EPTD DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 109 Environment and Production Technology Division International Food Policy Research Institute 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A. September 2003 EPTD Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results, and are circulated prior to a full peer review in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment. It is expected that most Discussion Papers will eventually be published in some other form, and that their content may also be revised. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND RURAL POVERTY: THE CASE OF RICE RESEARCH IN INDIA AND CHINA Shenggen Fan, Connie Chan-Kang, Keming Qian, and K. Krishnaiah i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project entailed the assistance of a number of people in collecting the data and in revising earlier versions. We wish to thank Professor Wang Shumin (Crop Institute), Guixia Qian and Chunghong Qu (Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences) for compiling the data we needed and aiding the interpretation of these data. We also thank Professor Yuan Long Ping (China National Hybrid Rice Research and Development Centre) and Graham McLaren (IRRI) for their guidance, council, and practical assistance. We are most grateful to Peter Hazell (IFPRI), Philip Pardey (University of Minnesota), Jock Anderson (World Bank), Melinda Smale (IFPRI), David Dawe (IRRI), and Jikun Huang (CCAP) for their useful comments in earlier drafts. ii ABSTRACT The study attempts to measure the total benefits from rice varietal improvement research in China and India using variety adoption and performance data over the last two decades. It then uses genetic or pedigree information to partition the total benefits between these two countries and IRRI. Finally, the study uses reported elasticity of poverty reduction with respect to agricultural output growth to assess the effects of national and international research on poverty reduction in rural India and China. The results indicate that rice varietal improvement research has contributed tremendously to increase in rice production, accounting for 14�23 percent of total production value over the last two decades in both countries. Rice research has also helped reduce large numbers of rural poor. IRRI played a crucial role in these successes. In 1999, for every $1 million invested at IRRI, more than 800 and 15,000 rural poor were lifted above the poverty line in China and India, respectively. These poverty-reduction effects were even larger in the earlier years. iii Contents 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 2. Rural Poverty in China and India......................................................................................3 3. Rice Research and Rice Production..................................................................................6 4. Research Benefits and Contribution of International Research......................................10 5. Impact on Poverty ...........................................................................................................25 6. Conclusions.....................................................................................................................30 References...........................................................................................................................33 National and International Agricultural Research and Rural Poverty: The Case of Rice Research in India and China Shenggen Fan,1 Connie Chan-Kang,2 Keming Qian,3 and K. Krishnaiah4 1. INTRODUCTION Agricultural research played an important role in agricultural production and productivity growth in many developing countries. The Green Revolution in the 1960s in Asia is a typical case. High-yielding varieties released by national and international agricultural research centers substantially increased crop production in many Asian countries, which had powerful poverty reducing effects. The rural poor benefited directly from income increases as a result of production growth. In addition, rapid agricultural growth stimulated broader economic development that led to the regional economic boom of the 1980s and 1990s (Rosegrant and Hazell 2001). Thus, rural poverty also declined through these indirect effects in the region, and the predicted food shortage never occurred. While there have been many studies on the effects of the Green