research centers" (p. 82). More importantly, it is also necessary to assume that policy makers can carry out a professional evaluation of the research findings they use, at least sufficiently to determine their expected value.

This model, with the value of any policy outcome measured by producers' and consumers' surpluses, is consistent with the welfare-maximising theory of public choice. However, an approach based on ex ante consideration of the research programme in the Bayesian context is also able to take into account the fact that much of policy-related social science research is oppositional and used by policymakers and interest groups against each other. A research programme, for example, may consist of a range of studies that raise doubts about the policies proposed by the government, increasing uncertainty about the state of the world. Even in this case, though, there would be a social gain if the new results show that the previous research is of lower quality than thought and there was too much confidence placed on it: "one of the beauties of the Bayesian approach is that it takes into account the likelihood that the research gives the wrong answer" (Gardner, 1999, p. 21).

Appendix 2 Questionnaire

1. Identification (name of the institution involved in policy analysis; name and position of the respondent)

2. Institutional features

2.1 The Institution is located:

2.2 Which actors are directly involved through contact officers or participation in permanent bodies (e.g., management board or scientific committee) or associated (e.g., providing/receiving information or participating in some phases of the work) in the activities of your Institution (D = direct involvement - A = association):

Governmental institutions (specify)

.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................

Non-governmental institutions (specify)

.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................

2.3 To whom is the Institution supposed to deliver services?

2.4 What is the scope of authority by the "supervisory body" (e.g., taking decisions about the programme of work and budget, about cooperation arrangements with third parties, purchase of expensive equipment, recruitment and appointments)?
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................

2.4.1 How many members does it have?..............................................................

2.4.2 If the supervising body is a collective body (e.g., management board), how are its members designated?
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................

2.5 What are the sources of finance of the Institution (for each source indicate the percentage weight: be sure that percentages add up to 100):

3. Human resources

3.1 How many professional staff and specialists in policy analysis are there in the institution? Please state a figure.
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................

3.2 What is their academic background?

3.3 What is the system of incentives for adjusting work resources to workload?

3.4 Is there exchange of staff (secondments) to other institutions?

3.5 If Yes specify whether the secondments are:

3.6 Have there been cases of sabbaticals and exchange of staff in other national or international institutions?

3.7 If yes what is the Intensity of these sabbaticals and exchanges:

3.8 Have there been cases of staff who are members on boards of academic and other research institutions?

4. Mandate

4.1 What are the mandate and objectives of the institution?

4.2 Rank the previous objectives according to their actual relevance (1 being the most relevant):

4.3 Rank the following statements according to the mission of the institution:

4.4 How is the programme of work determined?

autonomously (specify modalities)
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................

through supervisory bodies (specify modalities)
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................

decided with main partners (specify modalities)
...............................................................................................................................

4.5 What are the major policy domains of the work programme? (for each relevant domain indicate a percentage weight: be sure that percentages add up to 100):

4.6 Which main policy areas bearing upon food and agricultural performance are outside the mandate?

4.7 In order to outline the different functions research might play in policy, the traditional way of understanding the 'policy cycle' is to divide it into different stages: problem definition and agenda-setting (i.e., items that are commonly perceived as meriting public attention), formal decision-making (i.e., discussion between authoritative decision makers through the legislative process or within the government), policy implementation (i.e., what actually happens at the point of policy delivery), monitoring and evaluation (i.e., ex-post account for the use of funds and the efficiency/effectiveness of the policy instruments). In which phase of the policy cycle is the institution involved (for each stage indicate a percentage weight: be sure that percentages add up to 100):

5. Activities

5.1 Capacity building

5.1.1 What have been the main activities?

5.2 Research

5.2.1 What have been the main activities (please rank):

5.3 Dissemination of information/knowledge

5.3.1 What are the main strategies?

5.3.2 What have been the main achievements for the last five years? Please indicate the number:

* Indicate the database and websites that you normally manage

.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................

** Specify
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................

5.3.3 Limitations in disseminating research results:

5.3.4 Has the institution been involved in "participatory analysis"^[43]?

5.4 Networking

5.4.1 Are there international relationships and support?

If yes (specify)'

5.4.2 Participation in national and international networks?

If yes (specify)
..........................................................................................................................................

5.4.3 Are there relations with other research institutions (e.g. universities)?

5.4.4 Have there been cases of contracting out research work?

If the answer is yes, what is the (average) annual number of contracts signed with?

Average Number

6. Bridging research and policy

6.1 Which actors are considered as the main end-users of the services provided by the Institution? (please rank)

6.2 Targeting research requires different presentation and dissemination strategies, as well as different mediums to make research policy relevant and publicly accessible. Has there been a strategy of targeting particular research-user groups with different dissemination strategies and/or different versions of research findings suited to different target audiences?

If yes (specify)
...................................................................................................

6.3 Types of policy influence achieved (for each type of results indicate a percentage weight: be sure that percentages add up to 100):

6.4. At what level, or levels (if more than one level is addressed, provide a ranking), is policy influence targeted?

6.5 What are the main decision-makers using the research results (provide percentage weights, checking that percentages add up to 100):

6.6 Have there been any attempts to involve decision makers in implementing, monitoring and interpreting the policy analysis?

If yes specify
......................................................................................................

7. Evaluation (i.e., review of the main lines of activity, monitoring of the overall performance, assessment of the training needs of the staff, suggestion of possible adjustments)

7.1 Main evaluation mechanisms (specify if they are internal or external):

7.2 What role do the main end-users of the services provided by the Institution play in monitoring and evaluating its performance? (be as specific as possible)
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................

7.3 What factors were found to facilitate policy influence in your experience? (provide percentage weights, checking that percentages add up to 100)

7.4 What factors were found to inhibit policy influence in your experience? (provide percentage weights, checking that percentages add up to 100)

7.5 What capability development will be needed to make this institution perform and deliver value over time? Please add ranking in order of priority from most needed (1) to less needed (4).

7.6 What are the main problems?(please add ranking in order of importance: most important (1) to (8) least important)

7.7 Do you have recommendations on how food and agriculture policy analysis can be improved?

At the country level: Please specify in bullet points
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................

With regional cooperation efforts: Please specify in bullet points
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................

With the cooperation of the international community of technical agencies and funding organizations. Please specify in bullet points
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................

8. Other comments or information

Thank you for having filled this questionnaire!