CO LECCION HISTORICA Series CE - 11 November, 1975 cultural Series CE-ll November, 1975 /' Methods for allocatlne resources In applled aerlcultural research in Latin Amerlca 4397'] Editors: 'er fia ....... Andersen JFrancls C. Bymes ClAT IADC Wlllf¡shap, Cal, Cololllbia.lovemller 26-29, 1914 CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRICULTURA TROPICAL (CIAT) Apartado Aéreo 6713 Calí, Colombia S. A. CONTENTS Page 5 Acknowledgments 7 Introduetory commenls Highlights of workshop rondusions and suggested international follow-up: 8 P. Plnstrup-Allderten and F. C. Bvr- Summary of workshop diseussions: 13 B. L. Ner,tel and D. L. Franldln Summaries of papers presented: Strengthening national agricul'tural researen services: some concerns of the international community (Original in English) 22 A. C. McClung (presented by Vernon Rultan) Tha eontribulion of agricultural researeh lo the achievement of development goals (Original in English) 26 G. E. Schuh Criteria for establishing researen prioritles and selecting researeh projects (Original in English) 29 N. C. BracIy Tha decision-making proeess applied to researeh resource altocation in a national institution: the case of ICA in Colombia (Original in Spanish l 33 J. ArcIlla and M. Valderrama Tha decision-making process applied to researeh resource in a national instltution: Ihe caSe of INIAP in Ecuador (Original in Spanish) 36 K. Dow and E. Ampuero Mechanlsms for allocating resources in applied agricultural rasearch al EMBRAPA in Brazil (Original in Por'luguesa) 39 A. S. l.opes Neto The decision-making process ror rescurce alloealion in privale agricultural raseareh (Original In English) 41 A. Grobman The decision-making process applied to researeh resouree alloeation in an interoational institute: the case of CIAT (Original in Spanish) 44 E. Alvarez-Luna Resource alloealion in applied agricultural researeh in Latin America: the case of lOS (Original in Spanish) 47 J. Sot~Angli Resource alloeation in the Agricul'tural Rereareh Service and the deve!opment of national programs (Original in English) 50 W. L FlsheI Returns to agricultural researeh in Colombia (Original in English) 53 J. Ardlla, R. Herfford, A. Rocha and C. Trujlllo An economie model for establishing priorities for agricultural researeh and a test for the Brazilian economy (Original in English) 57 J. P. Ramalho ele Castro and G. E. Scltuh A propased model for improving the information base for research .esource allocation (English and Spanish) 60 P. Pinslrup-AncIersen, R. O. DlB, M. InfaMe and N. R. ele Londoño 63 lis! of participants ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgment for their contribution to workshop planning and execution is due to a number of persons from CIAT induding Eduardo Alvarez-Luna, David Evan., Charles Franeis, David Franklin, Barry Nestel, Gran! Scobie and Alberto Valdés. Acknowledgment is due to the Rese.ren and Training Network of the Agricultural Development Council (AOC/RTN) and CIAT for ce­ sponsoring and financing the worksnop. Special tnanks are due to Dr. Abranom Weisblat and Dr. Vernon Rullan for thelr continuous support of tne workshop. The principal contributlon to tne succes. of tne workshop wa. provided by the workshop participants tnrough their preparation of papers and entnusiastic participation in worksnop discusslons. In particular, tnanks are due lO the discussion openers Lucio Raea, Hernán Chaverra and Helio Tollini and the moderators David Franklin and Barry Nestel for their elfective discussion guidanca. INTROOUCTORY CO~NTS The critical role of agricultural researen in expending food produetion and aeeeleraling agrieul'tural end economic development is now widely reeognlzed. In view of the vast range of goals to whieh developing countries aspire and the magnitude of researehable problems in agrieu:ture, how does Ihe agricultural researeh manager establish priorilie. and alloeale Ii mited human, financial and physkal resOurces among researen programs and projects lo assure the greatest beneflts from research investmerlts? Thls real and persistent challenge to coneerned indlvlduals in bolh the developlng and developed world led the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) and the Researeh and Trainlng Network of the Agrlcultural Development Council (RTN/ADC) in November, 1974 to eo-sponsor a workshop aimed at 'Ihe eonsideration of this issue. Participating in the workshop were sorne 35 agricultural research managers, agricultural scientlsts, donor ageney representativas, national planners, systems angineers and economists. The workshop explored current decision-making proeesses for resource allocalions in applied agricul~ural researeh in Latin Amerie •. Then, the workshop participanls were asked lo assess the needs for activities aimed at assisling In establishing priorities and a!locating resourees within agricultural raseareh programs in Latin Americe. Finally, the workshop eonsidered aetivities ;xpected to be most effective and the possible role of nalional and interoationel entilies in earrying them out. The purpose of this publication is lO m.ke .vaílable a summary of the workshop papers and diseussions, to highlight workshop findings and conclusions, and to sugges't posslble follow-up aetivltles. While ¡his publleation previdas short summaries of the principal papers presen'ted, texls of Ihe papers in their original language may be obtaíned free as long a,s available from CIAT, Economics Unit, Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cal!, Colombia, South Americe. 7 HIGHLlGHTS OF WORKSHOP CONCLUSIOÍIIS AND SUGGESTED INTERNATIONAL FOLLOW-UP P. Pinstrup-Arnkrsen F. C. Bymes ConclusioM from worlahop dlscussions A summary of the workshop diseussions is presented in the following sec'tion; hence this discussion is limited to a brief presenlation 01 sorne of the conc:usions that were r"ached. Workshop presentations on methods currently used to establish priorities and ellocate research resources in four national and international research organizatlons dearly demonstrated a desire for more information on Ihe relative expected pay.off from alternative research stretegies. The scarcity of information on Ihe relative importance of existing researchable problems at Ihe farm level and the techno:ogy characteris~ics preferred by the farmer was obvious. Furthermore, information seamed almost completely lacking on the expected contribution of alternative Jines of researcn to accomplish socioeconomlc goals. Workshop discussions indicated that in sorne cases, national research agencies had ce~aln potentiallv useful data at their disposal, whieh could net be used beca use ne effectíve framework existed for analvsis. In otner cases, attempls were made lo develop sucn frameworks without the most essential data beíng available. Participan'ts clearlv expressed not only the need for more and beller informallon, bul also tne desirability and expecled high pay-off of activ!ties providing such information. Tney cauIloned, however, tha! graat caTe must be taken in selecUng the acUvitíe., Iheir eonten'!, and the method of putling them into eHect in arder lo as.ure Ine developmenl of useful Information . with direc:1 applieation to the al local ion of resource. for agricultural research. Discussions indiea'led Ihal a few national research institutions are attemptíng to develop method. for improved researen resouree elloeation. These attempls .&em lo soffer from elther excessively bureaueralic procedures for projecl 8 selection or analytical framework 100 general to provide useful information. In both cases, it appeared Ih.t relevant basic data are éX'tremely scarce. Haw to avoid tnese problems in order 10 a.sure that effective agricultural researeh i. facilitated rather than hampered remains a vivid ehallenge. Tha workshop eonsidered a number 01 othar methodological frames 01 reference for assisling the researeh manager in establishing priori'ties. Some are still eilher too preliminary to evaluate or too general lor direct utility; others seem to olfer great promisa on specific issues, depending upon the avai:abllity 01 data. Participant. agreed thal additional work is needed to adapt availab:e methods to the spaciflc need. 01 research managers and to develop certain methodological components that are 5till mlssing. Elforts are needed to intagrate relevant socioeconomic and agrobiological issues into a viable methodology; and interactien among researcn managers, agricultural scientists and economists is essential. Such work would inelude the intagration of the "macro" and "micro" approaches so that priorities among (1) commodities and (2) discipllnary input. within commodities eould be established simultaneously. The work is expected to facilitate effective decision-making. Participants warned that no attempt should be made to develop a eomprehansive model to raplace the decision-maker but rather to develop one deslgner to imprové nis effactlveness tnroogh more and belter information on the cost-benefit ratios of alternative researeh actlvities. In addition to tha foregoing, a number of otner issues were introdueed. A discussion group On research responsibilities between national and international institu1ions eoneluded that this issue should reeaive additional attention to ensure that internationa! eenter objectives witn respeet to specific eommodities correspond to national goals. On the question as to whether international centers compete with national programs for researeh funds, eomments indlcated that a relatively small amount of the "intemational community" funds currently allocated to the international centers would have gone to national institutions in the absence of tha former. Diseus.ants agreed, nowever, that more analysis is needed te estima te the optimum distribution of external funds between the two types of institutions, taking into accoun! their interdependence. Sueh analysio would need lo conoider ,ha influenea that researeh ¡nvestmants meda by intemational centers for specifie eommodities have on the amount of natlonal funds a country decides to inves! in researeh in these same eotnmodities. The question as to who actually sets researeh prioritie. in national instl'tutions arose frequently; it appears that external donor agencies and lnternational centers play a significant role through earmarked and/or 9 commodity-specifiC funds and technical assis'tance. This situation places greal responsibility on thase external agencies to ensure that their priorities do I~ fael eorrespond 10 national needs and thal external and related national resourees are Invested eorrectly. Where external lunds are not obtained, il appears that lew deeisions are aetually made on realloeation of research resources. Budget flexiblllly tends to be low and the total budget lor one year and its allocation tend to be determinad by multíplying the previous year's budget by some eonstant, with little consld.ration 01 changing technlcal and socioeconomic factors. One specific eonclusion was that many national institutions do not appear to have efleetive mecnanisms for decidlng when to stop a certain program or project. Tlle lack of adequete delivery sys'tems, supporUng insUtutions and public poliey .re generally eonsidered the principal limitations to Ihe adoPllon of new teehnology. Bul discusslons on means of acce~erating the rate 01 adoption ':>f new teehnology suggested the possibility that the inadequacy 01 technology to solve farm-Ievel problems in a way aeceptable to the farmer might well be tne mos! importan! limitation to .doption. This limitation might be reduced or eliminated