Revolution on production and productivity growth in the 1970s and 1980s, the question today is whether these national and international efforts will continue to have high payoffs in further growth in agricultural production.5 In addition, what role the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centers have played as a partner in this 1 Shenggen Fan is a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington ., 2 Connie Chan-Kang is a research analyst at the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington 3 Keming Qian is the director-general of the Institute of Agricultural Economics, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. 4 K. Krishnaiah is a former director of the Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad, India. 5 These studies include Hayami and Ruttan (1985) and Hazell and Ramasamy (1991). 2 process has not been well documented.6 Moreover, there have been few attempts to link agricultural research investments to rural poverty reduction.7 This study is designed to help fill these gaps using the case of rice in India and China. The study measures the impact at national levels, taking account of the important ways, direct and indirect, in which the poor can be affected. Information on the poverty effects of agricultural research investments will help national and international policymakers mobilize resources and set priorities for agricultural research in the future. India and China are the two most populous countries in the world, together accounting for more than 38 percent of the total population and almost 50 percent of rural residents. In spite of recent rapid economic growth in both countries, many people still live under the poverty line. India has an estimated 200 million and China 30 million rural people under the poverty line. However, if the poverty line of US$1 per day measured in purchasing power parity is used, China would have substantially more poor than the official figure. Using this line, China had more than 100 million rural poor in 1998 (World Bank 2000). Rice is a major staple food crop for many developing countries, not only as a main source of calories but also as an important source of income and employment for many farmers, particularly poor households. For developing countries as a whole, rice accounted for 34 percent of cereal area and 47 percent of cereal production in 2000. Rice is, in fact, the dominant cereal in China and India, occupying 35 and 45 percent of total cereal area 6 CGIAR, created in 1971, is an association of public and private members supporting a system of 16 international agricultural centers that work in more than 100 countries. CGIAR�s aim is to reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health, and protect the environment. 7 Evenson and Gollin (2002) estimated economic returns to varietal improvement of CGIAR research. 3 respectively in 2000. For that same year, rice accounted for 45 and 57 percent of total cereal production in China and India. China and India are the two leading rice-producing countries and have been so since 1961, the first year that data became available from FAOSTAT. In 2001, they jointly produced 53 percent of the world�s rice on 48 percent of world rice area. In China and India, rice is the most important food crop, accounting for about 30 percent of food energy intake (FAO 2002). The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has been collaborating with China and India for the past several decades. The major modes of collaboration have been joint research and exchanges of human resources, scientific information, and germplasm. We selected rice in these two countries to evaluate the total benefits from varietal improvement research, attempt to partition these benefits to IRRI and others, and estimate the contribution of rice breeding research to poverty reduction. In contrast to the traditional econometric approach proposed by Griliches (1957), this study uses extensive data on the adoption and performance of the rice varieties used by Chinese and Indian farmers to evaluate the total benefits from rice varietal improvement research. The study then relies on pedigree information to analyze how international agricultural research has contributed to productivity gains in Chinese and Indian rice production. Finally, the study uses the calculated benefits, together with poverty impact parameters reported in recent IFPRI studies, to assess indicatively how domestic and international rice research has contributed to poverty reduction. 