| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Djurfeldt, Göran, et al.
(författare)
-
Asian Models of Agricultural Development and their Relevance to Afrika
- 2003
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This working paper discusses the different Asian experiences of the Green Revolution from the late 1960s to the 1980s in the perspective of earlier developments of agricultural intensification. The intention of the paper is to identify common features and conditions contributing to the considerable success of Asian agriculture over the past 30 years. The authors argue that the Green Revolution must be understood as a broad social and political process, rather than as one driven by the new plant technologies introduced in the 1960s alone. The different regional “models” of the Asian Green Revolution – Japan and East Asia, South-East Asia and South Asia – are outlined. The authors argue that despite considerable regional variation in historic and other factors, Asian Green Revolutions had a common base: they were all “state driven, market mediated and farmer based”. Other common features of the Asian Green Revolutions are geo-political contexts that differ markedly from those in contemporary Africa, which may constitute important obstacles to a similar development of African agriculture.
|
|
| 4. |
- Djurfeldt, Göran, et al.
(författare)
-
Avoiding the counterfactuals: Research design in assesing the impact of agricultural research
- 2009
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Two things strike the eye in the literature and debate on the impact of agricultural research. Firstly, it is not unsurprisingly dominated by economists using cost-benefit analysis. Secondly and more surprisingly, much space is devoted to the discussion of counterfactuals, i.e. by an argument of the type: “If this research had not been made, yield development (or whatever indicator) would have been less than it currently is.” Counterfactuals are shunned by historians but crop up in the literature on impact assessment for a simple reason, viz. that assessment is made ex post and without careful benchmarking having been done ex ante. This paper argues that historians are right, that counterfactual arguments in principle are dubious, at least in social impact assessment and that alternative research designs, more useful for causal attribution should be aimed for. In the first section follows a review of previous CGIAR work in impact assessment and a general methodological discussion. This is followed by a review of the methodologies, first for social impact assessment followed by an examination of environmental indicators. In the concluding section we propose a selection of case studies in which it would be possible to apply the methods and indicators suggested.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