through efforts to provide the researen manager with more and belter Information on actual larm-Ievel problems and technology preferenees, The workshop suggested that agricultural and social scientists work togetner to help assure that (1) rasearen is relevant to the farm-Ievel prob!ems and farmer preferencas and (2) adequate teehnology is adoptad rapidly and ex'tensively. It was also recommended that measures be taken to ensure that fesearch and public policíes reinforee one another in an eflort to maximize Ihe eontribution to the achiavernant 01 development goal5. In!ernational follow-up actiyltles Whlle eflort. to improve researeh resource alloeation in national inslitutions are national responsibilities to be resolved within natlonal contexts, the workshop elearly pointad out the need and desirability for eertain intemalional activities which migh! inelude l. Facilltatlng effeetlve interaclion among individuals and instilutions (within and outside Latin America) currently working on research resource alloeation methodology or capable of and interested In doing so in order to (a) integrate the work, (b) reduce duplication, (e) promote additional work and (d) enhanee Ihe effactiveness of the total eflort 2, Carrying out eertaln parts of the researen aimed al developing methodological frames of reference 10 3. Assuring thal Ihe rnethodology is applieable and aceeptable lo the re_reh manager by facililating effective interaction among (a) inslitulions and individual. eurrently working on methodology or eapable and interested in doing so (e.9., university eeonomics and agronomy departments) and (b) agricultura! researeh institutions and researeh managers 4. Preparing and testing pre. Or postgraduate tr.ining materi.l aimed at improving eommunication between agricultural sdentists and eeonomist., partícularly wilh re.pect to researeh resource alloeatlon 5. Training individual. from national researeh institulions in researeh manageman!, effective data colleciion and analysis useful for establishing researeh priorities and allocating researeh resourees Ó, Providing assistanee to national institutions in earrying out data eollection and ana/y.i. Th. role of btternational agencies Beeause the suecess of international researeh and researeh support depend to a great exlent on effective national researeh programs and sinee "strenglhen/ng natianal institulions" is an objeetive eommon to many international agendes, "the above acUvities dear:y fal! within the mandate of sueh agencies and could greatly enhanee the eontribution of the oversll ' internatlona/ researeh and training efforts. Furthermore, the aforementioned Betivities and the resulting information wou/d be usefu! to eaeh individual international agency in alloeating its own resources. Frequent/y, internatlonal support to national re.eareh is commodity-oriented. Funding agencies, nationa/ government and international researeh eenter• • rrive al deeision. to carry out (through contractual projeets) research, training, and other development activities a.soeiated with one or more commodl'ties. Work.hop partidpants .tressed the need to eon.ider carefully the possible problem. thal funding agencies and center. may create for national governments if appropriate a!tenUon is not finl direcled to how the national authorit;". determine their priori'ties and make their decisions to support a specific effort in the long runo I! is possible far external agencies lo usurp the priority-setting funetion. This can happen when external agencies mount majar international projects and draw scaree researeh talent away from problem. of more current importanee in thase particular eounlrles than those externally se!eeted. The national research director is faoed with the problem of interaeting with externa/ funding agencie. and enthusiastie commodrty teams from various 11 internatlonal research centar., while dealíng with the pressures generated by within-country production, eonsumption or marketing groups. He must pick and ehoose before finally designing a national agricultural researen program. Up to now, external agencies may have eontrlbuted lo the decision-making problems rather than helping to solve them. Many of the issues most importan! Initiall, for inleraction bet_n eOuntries and international agencies are not ~moclity specific although they are usually commodity releted and may involve commodities of no concern lO the international raseareh centers. Thi. suggests that international agencies migot seek ways to help natione.1 agencies esteblish new or revised mechinery for researeh resource allocation, evaluate presenl crileria and develop new ones, collee! and analyze data, and provide experience and guidance in lhese new approaehes. TOe immediate goal. would be the development and strengthening of researeh managers' decision-making proeesses. Country representatives reminded the workshop that it is important thal these actions be taken on an individual-country bas!s because the effective solutions of many development problems depend upcn their congruence w:+h the economic, social, political and cultural environment in which they an' introduced. 12 SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS B. L. Nestel D. L. Franklin The summary of our dlseusslons over the last three and a half days Is presented within the framework of the workshop objectlves as speclfled In the program documento The flrst of these four objectlves sla'tes that we mellO exp.lore how declsions are presently made on Ihe allocation of resources In appJied agricultural researeh in Lalin America. Emphas!s was to be p.laeed on who made the declsions, what criteria were used, whether pressute groups inflvenced researeh demands, .nd finally what quantity and quality of information were avai.lable and/or utlllzed for decision.maklng. Secondly, we were asked to as_ess the efficlency of 'Ihe present decislon·making framework and the availabllity of relevant information to maxlmize the contrib)Jtion of agricultural researeh to the achievemenl of development goals. The thind objective of the work_hop was to consider whether there was a need for improved decision-making tools and/or more and belter Informatlon. The final goal of the workshop was to sugge.t ways to assist the decision·makers in appliecl agricultural researeh in improving researeh resourCe aUoeation. influenced researeh demanc:ls, and fina(,ly what quantlly and quallty of provic:ling more -and better information aod/or analytleal lools for the decislon­ maker. Finally we were asked to diseuss poten!ial benefils from collaboralive lnlendisciplinary researeh, training and olher possible aelioo, and the role of CIAT in sueh action. In hi. welcome address Nickel suggesled Ihal in order to have a more produelíve researeh approach, Ihere was a need for a more effec!ive use of resour-ces in terms of orienlalíon, organizalion and efficiency. In terms of orlentatlon, lhe eonventional dichotomy between basic and applied researen was unforlunate and cou:d be regarded as a conslraint. Nlckel SuggeSled thal in place of the term "basle," ellher "opportunity" or "inlerest-orienled" researeh would be preferable; and "mission" or "problem-solving" would be preferable to the lerm "applied." In ¡he latter 13 case, there was a need for more emphasis on aetion by inlerdisciplinary teams of biologisls and social ,cientists rather than on descrlptive raseareh alone. In the organizational field, Nickel decried the tradltional division between researen and exlension wilh Ihe low prestige tradltlenally afforded lO tn. latter aetivlty. He stressed the naed for a strongar two-way flow between researen and extenslon and the naed for a dynamie approach lo rasearch wlth recurrent program revlews and mulual reports of outeomes. In daating witn efficlency, Nickel stressed tne sta'tic nature of many oHiclal and university researeh insti'lulions that were often well endowed with bot" finaneial and human resources which were underutilized. Frequently, the besl tralned human resources in a developing eountry were found in Lts universitles, but there was often no meehanlsm for channaling the researeh earried out by these people Into natlonal development programs. Indeed, In many cases university researeh did not relate to national problems, even in countries where universities eonstltuted practlcal:y Ihe sole eenler of agrieultural research activitles. Flshel polnted oU'! that the decislon-making proeess Invalvas three dlstinet levels: the national plannlng or policymaklng level, Ihe sectorial or "secloral" level: and the aetivity or operalional level. In discussing the decision-making process, it seems that we have focused fa¡rly heaviJy on decislon-making at the "sectoral" level; that Is lO say, we have not talked very much about "policy" declsion-making in terms of the Intersectorial cholces thal confront 10p policymakers at tne Cabinet or National Planning Office level. With the exceplion of the contribution of Andersen et al. and Brady we have not talked very muen .bou! decision-maklng at Ihe level of the actual research leader or direetor-be he national or international-although this observation Is perhaps less valid in the case of the private sector where Grobman's presentation did deal with the decision-making proeess ..1 the operational leveL It is nol surpri,lng that we did not discuss decision-making at the hlghest levels sinee we are a group of seetorially oriented people. However, a number of speakers appeared 10 have been surprised and perhaps di.appointed thal there was some reluctance lo enter into detailed discussions of decision-maklng at the operatlonal level involvlng people who would aetually.have to implement the decisions. We ,hall return to thls later, but essentially il seems that we may ndt yet· have suflicient background to discuss thi. theme adequately. Many of our discussions en the decision-making proees. appeared to be focused on Fishel's "sectoral" level, allocating priorltles between eommodltles. • Th& word US"Ktot'al" was usBd by the auth(u: In, ptéf.r.n~ to "sectorial" or "secular" beeause he felt lt w.