2. RURAL POVERTY IN CHINA AND INDIA 4 Headcount ratio, the percentage of the population falling below the poverty line, is the most widely used measure of poverty incidence. The poverty line used in India is defined as 49 rupees per month at 1973�74 prices (Datt and Ravallion 1997). This poverty line is equivalent to $0.965 per person per day measured in 1993 purchasing power parity (PPP), only slightly below the $1 per day widely used for cross-country comparison by the World Bank and others. China adjusts its official poverty line annually (China State Statistics Bureau 1999). In 1990, the official poverty line was 300 yuan per person per year, equivalent to $0.67 per day measured in 1990 PPP. The poverty line was raised to 635 yuan in 1998, equivalent to $0.84 per person per day. Using these poverty lines, the incidence of poverty declined dramatically over the last several decades in both countries. In India, rural poverty fluctuated from 50 to 65 percent in the 1950s and early 1960s before beginning a steady decline from about two- thirds of the rural population in the mid-1960s to one-third of the rural population in the late 1980s. Rural poverty increased to about 40 percent in the early 1990s when economic policy reforms were initiated. Recent official data show that the poverty rate declined to 27 percent in 1999. The long downward trend in poverty in rural India from 1967 to 1999 coincided with several important developments. The rapid adoption of high-yielding varieties (HYVs), together with improved irrigation and the use of fertilizer, increased agricultural production and productivity sharply. This change in technology was a direct result of increased government investment in agricultural research and extension, infrastructure, irrigation, and education during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The increase in government 5 investments also improved nonagricultural employment opportunities and wages, which contributed to further reductions in rural poverty. For the past two decades, China achieved remarkable progress in reducing rural poverty. Following rural reforms, per capita income increased from 220 yuan in 1978 to 522 yuan in 1984 (1990 prices), an average growth rate of 15 percent per annum. The income gains were shared widely enough to cut the poverty rate by more than half. By 1984, only 11 percent of the rural population was below the official poverty line, compared to 33 percent in 1978. Because of equitable land distribution, income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient increased only slightly despite the sharp income increase observed between 1978 and 1984. From 1985 to 1989, rural income continued to increase, but at a much slower pace, averaging 3 percent per annum. This was due mainly to the stagnation of agricultural production after the reforms. By the end of 1984, the effects of fast agricultural growth on rural poverty were largely exhausted. Rural income distribution became less egalitarian, and the Gini coefficient rose from 0.264 in 1985 to 0.301 in 1989 (China State Statistics Bureau 1990). As a result, the number of poor increased from 89 million in 1984 to 103 million in 1989. Only in 1990 did rural poverty begin to decline again. The number of rural poor dropped from 103 million in 1989 to 34 million in 2000, equivalent to an average reduction of 9 percent per annum. The above discussion suggests that agricultural growth, including that spurred by agricultural research, plays a key role in reducing rural poverty. 6 3. RICE RESEARCH AND RICE PRODUCTION8 For thousands of years, farmers in Asia have improved their rice yields by selecting and saving seed from the higher yielding plants in local fields. Modern national and international rice breeding programs have developed more formal and structured methods in crossing and selecting improved rice varieties. The international exchange of genetic resources in various forms (landraces and advanced lines) has become an important feature of modern rice breeding. IRRI�s rice breeding program began in October 1961, and in the following year 38 crosses were made. IR8, released in 1966, changed the face of Asian agriculture with yields ranging from 6 to 8 t/ha in experimental fields. IRRI crosses grew in number and complexity over time, and by 1975, 29 IR varieties had been released. Breeding research gave greater emphasis to insect and disease resistance and adaptability to unfavorable environments, resulting in greater geographic spread, higher yields, and improved yield grain stability. In addition, newer varieties grew faster, meaning that they used less water, were exposed to field hazards for a shorter period of time, and facilitated multiple cropping. Rice research in India has a long history and has been one of the top priorities of the government-supported research program. Core activities of varietal development and related activities are performed by a number of research institutions: (i) the Directorate of Rice Research (DRR) and its funded centers (about 54) located across the country in all the states; (ii) the Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI) in Cuttack, Orissa, and its substations; and (iii) a half-dozen institutes affiliated with the Indian Council of 8 The history of international rice research draws heavily from various IRRI publications and Dalrymple (1986), while the evolution of Chinese and Indian rice research programs is drawn from their respective government documents. 7 Agricultural Research (ICAR). The state universities, such as those in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, and Punjab, are also conducting Rice research. The introduction of semidwarf varieties from IRRI to India occurred in 1964 when C. Subramaniam, Minister of Food and Agriculture, visited IRRI and was given seeds of new rice varieties that included TN-1. By 1966, IR8 and other IRRI lines were tested in various experimental fields in India. Shortly after their introduction, these IRRI varieties were crossed with local varieties, and by 1998 about three-quarters of the rice area in India was sown to HYVs (Indiastat 2002). Conventional rice breeding began in China in 1906. However, systematic and well-targeted breeding using rigorous methods did not start until 1919 when the Nanjing Higher Agricultural School and Guangzhou Agricultural Specialized School set up breeding programs. Following the establishment of the People�s Republic in 1949, the government paid greater attention to rice breeding. The development of the rice breeding program is characterized by three stages. During the first stage, from 1950 to the beginning of the 1960s, great efforts were made in the selection, evaluation, and use of local rice varieties. The second stage of rice breeding, from the beginning of the 1960s to the beginning of the 1970s, focused on the breeding of dwarf varieties.9 The third stage is characterized by the development of hybrid rice, in which China was a pioneer. Research on hybrid rice in China began in the mid-1960s, and in 1976 China became the first 9 After a farmer found a dwarf plant (only 70 cm tall) in 1956, Chinese scientists began the breeding program that led to the development of the first high-yielding dwarf variety of rice, Guang Chang Ai, in 1957, a few years before the foundation of IRRI (Shen 1980; Dalrymple 1986). Guang Chang Ai an Indica variety and its offspring were quickly adopted in southern China. The first semidwarf japonica variety introduced to China in 1957 was Nongken 58, a selection from a Japanese variety, which was crossed with various local varieties. 8 country to commercially use hybrid rice varieties.10 Since then, the area under hybrid rice has increased steadily. In 1981, hybrid rice accounted for 23 percent of total rice production, but two decades later it accounted for 61 percent of total production.11 The more formal IRRI involvement in China�s rice breeding program began in the 1970s although IR8 was introduced and tested in Guangdong in 1967. In the early 1970s, a delegation of Chinese officials visited the Philippines and was given a bag of rice seeds developed at IRRI. This marked the first formal cooperation between IRRI and China. As a result of these national and international efforts, rice crop production in both China and India has increased substantially for the past several decades. From 1961 to 2001, rice production grew at an average of 2.7 percent per year in India and by 2.6 percent per year in China, much higher than their respective population growth rates of 2.1 and 1.6 percent. Much of the increase in rice production was a result of a gain in yield. In India, yield increase accounted for 77 percent of the total increase in rice production, while in China almost all the production increase came from yield increase. In India, yield doubled from .15 t/ha in 1961 to .30 t/ha in 2001, while in China yield tripled from .21 to .63 t/ha over the same period (Table 1). The development of improved or modern rice varieties in conjunction with irrigation and the greater use of modern inputs (such as fertilizer and pesticides) have been instrumental in achieving these yield increases. 