$ mor. In acc:ordlnca wIth economic terminofogy (Editor'$; not.) , 14 'H did seem Irom the diseussions that tnis was Ihe level al which commodily prlorities generally tended 10 be a!located, and a number of speakers ,ecognized Ihal at thi. level the decision-makers had a duly lo develop priorities wi'lhin Ihe broad framework laid down by the Nalional Planning ¡ Offic •. Allhough most eounlries have pianning agencies and prepare seclorial plans, it was pointed out Ihal .TI too Irequently Ihere was little or no eorrelation I between agrieultural researeh acUvitie. and nalional deve:opmenl plans, and il appears Iha! a greal deal 01 past agrieultural researeh has hael a very limited socioeconomic impacto Guerra was particulariy critical 01 university researeh I and cited a study 01 peslgraduste theses which indicated thal a very high percenlage bore no relationship to the realities of agricultural problems In lhe region. It was pointed out lorcibiy by Brady 'Ihat the scientilic administralor had a role to play in attempting lo leed information nol only inlo Ihe secloral level bul olso inlo the highest politieal level, regarding both the developmental petential of researeh programs and the fe.sibility 01 their goals. In more basic langu.ge we might express this by saving that it seemed that the scientists in many agricu:tural researeh institulions play, or feel thal they play, only a llmited role in the orientation of ~hat institution's researeh program although a strong suggestion has been made by both Brady and Sleppler Ihat scientists snould adopt a more aelive role in this process. As far as decision-maklng al the oper.tional level was concerned, we did not really discuss thls ful:y. The discussions on the ICA and INIAP presen~ations indieated that budget allocations for Ihe previous year were a very strong determinant In the budget alloca'tion for the next yaar. This may be a symptom Ihat nol enough conslderation is being given to a review of raseareh alternatives. This le.ds to a discusslon of the second point of 'the first maio objective of tnis meeting; name:y, the eriteria used In decision-making. Here again we looked at two levelo, the "sectoral" and lhe "operational," the diseusslon focusing mainly on the former. There was a general consensus that agricultural researeh could nol be eonsidered separate!y from naticnal 9O.:s and that it was impertant that national leaders and decision-makers should provide the basis for determinlng the direction 01 researeh programs and for identifying priorities wlthin these. Brady and Andersen él al. both stressed the importance of identifying constraiots through the use of an interdisciplinary team includíng both biological and social sclentists. Brady highlighted lour issues reJating to the removal of constraints: (1) the relative significan ce of dillerent eonstrainls in order to identify those whose· removal eou:q be most meaningful, (2) Ihe feasibility of eonstrain't 15 removal (or the ehances of sucees.), (3) the COSI of eonstraint remov~1 and ils eomparative advantage in relatíon to other strategies, and (4) the probability that oihers might do the researeh and the need to avoid duplieatíon or operating in a vacuum. This last point was taken up by a number of speaker., and full diseussion was given to Ihe relative roles of national and international institutes and toe prívate sector. The importance of Ihe profil motive in private sector objectivas was brought out by Grobman, and there seamed to be a consensus of opinion that international institutes were better equipped than national ones to undertake longer term rasearen with a higher element of risk than many natienal Institlltes Were prepared to take. It was also suggested that in high risk or speeulative researeh 'the decision to go ahead was often based on the human rescurees availab:e as muen as on the potential value of the project or ils chances of suecess. Schuh and others indieated that tnere might be some element of competition for funding between national and international institutes because of Ihe finite amount of resources avallable. It seemed to be genera:ly fel! tha! Ihese activitias eould and snould be complementary and that the whole justification fer the exilltence of intero.tional institutes was to provlda a strong backstopping service to national institutes. There seemed to be a consensus Ihat through outreacn programs there should be a strong feedback from national to internatlonal Institutes which would ensure that the latter were responsiva to national program needs. It was also indlca'ted that in discusslng resource alloeation between different types of inslilutes, Ihe prlvate sector could play on important role, particularly in those eountries where Ihe markets were large enough and sufflciently well developed for It to be able 10 ma~ket Its produels effectlvely. [n Brazil the new national research institute EMBRAPA is strudured as a private company and plans to operate very mueh along the lines of an inlernatlonal instilute. In additlon, II will subcon!rae! work to universilias and prlvate institutes. In this way, it Is endeavoring to combine Ihe comparativa advanlages of all three Iypes of institutes into one organlzation. Both Valdarrama and Dow presented preliminary work on researen resource alloeation at the operational level In their Institutes and endeavored to indude equlty as well as productivity goals in their devalopment of decision-making indexes. Tne state of the art in tnis field Is obvlously at a very early phase; and even In the Uniled States, whieh probably has the world's largest pub:ie agricultural research service, the development of effectlve eriterla for defining nalional researen goals Is stlll at s very early slage. Fishel presented lhe approacn belng adoptad in the United Sta te• . Thls approacn is a fairly simple one and Invalves a grest deal of subjecllve ¡udgment. Páez destrlbed a more complex model being developed in collaboration wítn nis colleagues for the 16 allocatlon of I'\I$OUrces. The model is basad en Ihe premise that research funds are flrs! assigned lO a preselectad group of commodities and then assigned to problem areas within each commodity. Thís model is slill in the testing phase. Earlier reference has been mede lo the specifícity 01 Ihe objoctives 01 the private sector's decision-making process. In elaborating on ~his, Grobman placad particular stress on the imporlanee 01 rnarket rasearch and consumer aeceptabilily in Influencing the decision-rnaking process. He pointad out Ihal al various stages 01 Ihe raseareh and developrnent aetivi'ty these marketing inflvences eould lead lo the eaneellation 01 a project. At many points in the discussion on public sector researen, the fleor cornmants focusad on the problems 01 low adoption rate and the weakness 01 the "extension" process. To sorne degree ft was possible to draw a close analogy belween exlension and adoplion on the one hand and market research and consumér aeceplability on the olher; and il would seem that there may be an evident weakness in a grest desl 01 public sector researeh which separa tes the carrying out of the researcn from its aclual delivery 10 the farmer. Indeed this may highlight 8 fundamental weakness in the crlteria for defining researeh príorities In many institutions where all the emphasis is glven to carrying out researen on objectives defined by people at a nigh level who may be oblívlous of ¡he consumer's n..oo., particularly when tnat consumer is a smal! farmer. This subjecl was covered in ~he spacifically producer-orientad model by Andersen el al., wnicn had a strong feedback to aequaint the researcher. wilh farmers' prelerences. 1I would seem tnat tnere is • (acuna In the Ihinking of many public sector i research lnstltutions in Ihat tneir seledlon crileria at the projecl level do not take adequate eognis.nce 01 wnat the cónsumer wants. Thls does not mean thal Ihe researcn consumer O. s., Ihe farmer) does nOI want a crop variety r ! Ihel will triple his yield; but if this involves a four- or fivelold rlse in the I cash cosl 01 produetlon, he may rejeet It in favor of a variety whlcn gives ¡ hlm only 8 50 pereenl rlse in produclion but involvas a eash outlay only 20 pereent more than his Iraditional'costs because casn is often his mast limillng , (escurce. Thls observation appears to be particularly relevan! In the light of Rullan'. commen! on ehanging lertilizer/erop price relatlonships, since the fertllízer applicatíon has played a very signiflcant role in the transfer 01 agricultural tecnnology in developing eountries durlng the lasl decade. let us move on now lO sOrne eomments on the third factor in this list of initla' objectlves; namely, tne influenee 01 prassure groups In lnlluencing the decision-making proces• . We really did not have much in the way of hard data to discuss on this theme. It was $uggestad thal donors may represent a prassure group; on the l7 mher hand, nobody discússee! donar motivation and whether or not donan, were more effieienl Ihan researeh Inslltules In defining how resources mlghl be allacated. An interesting. observation was made that 'Ihe disclplinary Iralnlng of nalional planners and agricultural planners in particular mlght Introduce a strong bias inlo the decision-making process. There may be some validl'ly In Inls remark even al Ihe e experimental station level slnce In mas! developlng counlrles the flrst agriculturallsls to be sent overseas for doctoral studles are usually cereal breeders and lI 15 much more common to find people with thls background direcUng boto na'tlonal and International cenlers Ihan it is lo flnd, for example, an agricultural economist. A number 01 speakers stressad Ihe need for a betler dialogue belween biological and social scientisls in arder lo achleve more effeclive resource alloeation. In his presentallon on CIAT. Alvarez-Luna lookad a't Ihe questlon of pressure groups from a somewhal dlfferenl angle. In Ihe two programs tha! he specilicaUy described-namely, beans and cassava-CIAT has endeavored lo deliberately develop pressure groups at Ihe operalional level, wilh different disciplinary and geographical orientallons, which feed in information and advice lo ils program committee and direclor general who are then ab!e to utilize a wide range of differenl experlise lo make ¡heir operationa! decisions, In many inSlilutions Ihe mosl important pressure influencing Ihe decislon­ making process may be Ihe effecl of an existing, fnequent!y long.standing budgelary slructllre and the difficulty in making majar short-term changes in the use of financia! resources. This problem seemad lo exist in al1 Ihe organizations discussad allhough in the long run Ihere did appear lo be a great des I of flexibility in both national and ¡nternationel canlers' budgets. The problem of pruning or even ampurating long-standing programs that appeared lo serve Iit'tle objeclive purpose was one Ihal seemad lo confronl most agenci .... Fin~lIy, al Inis s'lage of Ihe program, we came lo the queslion of lhe quality and quantily of informal ion which is availab:e bUI which is often nol utilized for declsion-making. Here again, Ruttan pinpoinled the Issue when he relalad to Ihe specification of the informalion base on whlch lo identify lhe naeds for shlfls in researeh programs. In particular he raisad the qllestion of how the teehniques usee! for coneeptualization 01 the measuremenl 01 pasl benafils from research mlghl be utilizad for the analysls of benefits from fulure resesrch. This lalter issue was lakan up by Hertford in his paper describing Ihe ulility of ex post methodology for ex ante analysis. These presentalions, togelher with the data presen'tad by lhe national and international ¡nstilulas representad al Ihe meeting, did Indicate Ihal en absence of adequale analylical data was a major conotraint on ,the decislon-making :>rocess. From the presentallons given. il appearad that we are .Iil! quile a long way from knowing wnat dala we naed, lel alone knowing how to handle il; 18 ~nd certainly Irom the slandpoinl of ex ante analysis, Ihere is ¡¡lile hard information lO go on al lhe present time although Schuh, Castro and Andersen el al. have developed or are attempling 10 develop melhodologies to Overeome thi• •i tualian. In trying lO lnlerprel lhe discunion on our lirsl objective, we have really covered many of the point. also diseussed ln the second and third objeclives, which de.lt with. assessing lhe efficíency of the decision-making framework presently usad and approaches of Dow and Valderrama, to Ihe l6$s complex type of analytieal tool. presentad by Anderoen e! al. and Senuh, lO the totally unquantitative approaen of Brady. We had an inleresting sehernalíe presentation from Guerra rogardlng the type of information one needed to be able to make better judgments. This subjeel was also referred to in the paper. by Valderrama and Ardila, Dow and Ampuero, Páez, Hertford, Ramalho de Castro and Fishel. However, we did not really get into a discussion on Ihe potenti.1 benefits and costs of providing a better informatien base, and there are some doubts as to