10 In 1974, professor Yuan Long Ping, from the Hybrid Rice Research Center in Hunan, and his team successfully developed the first hybrid rice variety. 11 China has never officially published rice output by type. The shares reported here are calculated by the authors using area-by-variety data from the Ministry of Agriculture. 9 T ab le 1 . T re nd s i n ri ce a re a, p ro du ct io n, a nd y ie ld Ite m 19 61 19 70 19 80 19 90 20 00 20 01 G ro w th ra te (% ) Ar ea h ar ve st ed (m ill io n ha ) In di a 34 .7 37 .6 40 .2 42 .7 44 .8 44 .5 0. 6 C hi na 27 .0 33 .1 34 .5 33 .5 30 .3 28 .6 0. 02 W or ld 11 5. 5 13 3. 1 14 4. 6 14 6. 9 15 4. 1 15 1. 5 0. 58 Pr od uc tio n (m ill io n t) In di a 53 .5 63 .3 80 .3 11 1. 5 12 9. 4 13 1. 9 2. 71 C hi na 56 .2 11 3. 1 14 2. 9 19 1. 6 18 9. 8 18 1. 5 2. 62 W or ld 21 5. 7 31 6. 4 39 6. 8 51 8. 2 60 0. 6 59 2. 8 2. 54 Yi el d (k g ha −1 ) In di a 1, 54 2 1, 68 5 2, 00 0 2, 61 3 2, 89 0 2, 96 4 2. 09 C hi na 2, 07 9 3, 41 6 4, 14 4 5, 71 7 6, 26 4 6, 35 0 2. 60 W or ld 1, 86 7 2, 37 7 2, 74 5 3, 52 9 3, 89 7 3, 91 2 1. 95 So ur ce : F A O (2 00 2) . 10 4. RESEARCH BENEFITS AND CONTRIBUTION OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH In this section, we quantify the economic impact arising from the development of improved rice varieties in India and China. We begin by estimating the total benefits from rice varietal improvement research irrespective of the sources of the gains. Next, we use genetic or pedigree information on each variety planted in the two countries to assess the contribution of IRRI to these benefits. ESTIMATION OF BENEFITS The economic benefits from rice varietal improvement research result mostly from the productivity gains that farmers experienced after adopting improved varieties. Typically, measuring these benefits is based on comparing a �with research� scenario to a counterfactual scenario (Heisey and Morris 2002; Pardey et al. 1996; Pardey et al. 2002). The first step toward measuring these benefits is to determine the gain in yield resulting from the development and adoption of HYVs. To isolate the genetic contribution of improved varieties to yield increase from other factors, we collected experimental yield data of adopted rice varieties in India and China.12 Experimental yields have the advantage of holding many of the variables influencing yields constant, and hence may provide a good approximation of the genetic contribution to yield gains. Empirical evidence shows that absolute yields achieved in experimental trials are higher than those in farmers� fields. However, it is uncertain whether relative yield gains in trials are also 12 Experimental yield data for China were obtained from the Chinese National Rice Research Institute in Hangzhou, China. Data for India are from the coordinated trials of AICRIP of the Directorate of Rice Research. 11 greater (Heisey and Morris 2002; Pardey et al. 1996). Here we assume that the proportional gains achieved in experimental trials are representative of the proportional gains realized by farmers. Using the experimental yield data, we selected numeraire varieties specific to each country. The numeraire should be a variety that was widely adopted in either China or India before the establishment of their respective rice research programs, and which has been grown as a control variety at research stations ever since. We then compute the yield premium of newer adopted varieties against the numeraire variety.13 Suppose that before variety B was released, it was tested against the numeraire variety, A. The yield premium of variety B is given by PB = (YB/YA)�1, where PB is the yield premium of variety B, YB the yield of variety B, and YA is the yield of the numeraire variety A. As the check variety used in experimental trials changes over time, we use the chain rule to link back to the numeraire variety A. Thus before variety C was released, variety B was used as a check variety. The yield premium of variety C over the numeraire variety A is given by PC = [(YC/YB�)*(YB/YA)�1 Note that YB and YB� are not equal since they are the yields of the same variety tested at different times. While the yield premium gives the relative gain in yield, the absolute yield gain of variety C against the numeraire variety A is estimated as follows: ∆YC = YC -YA = [PC ×YA] 13 Pardey et al. (1996) used a similar procedure. 12 The benefits for each variety are calculated by multiplying the yield gain by price, and again by area sown to the variety. For region R, year T, and variety I, the total benefits are simply the sum of those for all varieties and can be written as B = ΣI ∆YIR AI RTAPRT, where AIRT represents the area of variety I in region R at time T and APRT is the average of the counterfactual and actual producer price of rice at region R at time T. The counterfactual price captures the price-reducing effect of improved rice varieties, that is, what the price of rice would have been in the absence of the development and adoption of improved rice varieties. Under unitary demand and supply elasticities, the proportional shift in supply translates to the same proportional shift in prices. Assuming that the price of rice in 2000 was under a perfect market, we estimated the counterfactual and average price series as follows: CPRT = Pr2000 x (1 + krt) APRT = (CPRT + Pr2000)/2 where CPrt is the counterfactual price at region r and time t, Pr2000 is the price of rice in region r in 2000, and krt is the supply shift in region r and time t. Under neutral technical change with fixed factor proportions, the percentage increase in experimental yield PIRT translates into an equal, proportional, rightward shift in supply (Alston et al.1995, 339). Three major types of rice are planted in China, namely Indica, Japonica, and hybrid. Therefore, it is necessary to choose a numeraire variety specific to each type of rice. The numeraire variety we chose for conventional Indica rice is Bao Tai Ai, a variety released in 1959 by the Yulin Regional Agricultural Experiment Station in Guangxi. Due to data limitations, we choose Nongken 58, a variety introduced from Japan in the 1950s, as our numeraire for Japonica varieties. Since all early hybrid varieties had an IRRI 13 parent, the numeraire we chose for hybrid rice is Zhen Zhu Ai, a conventional Indica variety that does not have any IRRI ancestry.14 These numeraire varieties were all widely adopted and used as breeding materials for subsequent varieties. For India, we choose a numeraire variety specific to each state. These numeraire varieties were local varieties widely adopted by farmers in the early 1960s before the introduction of IR8 to India. The numeraire varieties used for each state are the following: Andhra Pradesh: HR67; Assam (Latisail, Bihar): N136; Gujurat (Mashuri, Haryana, Himachal, and Punjab): Jhona349; Karnataka: SR26 B; Kerala: Ptb 10; Madya Pradesh: Safri17; Maharashtra: Ratnagiri1; Orissa: T141; Tamil Nadul: CO25; Uttar Pradesh: Sarjoo49; and West Bengal: NC1263.15 Figure 1 compares rice farm yield and experimental yield achieved in India and China. Figure 1A shows that farm yield doubled from .15 to .3 t/ha in India from 1961 to 2001. In China, the observed increase in yield was even more significant, tripling from .21 t/ha in 1961 to .63 t/ha in 2001. Compared with farm yield, experimental yield increased substantially less over time in both India and China (see Fig. 1B). This is because the increased use of inputs such as fertilizer also contributed to farm yield, while the increased use of inputs has been controlled for in the experimental tests. 14 This was recommended to us by Professor Yuan Long Ping at the China National Hybrid Rice Research Center. 15 Our source of experimental yield data in India was AICRIP (All India Coordinated Rice Improvement Program). 