whether we are equipped to do ,nis . . The paper by Ramalho de Castro and Senuh was particularly interesting In the way that it hlghlighted the relationship between different goal. of agricultural re.earch and commodity and equity policy. Aithough il wu suggested that the Ramalho/Schuh model waS of particular relevan ce to SrazU, tnis poin! was dispuled; and the approach would .eem to warr.nl further exploratlon. Il wovld .150 be inleresling to relate some of lhe analysis in Inis model to the data from lhe.x post-.x ante comperison presented by Herlford .. since it appears that at the present time _ know how to be wise after the event bul not before. The final paper by Andersen et al. proposed a model for improvlng the informatíon base for research resource allocalion based on agro-economic surveys. Again we had an extremely interesling paper deseribing work in progre •• but as yet untested. Certainly the paper seemed a fitting concJusion to the earlier series and indicated some concrete proposals for answering the questions posed at thls worksnop. It .150 indicated that for thls type of work, this approach could be used effectlvely by an lnternational agricultural center in -.cUng as the fecal polnt for coordinating tnis type of activity on a regional basls, particularly through 'he physical and financial resources that an institution sueh as CIAT possessed, whlch gave lt a eonslderab:e eomparative advantage from the standpolnl of the trainlng 01 personnel. In the final discusslon sesslon, the participan!s concluded Ihat the workshop had presented a useful exchange of experlences. The dialogue suggested that thls was a lield that warran!ed more earelul study and that perlodlc exchanges 01 tllis nature would be useful. II was recommended that future workshops should have narrower objectlves and shou!d focus on Ihe decislon-makíng precess al a very .pecífle level. CIAT's tralning and conferenee rasourees lent themselves well lo hos'tlng this type of meeting, and íl was raeommended Ihal CIAT should lake the ¡nillative in follow-up acUvitles. 21 ,.. STRENGTHENING NATIONAl AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS: SOME CONCERNS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY A. C. McClung Presenl requiremenls for increased foed produclion are sych Ihal lhe agricultural researcn services of m'any of Ihe deve:oping nalions mus! slep up performance. There are many reasons lO believe Ihal Ihese agencies can improve lheir effactivoness and ralher rapidly. The environmenl for improvemenl is betler Ihan in Ihe past. Some of Iheir needs are more dearly evidenl Ihan Ihey havo been previous:y, and steps can be idenlifíed whereby olhers may help Ihem. These slalemenls oUli;n. Ihe conclusions reached at the Bellagio VI conference. At Bellagio V (May, 1972) atlention was given to Ihe need to prolect Ihe unique character of Ihe inlemational cenlers, their f!exibility, and Iheir freedom from political conslraints. linkages between Ihe cenlers and national groups and gaps in the woridw;de nelwork were also subjects of :oncern. When Bellagio VI was being planned, a summary of the deveJoping nelwork showed that Ihe CG* system was becoming increasingly effactive in dealing with researeh gaps and in marshal,ling support for agricullura; research and development al Ihe international level. The greatesl need seemed to lié in Ihe area of slrengthening national agencies. The eommon thread runníng Ihrough Ihe BelJagio VI discussion. was the nead for vast!y improved technologíes. Three aspects of the current siluation received attention: (a) world food supply, (b) interaClions be'tween inlemational and national agricultural researeh organizations, and (e) Ihe stalus of national agencies. Th. consensus al Bella9io VI was thal the currenl food problem wi 11 cause new rescurees lO be brought into use and Ihal this time some mOre lastíng gains can be expected io terms of conlinued supporl for the deve:opmenl and applieatioo 01 new lechoology. Allitudes and reaclions al Ihe receol World Food Confarenee supporl lhe ~iew Ihat national leader. racognlze inereasingly thal food production must • Comvlt"tlve Group for Internat,onel Agricultura' Retelrth 22 ------~., recaive lop priorily. 1'1 was obvious Ihal Ihe delegations recognized Ihal only by increasing local procluction cou:d lhe developing nations find a solution 10 their food needs. While the intemational centers are a source of great satisfaelion lO lheir founders and sponsors and a basis of hope and reassuranee for many otners, several eencarn. have besn expressed, chiefly conceming the ¡nteraetions between the centers and the national agencies. There is some feeling that the centers' rescurces are being sprsad too thin. They are being asked to take on too many respansibilities or projects where their particular organizational advantages do nol come into play. The sharp focus 01 a mullidisdplinary te8m on a e:early defined range of problems is recognizad as one of Ihe reasons for the centers' success. !ns'titution-buílding projects, whelher Ihey are carried out as outreaeh or cooperativ!' efforts, must be selectad wlth care so thal thay wili nol lead the center away from this sharp focus. Another problem may be ¡he overlapping of several cenlers' outreach programs. For example, some of the small teehnieal groups in Southeast Asian countries have reeeived enthusiastic overture. from intematienal center representativas interested in deep-water rice, corn, cassava, potatees and vegetables. The propasa:s haya besn aeeeptad with appreciatíon but also with SOme perplexity. Tllese smal! countries, often with eomplex agricultural patterns, are precisely the ones that must rely most heavily on the centers for mueh 01 'their new teehnology; but thay may need help in puttlng togather a míx 01 teehnieal assistance whleh meets thair needs and is withín the reaeh of their resourcas. Also, they may urgently need he:p with cotton or jute or some otner crop that has no advocate from en international eenter. lt seems dese that the centers wlll be funded generously so long as thay produce resulls. The national researeh agencies are not mere:y 90lng to be fundad more edequately; they are 90lng to be requlred by thelr counlr!es to make unprecedented conlributions in the years aheed. Tr.inecl scientifi~ m.npow. ... Is still in short supply in most countries. Evan those that have unemp:oyad seienllsts are not overslaflad so mueh as thay are underflnancad. As Ihe organizalíons expand, the shallowness of tIle manpower supply becomes evident. Crop and animal production speciaUsts, who can do Ihe integrated type of researen needed lo increase produetion, are ín sllor'! supply ín essentlal:y all the developing eountrles. Thís is a type of traíníng thal mosl graduate programs do nol empllasíze and that many organizational eharts fail even to identify. 23 Intermedlate and top-level managément penonnel, who can analyze problems, plan and implement programs, are badly needed in 811 developing countries. Funding of national programs Is obviously well below the optimum. Tne real question is not how muen snould be spent by the developing countries under optimal condítions but rather what rate of ¡ncreesed expenditures can be afficiently utilized, given the manpower restrictions end olher cons'tralnts of a spacifico siluation. Eaeh counlry should examine i'ts agricultural researeh services and make Ihe indicated adjustments. We might add that the surp!us producers among the developed n.tions are not ¡mmune 10 this naed. The developing eountry that wishes lO upgrade ilS researeh system must "be prepared at the top leYel to make e long-Ierm, suslained commilment to the jobo In making some of these determinations, nationa: agencies may wish to seek assistance from outside. Technical and financlal assislance from muitinational end bilateral sources should be utilized when rsquired. Careful planning will help to make effective use of current budge'ts end of new funds whlch wlll likely become availab!e. Sueh planning might inelude the following steps, among others: a) The raview 01 existíng facilities and staff resources and an avaluation of their adequacy lo meet national goals b) The planníng of national researeh systems of managaable proportíons, designed to serve lhe different farming regions 01 the country e) The development 01 a long-term schedule for facility and manpower development, with meaninglul commitments of financial support The individual nations must consider resource allocation lor every crop or commodity that Ihe nation produces. They must de.1 with the whole ranga 01 social, economic and political problems faeing agricultura in their particular situation. F<>Od production, and not research for its own saka, musl be the aim of the national agricultural agencies 01 the developing countries. Too otten the researchers have tended to be out 01 toueh with the ¡armer and even with researchers in related lields. It is incre.singly clear that the researeh structure must deal with more than the various disciplines _nd individual eommodíties. It mus! deal with integrated larming systems. The deyeloping countri .. are lacad not merely with achieving 24 production increases on a nationwide basis, but with achieving Increased incomes far large numbers of smal! farmers. Farmer. cannot use new technology wi'lhoul Ihe necessary inputs and credit. They must also have reasonable market facilities and prices that offer a reasonable return on their investment in new technology. AII of Ihese factors require decisions and aelions by a number of agencies, both public and priva te. 25 (, THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AGRICOLTURAL RESEARCH TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT GOALS • G. E. Schuh In additlon to a brief mention of the impact of agricu:tural researeo and public poliey in the United States, the paper foeuses on four issues: (1) tne importanee of dealing as explicitly and as operationally as possible with goals. We nave to ask and answer the question of "researen for what," (2) possible goals that might be considered, (3) the role sodal scientists and particularly eeonomists can play in identifying these goals, (4) the need for eeonomic policy and teconologlcal changa to eomplement eaeh otoer. New technology Is ereated as an input In toe development process and not as an end in itself. Moreover, technology has an Instrumental role in at'tainlng a larger set of goals and objectives; ils maln goal is not to entertaln the researehers. Once the idea that knowledge oas tnis instrumental role in goal attalnment i. recognized, the specification of these goals becomes important. In toe case of agricultural researeh, this would require a specification of the goals sociéty or the government would have wi'th respeet to the agricultural sector. In order to obtain any degree of préCision in researeh priorities, it is importan! fer broad social goals to be transhlted ioto a more operational and objective set of goals in term. of which individual researen prejects can be evaluated. If tnis can be done, more foeus will be provided for the researcn program, a mOre efficient researeh effort will result, and there will be a more objective means of evaluating tne researen in an ex post sense. Tha problem is to arrive at tnis more operational set of objectlves. One way to proceed is to take the three fundamental goa:. specified for the lowa State program and see what can be made of them. In addition, I would lik to add a fourto goal-nutrition. Therefore, we have as possible goa/s (1) growth or developmen't, (2) equity, (3) security and (4) nutrition . • TIle vlew.s exprened oorein repr~$ent those of the author and not tho$e of the Couneil of Economlc Advi$orJ. 26 On the basis of a discussion of researeh goals, three propositions are identified. First, the nature of the objectives for the research program wil! be determinad in part by the stage 01 economie development. Second, the objectives of the researeh program should be relaled to the particular development model the government is implementíng and the specific economie polieies it uses to implement Ihis modeL Third, with an adaquele understanding 01 the development precess and the set of policies being pursued by the government, the goal. and objectives of the researen program t, can be specified at a quile operational leveL I E.ch of these threa proposition. providas sn important analytical ro!e for the economist in determining researeh prioritias. His contribution is partly • to identify goals and objectives in the light of tha general policy malrix. If Ihis is done at en operational level, there should be sn inerease in the efficiency with which research resources are usad since they will be focused more directly on policy objectives. In addition, a sounder basis will be laid for evaluating the rasearch program in en ex post contexto The aquity issue is one that has long been neglected by both economists and prodvction scientists. Economists have neglected it because of the difficulty in stating categorically whether one distribution of income is belter than enother. Production scientists have neglected it because of a hilure to recognize that (a) much of their production technology was not uniformly adopted by different sized farms, (b) the benefits of production technology could accrue uniquely to one or another ealegory of resouree owners, and (e) that the ultimate beneficiary of teehnieal change could be the consumer ralher than the farmer. Four aspects of the aquity or income distribution Issue are Importan'!. Tha first is the distribution of the benefits of technical change between the produeer and the consumer. The second is the functional distribution of the benefits among the various resource Owners. Third is the distribution of the benefits among the various sizes of farms. Fourth is the impact on regional income 1istribution within !he country. On !he distribution of benefits between the consumer and the producer, two sllt. of eonsiderations are important: (1) Ihe relative conditions of supply and demand and (2) economic policy. If agricultural researehers want to benefit producers, the presumption is tha! they should concentrate on products tha! have a high priee elasticity of demando Examples of these are export produc!s. If !hey wan'! to benefit consumers, they should concentrate on producto that have a low priee elasticity of demando Typically these will be food staples or necesslties Ii ka rice, edible beans, wheat, etc. On the distribulion of benefits between Ihe land owner and the laborers, it Is assumed that in mos! cases il ls the land cwners who will beneflt at the 27 expense of the laborers. This is not a straightlorward case, however, and mueh depends on the relative elaslicity of the supply and demand lar the factors and Ihe elasticity of substitutions among the produclion faelor •. Regarding the distrlbution of benefils among dlfferent sizes of larms, the lssues have lO do wilh Ihe extent to whleh Ihe new produclion tochnology is adapted to the resource endowmenls and other eondltlons 01 the various slza groups and the efficiency 01 the various eeonomic instltulions serving these groups. ' The paper concludes by stressing three point •. Flrst, deve:opment needs are not Ihe same for eaeh country or aven lar diHerent regions within the same country. Moreover, these naeds will generally changa ove~ a period 01 time; therefore, Ihe problem 01 analysis lo determine what researeh prioritles .... oughl lo be is almost never ending. For Ihe same reasons il is dlfficull lo "- generalize among eounlrle• . The analysis does have lo be large:y loeation speciflc. Because of Ihls, there is an importanl need for strengthening natlonal researeh eapabiUlies. Second, researeh priorities naed to be defined in lerms of lhe particular deve'opment model Ihal a country is using as a basis for policy and in terms of !he particular measures used lo implemenl il. To fail to do Ihis is to run the risk of having economlc pollcy negote the results of the researeh efforl ond/or to forago a potential eonlribution that the research eHorl cou:d have made. Goals may well be in confllel; for example, the attempl to 'atlain a higher rate of groW'th in the aggregate may well aggravale the equily problem. It is wor'lh noling that had plan! scientis!s and social scienlis!s worked closely al ¡he beginning lo think abou! what Ihe goals ought lo have been, what weigh'ts lo atlaeh to tham, and how Ihe goal$ might have been attalned, Ihe counterproductlve controversy over the Green Revolution might never have happened. Biological and social scientisls do have a responsibility lo atlempt lo understand eaeh other and lo work towards the commOn goal of improving the well-being of !he large fraetion of the world's popu:ation Ihat is disadvantaged. 28 CRITERIA FOR ESTABLlSHING RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND SELECTING RESEARCH PR~ECTS N. C. Brady During Ihe pas! decade we have witnessed the development of a 'two-pronged approach to agricultura, researen aimed at solving food production problems in the developing world. One approaeh is that of the network of intemational agricultural researeh can'ters; the seccnd i. that of the national researeh organizations in developing eoonlries. The lotal need for new knowledge to he:p farmer. produce more foad dwarfs the resources available lO support and carry out the researen needed. Priority selling beccmes paramount. There is mueh to be deslred In agricultural researen priority setting, especially Ihat of national researen organizations. The imitation of researchers In Ih. more developed counlries ls evlden!. Research at unlversltles and researeh Instltlltes eomplemants applied researeh trlals earded out at .mal! outlying stations. Charaeteristieally, these stations are poorly staffed and equipped. Some regional researeh stalions may have smal! plant braeding programs, but their efforts are nol usual:y coordinaled In a national erop improvement programo There are some notable exceptlons. In these cases, ther. Is goad natlonal research coordination. Eftec!lve long.range plans have been developed and are being implemented. Trained re.earcher. are effective!y utilized and are tralning olMe.s to lake thei. places. If overall national policíes do nO! g!ve higher priorlty to agricu:tural researcn, the .etting of researeh prioritles may be meanlngless, Agrlcul!ura1 .eseareh eanoot be eonsidered apar! from the basie human naeds of society and, perhaps more important, from Ine pereeptlon of those nseds by national leade.s. Natlonal social goals as percelved by national leader. 1lInc1 dec:1.¡0m­ maurs must provide a bas!s for determ!ning the direction of resea.ch program5 and of lhe spedfic prloritles withln these programs. 29 Researeh administrators have a responsibility to help decision-makers identify national goals relating to agricu!ture and, more specifically, those relating to agricultura! raseareh. One 01 'Ihe most significant ehallenges is to force national leaders to think in terms 01 the fulure. Preoceupation witn eurrenl problems lorees tnem to think only of tnose researen inputs which promise immediate results. They Inerefore bypass or eliminate long-range researeh planning and eoneomitantly the set'ting 01 meaningful researeh prioritie• . An important task of researen administrators and olner decision-makers is to identify clearly the extent to which agricultura! researeh can contribute to the atlainment of a nation'. or region' ••o cial goal •. The desire for national self-sufficiency, e.pecially with respeet lO lood eraps, sometimes lead. lo Ihe eSlabllsnment 01 unreaHstic and economically unsound produetion goals. Economists, as well as biological scientist., can he:p identily agricultural areas in whicn a given eountry has a campara'tive advantage. To idenlily means 01 meeting social goals, agricultural researcn administrators must know the limitations society imposes on the agriéullural industry. The generalizad procedure for determining appropriale resouree allocation for agricultoral research assumes thal overal! social goal. will inelude goal. Ihat can be met only through Ihe agricultural sector. In lurn, agriculture's goal5 will require input. from agricultural research, as well as dther components 01 thi. industry. Using tnis genaral eriteria, it is possible to select a series 01 researeh alternatives and to assign tnem different. levels of priority. Wilhin eaeh alternativa, specific researeh projects can then be prepared and pe'rtinent researen metnodo!ogias developed. Thase beco me the resesreh instruments to which funds and human resourees are alloca'ted. Four major eriteria are important in setting researeh priorities and in ascertaining projects to be ¡nitiated. Relativa signlf'¡cance of dlfferent constr.ints. The extent to which the removal of a given constrainl would eontribute to the aehievement of importan! agricultural and, in turn, social goals is pernaps the most significant long-range criterion. Tha relative socioeeonomic signifieance of lhe constraint is of paramount importanee. More specific factors that must be considered are the size of populatións and of crop and land areas and the number of in5titutions potentially 30 affected by the proposed research. Also, effects on income distribution, effective land utilization and other socially worthwhile goals should receive a!tentioo. Feasibility of constrainl removal. The feasibility of removing, through research, different constrain'ts on agricultural produc!ion, processing and marketing is an ímportan! criterion. Determination of tnis feasibilíty will depend upon a number of factors íncluding the nature of the constrain! to be removed, the availability of seienti.ts sufficiently well trained to carry out the researeh, and progress already made in related researen areas. Limitatíons in finances and their rate of delivery can adverse:y affeet a scientist's ability to perform, as can an ineffident procurement system. Cost of rethrc:h lO remove !he constrain!. The required inputs in terms of financial and numan resources and of time needed to aecomplish the researeh are important criteria. The financial eost-benefit ratio has been used eommonly. Unforlunately, benefits from agricu:tural researeh eannol always be quantified in economie lerms. Aside from tne eost-benefil analyses, researeh cosls alone are important eriteria. Even with high probable ultima!e returns on researeh inveslment, poor eountries may nol be ab!e to afford large inputs for agrieultural researeh. The time requirement for researen accomplishment Is signifieanl. Researeh administrators mus! insist Iha! some funds and manpower be ellocated lo proje<.:ts tha! have high, long-term potential even though the immediate returo probabilities may be low. Probability !hat other. wlll do ¡he research. Eseh researeh organ izatioo lends nol lo lake into consideration the researeh eapabilities 01 others. Developing country organizations musl eonsider the researeh which is being done and whieh can be done elsewhere. Regional eooperation permits ¡nlerchange 01 elop and animal strains, as well as of published researeh results. There are a number of olher practical criteria; for example, the urgency 01 the researeh. Administrators must prevent "urgent" problem-solving projeets from dominating researeh programs. II is no! difficult to identify th. general procedures by which eriteria and, ín turn, prioritias can be determined. TIJe difficulty arises in implementing the procedures. The setling of bread social goals Is generally Ihe function 01 soclety and Is usuaJly aceomplished by political leader. and national planners. Scientisls and scienee administrator. should provide background information for Ihese 31 r decision-makers, not oniy to dEitermine the soeial bUI agricultural goal. as well. Agricultural scientists and researcn admlnistrator. should be intimately involved in .etting agricultural researeh goals with prime responsibility for identifying agricultural constraints, tne role of researen in removing Ihese eonstrainl., and Ihe specific criteria to be used in deve:oping priorities. likewise, they should nave major responsibillties for developing prlorities and in deciding resource alloeation lo implement tne priority research programs. In most instances, rasearen admlnistrators use tneir own judgment in sEilting criteria and researen prioTillas; In Olner" pane:, advi,e the administrator. In stil! olhers, panel s of experts decide on the criterla lo be used and Identify the priorilles. Despite the weaknesses of criteria and priorlly-setting procedures involving scienlists, the advanlages oulweign the disadvanlages. Wnile il may be inappropriate lo give the scientisls the sole responsibility for criteria and priorily setting, Ihair know:edge of the pOlenlial. of sdence for problem soiving musl be fully exploited. 