14 Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C. Average farm field yield and experimental yield in India and China Source: Industry yield compiled by authors from FAOS (2002); authors from collected experimental yield data, compiled experimental yield, and yield gain. India China a) Farm Yield 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 19 61 19 63 19 65 19 67 19 69 19 71 19 73 19 75 19 77 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 (k ilo gr am p er h ec ta re ) b) Experimental Yield 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 19 59 19 62 19 65 19 68 19 71 19 74 19 77 19 80 19 83 19 86 19 89 19 92 19 95 19 98 (k ilo gr am p er h ec ta re ) c) Yield Gain 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 19 59 19 61 19 63 19 65 19 67 19 69 19 71 19 73 19 75 19 77 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 (p er ce nt ) 15 On average, experimental yield increased from .38 to .43 t/ha from 1967 to 2000 in India. For comparison purposes, TFP for the Indian agricultural sector as a whole barely budged in the 1970s but grew quickly in the 1980s and 1990s (Fan et al.1999). In contrast, Evenson et al. (1998) found that growth in TFP for the Indian crop sector slowed down during the 1980s. In China, after a rapid increase from .45 t/ha in 1959 to .66 t/ha in 1981, experimental yield increased little in the 1980s and 1990s, ranging from .65 t/ha to .68 t/ha. Similar to these trends, Rozelle et al. (2003) found that the TFP for rice increased little from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. Figure 1C shows the average yield gain over the numeraire variety. In China, the gain in yield resulting from new varieties accelerated from 1959 to the early 1980s and plateaued afterward. In India, the average gain in yield increased sharply from 1967 to the early 1990s, remained constant in the following years, and increased again in the late 1990s. Overall, the yield gain realized in China was higher than in India. In 2000, the average gain in yield with respect to the numeraire was 31 and 20 percent in China and India respectively. Table 2 presents the estimated benefits from rice research reported in constant 2000 prices. In India, the benefits from rice research increased from $3.9 billion in 1991 to $3.6 billion in 2000. In China, the benefits from rice research amounted to $5.2 billion in 2000. The source of these benefits changed significantly over time. 16 Table 2. Benefits from rice research China India Agricultural research Agricultural research Indica Japonica Hybrid All rice expenditures All rice expenditures (millions of 2000 US$) 1981 3,833 187 1,304 5,324 237 1982 4,674 187 928 5,789 246 1983 3,810 203 1,329 5,342 306 1984 3,225 204 1,917 5,347 349 1985 3,501 262 1,547 5,311 342 1986 3,293 305 1,520 5,118 347 1987 2,584 296 1,818 4,698 328 1988 2,566 362 2,540 5,468 384 1989 2,583 461 2,487 5,531 399 1990 2,474 433 3,378 6,284 361 1991 1,342 506 2,963 4,812 387 3,930 300 1992 1,944 718 3,352 6,014 454 3,916 299 1993 1,494 747 3,099 5,340 473 3,907 294 1994 1,805 682 3,194 5,681 506 3,842 310 1995 1,108 593 3,676 5,377 503 4,012 325 1996 1,581 632 4,163 6,376 522 3,587 333 1997 1,277 1,262 4,574 7,113 483 4,233 352 1998 1,284 907 4,658 6,849 573 4,217 361 1999 1,153 651 4,317 6,121 660 4,020 455 2000 849 650 3,729 5,228 3,615 Source: compiled by the authors. In 1981, Indica rice accounted for 72 percent of the total rice research benefits, while Japonica and hybrid rice accounted for 4 and 24 percent, respectively. In 2000, 72 percent of the rice research benefits were attributed to hybrid rice, whereas the share of Indica rice declined to only 16 percent and Japonica rice accounted for 12 percent. India�s research benefits as a share of total rice production value ranged between 20 and 24 percent between 1991 and 2000 (Table 3). In China, rice research benefits accounted for a similar share of rice production value, averaging 20.1 percent in 1981 and 17.1 percent in 2000. 17 Table 3. Rice research benefits as a share of production value China India Indica Japonica Hybrid All rice All rice (percent) 1981 24.5 3.8 21.8 20.1 1982 24.1 3.2 20.1 19.4 1983 21.2 3.5 17.9 17.2 1984 21.4 3.2 17.7 16.5 1985 23.6 4.2 16.3 17.4 1986 23.3 4.9 14.4 16.5 1987 21.0 4.6 14.3 15.0 1988 25.0 6.3 17.3 17.8 1989 24.7 6.6 16.3 17.0 1990 26.1 6.4 18.9 18.5 1991 17.7 7.5 15.9 14.6 23.9 1992 24.3 10.5 17.9 17.9 22.0 1993 23.1 10.9 16.6 16.7 21.5 1994 23.4 10.3 18.3 17.9 22.4 1995 18.3 10.8 16.9 16.2 21.9 1996 21.7 8.4 20.1 17.9 19.5 1997 23.0 13.6 20.7 19.2 21.7 1998 21.6 9.9 21.6 18.7 21.1 1999 19.7 7.0 20.1 16.7 21.1 2000 19.5 7.7 21.1 17.1 22.7 Source: compiled by the authors. BENEFITS ATTRIBUTION The use of IRRI varieties by the national agricultural research system falls within the following categories: (1) direct use of IR varieties under either direct IR names or local names, (2) direct use of IR breeding lines or crosses under either IR numbers or local names, and (3) use of IR varieties or lines as parents in local breeding programs. To gain some insight into IRRI�s impact in China and India, we first examined the share of rice area sown to varieties that have IRRI ancestry (Table 4 and Figure 2). In China, the share increased from 23 percent in 1981 to a peak of 65 percent in 1991, then declined to nearly 20 percent in 2000 in 1997. Table 4 and Figure 2 also reveal that the impact of IRRI in China occurred mostly through the use of IRRI varieties as breeding material rather than through direct adoption. 