32 THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS APPLlED TO RESEARCH RESOURGO ALLOCATlON IN A NATIONAL INSTITUTION: THE CASE OF ICA IN COLOMBIA J. Ardila V. M. Valderrama Ch. The syslem whereby resources are allocated for agricultural researehln Colombia Is par! of a natíonal plann!ng process, whose line of authorlty ¡neludes the National Council of Socioeconomk Policíes (CONPES), the Planning Office of Ihe Agricultural Sector (OPSA), and the Colombian Institu!e of Agriculture (ICA) ¡!salt. The infermation related to thís systern is íncluded in 'he annual budget proposals and in the tour-vear investment plans of the aforementioned institutions. Competitlon for researeh resourees beglns al the Intersectorlal and sectorial k>vels (heal'th, public works, agrio ... llure, etc.) and al lhe level of entllles (INCORA! IDEMA! ICA, etc.). Nevertheless, a't the level of entitíes, researeh resourees must also compete wíth resources for other programs tha! ICA carríes out (such as Ihe adoptien of technology and edue.tion) in addilíon· lO operatlng expenses. In the area of researcn alone, resources compele among dlfferent projects (rice, beef caftle, etc.); and within these projects, the same Occurs at the aclivity level (breading, crop practices, etc. l. At the ¡ntersectorial leVél (agriculture, publíc works, etc. l and al the sectorial level (IDEMA, ICA, etc.), the criteria for a!loeallons are primarlly assoelatad wlth (1) the relative yield of ¡nvestments In the socloeconomic sectors, (2) the availability of resources, (3) allocations made in previous year., and (4) Gov .... nment ob¡i!Ctives and goals as expressed In development plans. Al the program level (raseareh, adopllon of technology, etc.) and at the project level (rice, cotton, etc.), the eriterl. are prescrlbed by sectorial The Colom~ao ¡nstitule of Agrarian Rerorm ONCORA) and the Jnstitute for Agrkultunl Marketing (IOEMA). 33 ( policies and Government goals, prlmarily In rel.tion to 'n Increase in productive employment and" inceme, the equitable dlstribution of the same, improvement in productivlty and lOn increase in the productlon of agricultural commodities, improvement of commodity marketing, inerease and diversification of exports, trainlng of smal! farmer. and the promotion of Iheir organization, and the adequate development and censervation of natural resources. Tne aforementioned criteria are complemented by specific commodity-oriented studies and aspeCts related 10 o!loc.tions made In prevlous years and resulls obtained In researeh programs. At the level of activllies and regions, the eriterla refer 10 (1) the degr. . of p a refined modal for eomparing alternatives and detarmlnlng priorities in rasearcn resource allocation 2, Make tnis general modal adaptable for differenl cases according to the availabllity of Information; Ihat is, it should not be a rlgld model. 3, Explore new criteria to be used In determlning priorilies 4, Explore alternate crlteria, wniéh althougn orlented towards fulfilling the same goals, may have belter eharacterislics of objectMty or measurablllty 5. Develop eriteria permltting belter assignment of relativa weights for Ihe differen't alternatlves wilhin eaeh criterion, as well as for eseh eriterion 6. Discuss possible wsys of quan'tifylng (wlthln the framework of the crlterla) the Importance of the different "support programs" that play sueh an importanl role In agricultural researeh. For obvious reasons, II Is more difficult to inelude these programs as measurable alternatives lo be eompared with produclion programs. Their priority Is, in many instances, condltloned lo prlorillas of o'!her programs, where they recelve different emphasls. For this reasoo, 'prioritlas for support programo are determined after priorities for production programs have been defined, 7. Highlight the need for finding better ways of measuring the raturn to research in such a way that eost-benefil eriteri. can be used more frequently to evaluate different alternativas, lt would be useful to develop the lools fer determining the function of the benefits of researeh in dlfferent cases. 38 MEC'liANISMS FOR ALLOCATING RESOURCES IN APPLlED AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AT EM8RAPA IN 8RAZIL A. S. Lopes Neto Tne Brazilian Agricultural Researen Company (EMBRAPA) is the Mlnistry of Agriculture's tool for promoting the coordinatlon of all applied researeh in Brazil. . At present, Inis is a historie moment in whieh bolh institutional and operatlve transformations are radical and profound. Tnese transformations are being earried out Ihroughoul Ihe exisling structure at lhe national level, at Ihe same time as a new approaeh was being adoPled in agrieultural researeh. Nevertheless, EMBRAPA's managers are Irying lO minimiza rlsks and disseminale, as far as possible, new ideas that are being introduced. In addition lo nol hindering the continuity of on9Oing researeh, it was considered essential Ihat the company implanl two point.: the effectiveness of the operative system and the definition of a policy in regaro to human resources. Tne operative system is supporled by two olhers: Ihe institutional 'ystem and the planning syslem, whích were already intreduced at ,Ihe nalional level and together form the new approach of applied agricultural research systams in Brazi!. These two sys'tems are explained in detall In the papér presented during the workshop. In addltion to thls, Ihe original paper presents a historie synlhesls of the evolution of Brazilian agricultural researeh and the bases for the ereation of EMBRAPA. It should be mentloned thal EMBRAPA was inslitu'ted on Mareh 28, 1973, and ls therefore a very young enlerprise. As far as decision-making ls concerned, the following basie policy tools orlenting national agriculture stand out: (1) The National Plan for Socloeconomie De_elopment and (2) The Basic Plan for Scientifie and Technological Development. 39 On the basis of these two plans, EMBRAPA defines its course 01 aetion and priorities at the national, regional, state and local or institutional level. EMBRAPA's plan of work and its budget are analyzed and approved by the National Agricultural Researen, Teehnical Assistance and Rural Extension Commission (COMPATER). As regards mechanism~ for resource alloeation at the level of EMBRAPA, the documen't altempts to define the Indicativa Plan 01 Agricultural Researcn and the National Program 01 Agricultural Reseoreh. During the workshop, it was put on record Ihat EMBRAPA has limited experience as regards mechanisms for resouree alloeation. In the interim, they are in the process of defining parameters and methods on a scientifie basis in order to carry ou't this allocation. As far as defining researeh priorilies is con cerned, Ihree basic and closely related factors are taken into consideration: growth, equity and reduction of risk. In addition to Ihese, fourteen addilional critefia were considered importan! in the definition 01 priori'ties and resouree allocation for researeh. These were ¡he importance 01 the eommodity, its ro!e in nutrilion, price elastieity of demand, its ro:e in the balance of payments, the possibility 01 en immediate response (margin of return l, the industrial demand, price movement, aveilebllfty and use of rescurces, possible beneficiaries, regional equity, risks and uncertainties, the technology empioyed (known and potential l, the competitive capacity in the produetion of teehnology, and the possibility of importing and adapting technology. At presen!, EMBRAPA is attempting to obtain the data necessary to be able !O utilize all the aforementioned criteria, as we:! as lO define aclaquate methodology lor the evaluation and control 01 researeh activit!es carried out in Brazil. 40 THE DECISION·MAKING PROCESS FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH A. Grooman Tne prlvate flrm In Ine agribusiness sector undertakes researen far the express purpose of developlng marketable produets, which eontrlbute to Its growth through addad revenues. Competition creates the need for Innovation and researeh, but the seareh for new produets transcends 'this simple explanation. This continued quest in research in the modern firm is par! of its very reaSOn for existence nowadays, as research has beeome en integral part of ¡he operational structure of the firm and one of the foundations of its profit expeclations, which should be considerad as society's payment for the firm's service in carrying it out. New product development 15 not a simple proposition; it entails risks. Management is aware of il and tries to evaluate the nature and magnitude of the risk. After quantifying il and eomparing il 10 profit opportunities, management makes the decision on en acceptable level of eommltment of the firm's resourees In researeh and development leading lo the production of neW praducts and proeesses. Products or processes are objectives of private researeh; but as opposed to resulls of publie or institutional researeh, the requirement of selabillty of the produet or process is essentiaJ. The product ha. alife cycle eharaeterized by v.rious phases or stages-sueh aS (a) In!roduetion, (b) growth, (e) ma'turity, (d) saturation, and (e) decllne--ld ;nelode (1) goal$ of rasearcn, (2) Natíonal Program logic, (3) delínaalion of researeh areas, (4) background enelysis, (5) researcn program analysis, and (6) summary and anelysis. While en approaen to ereating nalíonal programo is suggested, Ihe principal guide must be one of flexibility. A strong central control of the proc:_ is recommended, bul identificalian af rasearen needs and Ihe data for analysis must be supplied en'tirely by the experls. ,1 52 RETURNS TO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN COLOMBIA l. Ardila, R. Hertford, A. Rocha and C. Trujülo This paper presants resvlt. of ovr studies of tha economie ralvrns to varietal improvement of rice, cotton, wheat and soybeso. io Colombia. Following recerrt aoalyses which indicated that social rates of returo to public iovestmeot io agricultural researeh have been exceediogly high in the Uoited States, as well as in Brazil and Mexico, the maio hypothesis tested was that retvrns to the four Colombian programs had been eqval to at leasl 50 percant. Rates of tnis magnitvde, of eourse, wovld point to significant vnderinvestment in agricvltural researeh sinee the opportvnily cost of public funds in Colombia­ really the rate of return the Government eovld anticipate earning on additional pvblic investment in the average, already active projeel-has been estimated to eqval 10 percant. The methodology vsed to tesl lhe hYPolhesis of high returns was developed by aconom!st. a ,long time ogo and was used in 011 previous studies of returns to agricullural researeh. 1I associated the benefits of a researcn program wilh a .hift io product supply or a dacrease in the eosls of producing a given output as a result of farmers adopting higher yielding, improved seeds geoerated through a program of varlelal improvement. Total benefits inelude galns to eonsumers resuJting from Ihe commodity's lower priee, as well as gains to producers <$ssociated witn lower production eosts. For porposes of exposition, tnase tolal benefits for any year can be approximated by the term kV, where k is the supply .hift parameter or the percentage change in average, on-farm prodvetion cosls due to researen and V is eonstant priee measure of the total value of produetion of the commodity under examinaUon. This measure of benefits is reduced eaen year by the price-adjusted cests of the r_reh program (C), and a rale of interest is then found which makes discounled net beneflls (kV - e) zero valued over lhe relevanl time perlod. That rate is Ihen taken to be Ihe net internal rate of return to the researen ~ programo i The supply shift p.rameter, k, was estimated as the product of two separate '\ variables: a difference in yields, termed lhe yield advantage, betweén Iwo \ 53 farm plots (one belng planted enlirely with Ihe impreved ,eeds and the other with the unimproved varieties) and the percentege of cropland planted wlth improved varletie •• The yie:d advantage was actually estimated from ragressions of yields (from on-farm trials edministered by the research progrem staff) On a series of key independent variables, including the variety of seed planted. ln this way the yield effects of different seed types were not mistaken for effect. of other production factors. The second variab:e, the parcentage of cropland planted wlth improved varieties, was calculated as a function ef available data on annual sales of certifjed seads. Given this estimatlon procedure, larger yleld advantages and/or higher parcen'tages of cropland p:anted with improved varíetie. are obvlously associated with larger values of k, as well as larger net benefits and higher rates of retum. Thus, differences in rates of return among programs can be a!tributed directly to differences in yield advantages of improved varieties and observad levels of usa or adoption of the new seeds. The yield advantage, of course, is technically and biologícally determined, while socioeconomlc factors and the structure and organization of produclion are usually primary determinants of the amount of cropland planted with improved seeds. Within this framework, two other variables also assist I~ explaining differenees in ea!eulated rates 01 nlturn to individual research programs. These are revealed by rewriting the simple definition of net benefits as V(k - C/V). It Is seen that an agricultural research program whích is costly -in relation to the value of the fina' output of the eommodity worked on will be associated wi'h lower net benefits and a lower rate of raturn, other conditions being equal. Similarly, the less important the commodity in terms 01 its domestic value of produelion, the lower is its rate of return. The main results of the paper are summarized in Tab:e 1. Aithough rates 01 return calculated for the rice and soybean researeh programs were found to have exceeded the 50 parcent level by a wide margin, it is sean that returns to wheat improvement turned out to be rather modest and that those for cotton research were negligible. The high returns to soybean researeh were attributed prineipaliy to the rapid and hlgh levels of adoption of 1he Improved vaÑetles. Thls striking adoption pattern was, in turn, attributed to a strong demand for the product, the geographie eoncentratíon of producers whích facilitated rapid diffusion of information about the new seeds, and the fae'!: that soybean farmers are among Colombia's most progressive. Although the high returns to varietal improvement in rice were partly explalned by the yield advantage of the new varle'tles, their levels of adoption and the overal! Imporlance of rice production. 'they were mostly credited ·10 54 Tibie 1. Colombia; Selected comparatl"" data on the rice, cotton, w ....t anel soybean varlatal ImpI_. ....t programs Concept Uni! Rice Cotton Wheat Soybeans Estimaled nel internal rales of return Percent 60-82 O 11-12 79-96 Eslimated value of 'the $upply .hifl parameter, 1971 Pereent 10-16 16 17-35 Estímated yield advatnage, 1971 Percent 25--39 46 17-36 land area p~anted with improved varieties, 1971 Percen! 41 100 35 98 To lal reseárch costs! value production, 1968-1971 Pereent 0.5 0.1 3.0 0.1 Average yields, 1971 Colombia/United Slales Ratio 0.68 1.03 0.53 1.01 ~ Ihe facl Ihat the rlee program tapped an accumulated stock 01 plant-breeding capital through collaborative agreements with two International centers (CIAT and IRRI) and the World Colle<:lion of Rice malntained by the U. S. Department of Agrlculture. These sources 01 informalion, know-how and planl materials hastened the dlscover\! of new varleties al minlmal cesl to the national programo l..0wer returns 10 wheal researeh dld not rellect obvious technlcal lallures in plant breedlng. On Ihe contrar\!, the estimated yleld advantage of lhe improved wheat variet;es was the highest among lhe programs analyzed. However, adoption of the new varietles was laggard; from the lime thay were flrsl sold commercially in 1953 unlil they were plantad on 25 percenl of all whealland, fully 12 vean elapsed. Furlhermore, rates of adoption peaked al 50 pereenl in 1968 and then began a downward trend. Thls slow uptake 01 lhe new saeds, thelr currently low levels of use, and the dlstressing downward trend In reeent adoptlon paltern. were attributed to certaln socioeconomic conslraints on wheat production, nOI Ihe least 01 which were large and suslained Imparts 01 wheat under P. L. 480, which depressed the domestic market. The higo relative costs of the program In Its later life, the 10w value 01 wheat production in Colombia, and a long "dry perlod" of pub:ic Investments in research before new var'ieties were released also foreed down Ihe estimated rate of return. Colton was a spacial case. On-farm ylelds inereased sharply, partly as a resull 01 the rapid adoption of Improved U. S. varletle• . Ye'!, it was eoncluded that the natlonal researen program should not ba credited with these galns, essentlally beca use of the nature of Its actlvities and objectives. It was deslgned only to impart, tastlocallv and distribute to Colomblan farme,. the hlghest yieldlng U. S.' vadetles. The premisa was tha! yie:ds 01 U. S. colton grown in Colombia would vary by type or varlety; thus, a payoff was anticipated Irom an effort which Identlfled Ihose variatie. yielding best under local conditions. However, careful examlnation of over 500 cornmercial field trials performed in Colombia dld no! uncover significan! differences in yields of the improved U. S. varietles. Therefore, it was concluded that the main activity of Ihe researeh program was unneeessary. U. S. va,ielles could jusI as well have been selected at random lor dislribution to local farmers. 56 AN ECONOMIC MODEL FOR ESTABLlSHING PRIORITIES FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND A TEST FOR THE BRAZILIAN ECONOMY /. P. Ramalho de Ct1Jltro G. E. Schuh The potential contribution of technical change to agrieultural development has besn recognized for sorne time now. Only recently, however, has it besn fully appreciated that technlcal change can take alternativa routes in its resource-saving effects and that the particular route that it takes is ~ondltioned by relative factor seareities. This immediately lmplles the concept of en efficJent pa!h for technleal change and suggests the importance of allocating searce research resources in such a way as to direct technleal change along this economically effiden! path. Al'lhough the notion of an efflcient pa!" for techniea! change (in the resource dimension) Can serve as an important basi. for a!loeatJng research resources, thl. in itoelf lo no! sufficient. Technical change has important income dJstribution consequences. In the first place, the extsnt to which its benefits accrue to the consumer or 'to the producer depends to a great extent on the conditions of supply and demand for tne producto In additlon, the extent to whlcn the benefllS that do accrue to the producer are dlstrlbuted among particular factors of production will depend on botn the "dlreetion" which the technioal change is taking (in the resouree dimenslon) and the conditlons of supply and demand in the individual factor morkets. The study is directed to the problem of developing and testíng a model which would provide a' basis for establishing prlorities for agricultural researen. '-'., The paper is developed in four seetíons. The first seCtlon contains the " conceptual model. The empirical results are reported In the .eeond seetion, \"nd lhe economie and policy implications of these resu/ts are diseu.sed irh Ihe thlrd section. Finally a revlew of principal conelusions is presentad. 57 The ba.ic ana!ytical modal i. bullt up within a framework that considers lhe dis'tribution of the benefits from tedmical change between producer. and consumers and their distribution among the faetors of productlon, given Ihe producers' share of beneflls. The direction of research is postulated as a funetion of relalive factor prices. A two-sector general equílibrium model is used to analyze the adjustmsnt problem among sectors as technical change proceeds, • Allocation decisions with raspeet to agricultural researeh are generally made on a crap basls, taking into aecaunl whether and in what proportions resourees should be allocated to speeific erops, The analysis of the present $!udy i$ designed in par! to previde information which will help in declsion­ making based On the assumption that the 10lal flow of benefils expected from a given technological change is importanl and tha! policymakers or research managers have some nolion of the exlent thay desire 'to benefit producer. and consumero. The principal conclusions of the analysis are 1. The choice of products which should have priority in the researeh effort will depend upon government goals: a, If the goal is to increase income in Ihe agrieultural sector, the products to be .elected are Ihose w;,h a high price elasticity of demand, An important group of 5uch products are those with a comparative advantage in world markets, 5uch as cOlton and sugar eane. b, II the goal is to inerease the income and employment 01 farm labor, the choice would be the same product •. e, If Ihe goal is to increase COnSUmlír welfare, the producls to be considerad must be those witn a low price elasticity 01 demand, such as eorn, rice, edible beans and cassava, d, If the goal is lo enlarge agrículture's eontribution lO general' economic development, Ihe choice will depend upon the prevailing eonslraint al the particular time. 11, for example, the constraint is capital, the producl' to be selected ara those which give the greater Ilow of gros. benefit.; namely, coro and rice, On the .other hand, jf the constraiot is foreign exhange earning., cotton and sugar cane would be higher on Ihe priorily list, 2, The resull. $uggeot thal the bulk 01 researen should 90 lO increase land produetivity, However, there is room for research on 'the 58 ; subfunetion of labor if the researeh is dlrecled 'to aetivities which are not strongly labor displadng (for example, researeh wilh traetors to improve land preparation l. 3. The resvlts obtained In estimatlng the parameters of the produetion funetion with time series dala svggest a ba.lc changa look place in production tecnnology In the early 1960's. Modern inpul. sveh a. fertilizar and machlnery have suootituted Ine primary Inputs whien they prevlously complementad. 4. Finally, the problem of adíustment In the labor market between the agricultural and nonagricultural sectors Is expectad to be sizable if researeh Is directed to the erap. with • low priee e:astícity of demand, sueh as eorn, rice, adible beans and cassava, even If the researen is basically designad to improve land produclivi'ty. On the olher hand, il researeh is diredad to expon-oriented erops, such as cotton and sugar cane, the demand for labor wlll be expactad to inerease even if the researeh is focusad on land subfunction. It could also increase the demand for labor If focusad on the labor subfunction as well, as long as the technic.1 changa tha! resulls Is nol strongly labor displacing. \ 59 A 'ROPOSEO MODEL FOR IMPROVING THE INFORMATlON BASE FOR RESEARCH RESOURCE ALLOCATION P. Pinstrup.Andersen, R. O. Dím, M. Infante and N. R. de LondofúJ In order to establísn sound researen priorities, informatian is neadad on expeetad benefits, cosls and time requirements for eaen of the línes of researen considerad. Priorities in .pplíed agriéultural researen are frequenlly eSlablíshed on the basis of very limited informalion on existing problems and their relative economic importanee in the produetion process. Because of Ihis siluation, sOrne researen may be irrelevant ~o aelual farm problems and resea"h resulls may nOI be adoplad. A eontinuous flow of information lo Ihe researen manager on the potentla¡ gain. in production, produetivity and risk involved in alternative raseuen aetivities, as well as the farmers' preferences witn raspeet to new technology, is likely to be useful lo assure tnat new technology corresponds to the farmers' needs and preferenees, thereby aecelerating adoption and inereasing researcn pay-off. Such an inlormation Ilow may consist 01 a conlinuous feedback of information from 'the farmer through the exlension service to the researeh institulions. Direct contaet between researehers and farmers through meeting., farm visits, etc. would be another effective vehíc:e for such informalion. To eomplement dIese, we are suggesling a third method. This method consisb of a comblnation of agro-economic surveys and agroblological experiments. The agro-economle survey a!templs to transmlt to the research manager the farm-Ievel demand for applíed agricultural resea"h through the establishment of a direct link betw6en the farm and the researeh ins'tltute. 60 Attempts are made to describe certaln key aspects of tne structure, performance and results of tne production prOCess, the farmer's objectives, and ¡he inleraclion among tnese faclors. Emphasis is plaeed upon identifying the principal factors limi'ting production and produetivity and estimating the implications of ehanging these factors. A small specialized team of agronomists and e<:onomists oblsin primary data f, om a panel of farms expected lO be representative of the farms for which agrobiologieal researen is ¡n tended. The field team makes periodie visits (normally :J..4) lO eaeh farm throughout a complete erop cyele. About half of ¡he time on the farm is spenl in the freid, eollecling dala on agroblological issues (by direct observation), wnile tne otner naif is used 10 inlerview-\he farmer. Direct participation of a highly qualified muJlidisciplinary research team in the training and field execution phases is essential to the suecass of the survey. The field teams working on the on90in9 CIAT agro-economic surveys have reeaived three to four montns of presurvey training in direct contael with the sdentists from the relevanl disciplines. The agro-eeonomic survey provldes an estimate of the area affected by each of the problems iden'tlfied. Furthermore, it gives an indicalion of the yield depressing affect. However, il Is frequently difficult to estimate the yleld impact from survey data wlth a grea! deal of aceuracy; henee conlrolled experiments are earrled out 'to help quantify the yield Impact of the problems. In addi'tion to aggregaling the data for the purpose of presenting a de.criplion of the process, emphasis ;s plaeed on estimating the eeonomic ,Ioss caused by eaeh of ¡he agrobiological and ecological factors, sueh as disease, inseets, weeds, soi! deficiencies and adversa rainfall eonditions, and the implicatlons of changing these factors. Furthermore, eslimatlon Is made of (1) production coslS and labor absorption by production aetivi'ty, (2) net returns to the process for each of the principal cropping systems, (3) the contributlon of each of Ihe principal resourees to nel returns and (4) the faetors influencing the fermer's decision-making in referenee lo 'Ihe adoptíon of new technology and the choice of eropping "ystem. Projects are eurrenlly under way in Co:ombla to field tesl the above methodology for malze, cassava and beans. Allhough Ihe information obtalned from these empirical slUdies is expected to be us&ful to Co!ombian nalienal " inslitutions and CIAT, the primary purpose of Ihe work Is to develop and test a simple methodology for usa by nalional researeh agencies in Latín America a~ eloewhere. The paper presento a few preliminary results of this work to illústrate 'the kind of information provided by Ihe agro-economic survey. 61 f In addition lo the expeeted utility of the information made avaHable by the 8gro-economic analyses, the work provides a valuable training opporlvnily fur young agronomisls and economisls inlerested in produclion. No claims are made Ihal the agr<:>-economic survey is a new ¡nvention. However, cerlain aspects of the work discussed aboye tend to distingvísh il from tradilional farm surveys and hopefully make il more useful for establishing priorities In applied agriculturai research. These aspeels are (1) A considerable proportion of 'he data are obtained from direct field observalions made by agronomists pnevlou~ly traíned for tnls ¡ob; (2) each farm ls vlslled perlodically during a complete growing seasotí; (3) the work Is mvltldisclplinary in nature and involves direct participatlon by professlonals from all the relevant disciplines; (4) the work Is .pacifically fucused on provlding information needed lO eslablish researeh prioritles. Although the information may be useful for olher purposes, such utility is considered secondary. 62 LlST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ALVAREZ-LUNA, EDUARDO, Assoeiate Director General, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. AMPUERO, ENRIQUE, Director General, INIAP, Apartado 2600, Quito, Ecuador. ARDILA V., JORGE, Economlst, Office of Planning, ICA, Apartado Aéreo 7984, Bogctá, D.E., Colombia. BRADY, NYLE e., Director, Internatianal Rice Research Institute, IRRI, P. O. Box 933, Manila, Philipplnes. BYRNES, FRANCIS C., Leader, Trainlng and Communlcatian, CIAT, Call, Co­ lombia. CHAVERRA G., HERNAN, Director of Plannlng, IC A, Apartado Aéreo 7984, Bogotá, D.E., Colombia. DIAZ, RAFAEL ORLANDO, Researcn Assoeiote, Economics, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. DOW, KAMAL J., Economist and Heed, Technical Assistance Mission of the Universiy of Florida, INIAP, Apartado 2600, Quito, Ecuador. FISHEL, WALTER LEE, Syslems and Computer Seientist, Progr'am Analysis and Coordination, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agricultura, Room 209, North Building, BARC-W Seltsville, Maryland 20705, U.S.A. FRANCIS, CHARLES A., Leader, Small Farm Systems Program, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. FRANKLIN, DAVID L., Systems Engineer, Leader, Biometrics Unit, CIAT, Call, ". Colombia. FIAANSEN, JAMES M., Agricultural Researeh Adviser, International Bank for \. Reconslruction and Development, 1818 H. Stresl, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. 63 ,. GIRON, ALFREDO GUILLERMO, Eeonomis't, Internalion&! Potato Center (CIP), Apartado Post!\l 5969, la Molina, Lima, Perú. GROBMAN, ALEXANDER, Director of Research and Development for Latin America, Northrup, King & Co., Avenida Arequipa 340, Of. 601, lima 1, Perú. GUERRA, GUILLERMO, Eeonomist, lnteramerican Institute for Agricultural $cieneos, Apartado Aéreo 11185, Lima 14, Perú. HERTFORD, REED, Program Advisor, Ford Foundation, 320 East 43rd Street. New York, NY 10017, U.S.A, INFANTE, MARIO A., Researeh Assodate, Economics, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. KOZUB, JACQUES J" Chief, Agricultural Economics Saetion, Interamerican Development Bank, 808 17th Str. .! , N.w., Washington, D.C. 20577, U.S.A. LOPEZ NETO, AUGUSTO SIMOES, Technieal Department of Planning Methods, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria, EMBRAPA, SBN Palacio do Desenvolvimento, 9'1 Andar, Sala 908, 70.000 Brasilia, D.F., Brasit MARI:r\rO NAVAS, RAFAEL, Director General. ICA, Apartado Aéreo 7984, Bo­ gotá, D.E., Colombia. MERRILL, WILLIAM C., Agricultural Economist, AJO, Room 2246, N.S. Department of State, Washington, D.e. 20253, U.S.A. MONGE, FERNANDO, Leader, Library and Information Sarvice., CIAT, Cali. Colombia. NESTEL, BARRY L., Associate Director, JDRC, Apartado Aéreo 53016, Bogotá, D.E., Colombia. NICKEL, JOHN L., Director General, CIAT, Calí, Colombia. PAEZ, GILBERTO, Head, Dapartment of Quantitative Methods, EMBRAPA, Pe­ ·Iado do Desenvolvimento, 9'1 Andar, Sala 908, Brasilia, D.F., Brasil. PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN, PER, Leader, Economics Unit, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. RECA, LUCIO G., Head, Economic Research Division, Banco Ganadero Argen­ tino, Juncal 735, Buenos Aires, Argentina. RAMALHO de CASTRO, JOSE P., Economist, Minlstry of Agriculture, A.T.E" 9'1 Andar, 70.000 Brasilia, D.F., Brasil. • ó4 · RUTTAN, VERNON W., President, Agricultural Development Couneil, 630 Flfth Avenue, New York, NY 10020, U.S.A. SCHUH, G. EDWARD, Senior Staff Economist, Coundl of Economic Advisors, Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. SCOBIE, GRANT M., Economist, CIAT, Call, Colombia. SOTO ANGL!, JOSE, Training Officer, Interamerican Development Bank, 808 17th Street, N.W. Of. A 384, Washington, D.C. 20577, U.S.A. STEPPLER HOWARD A., Professor of Agronomy, McDona!d College, McGill University, Sto Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canad •. TOLLlNI, HELIO, Economisl, Mlnislry of Agriculture, A.T.E. Sala 908, 70.000 Brasilia, D.F., Brazil. TWOMEY, MICHAEL, Economist, Interoational Potato Center (C1P) Apartado Postal 5969, Lima, Perú. VALDERRAMA CH., MAR10, Director, Division of Agricultural Economics, ICA, Tibaitatá, Apartado Aéreo 151123 (El Dorado), Bogotá, D.E., Colombia. VALDES, ALBERTO, Economist, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. t 65 FECHA DE DEyOLUCION