18 Table 4. Rice area planted with IRRI ancestors China India Year Direct With IRRI Total Direct With IRRI Total adoption ancestry IRRI (%) adoption ancestry IRRI 1981 0 23.0 23.0 1982 0.2 23.9 24.1 1983 0.1 29.3 29.4 1984 0.1 36.0 36.1 1985 0.0 38.7 38.7 1986 0.2 45.3 45.5 1987 0 49.6 49.6 1988 0 58.8 58.8 1989 0 56.2 56.2 1990 0 62.6 62.6 1991 0 64.9 64.9 23.2 38.8 62.0 1992 0 58.9 58.9 34.7 34.0 68.7 1993 0 54.7 54.7 21.0 41.6 62.6 1994 0 53.0 53.0 25.0 30.3 55.3 1995 0 53.6 53.6 20.8 37.3 58.1 1996 0 41.1 41.1 24.4 35.3 59.8 1997 0 36.8 36.8 21.9 41.7 63.5 1998 0 30.5 30.5 18.7 44.5 63.3 1999 0 27.2 27.2 15.3 44.8 60.1 2000 0 18.7 18.7 14.4 43.9 58.3 Source: compiled by the authors. 19 Figure 2. Area planted to IRRI varieties in China (A) and India (B) Moreover, IRRI contributed mostly to hybrid rice, whereas practically none of the Japonica varieties were bred with IRRI materials. In 1997, 50 percent of hybrid, 31 percent of Indica, and only 0.5 percent of Japonica varieties had an IRRI ancestor in their China 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 (p er ce nt ) India 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 (p er ce nt ) Direct adoption of IRRI varieties Varieties with IRRI ancestry 20 pedigree. In India, IRRI�s impact is found in both the direct adoption of IRRI varieties and the use of breeding materials from IRRI. In 2000, the area of varieties with IRRI ancestry (including direct adoption) accounted for nearly 60 percent of total rice area in India, and about 14 percent of the varieties adopted were IRRI-released. To attribute the shares of the rice benefits to IRRI, we followed the method described in Pardey et al. (1996), which developed various rules to attribute benefits to a specific research or breeding program, in this case to IRRI research. These rules take into consideration various factors involved in varietal development such as the recent versus the earlier research, and breeding efforts versus heritability of traits. The binary-parents rule gives full credit to IRRI if the two parents of a variety or any of its ancestors were IRRI-released. If only one set of parents was IRRI-released or had IRRI ancestry, then the variety was considered 50 percent IRRI. The all-antecedents rule assigns equal weights to the variety and each of its ancestors. Thus, if we trace the pedigree back to the grandparent level, the variety and each of its ancestors is given a weight of 1/7 if released by IRRI. The geometric rule assigns higher weight for the recent generations and lower weight for the early generations. The all-credit-to-last-cross rule takes only the last cross into account. Thus, if the variety was released by IRRI, it gets all credit; otherwise, it gets none. Finally, the any-ancestor rule gives credit to IRRI if a variety or any of its ancestors was released by IRRI. The all-credit-to-last-cross rule and the any-ancestor rule represent polar cases: the former is the most conservative rule and the latter is the least conservative. 21 Using these various attribution rules, we present in Table 5 the contribution of IRRI to the total benefits from rice varietal improvement research in India and China. IRRI accounted for a sizable share of rice research benefits in India. 22 T ab le 5 . R ic e re se ar ch b en ef its a tt ri bu te d to IR R I u nd er a lte rn at iv e at tr ib ut io n ru le s C hi na In di a B in ar y A ll an te - A ll cr ed it to A ny B in ar y A ll an te - A ll cr ed it to A ny pa re nt s ce de nt s G eo m et ric la st c ro ss an ce st ry pa re nt s ce de nt s G eo m et ric la st c ro ss an ce st ry (p er ce nt ) 19 81 14 .1 7. 6 5. 1 0. 0 23 .2 19 82 13 .8 7. 4 5. 0 0. 2 22 .8 19 83 17 .4 10 .5 6. 7 0. 2 28 .9 19 84 20 .9 13 .3 8. 2 0. 1 36 .8 19 85 21 .5 13 .0 7. 5 0. 1 36 .5 19 86 25 .9 12 .9 7. 0 0. 2 41 .7 19 87 31 .9 15 .0 7. 4 0. 0 50 .0 19 88 34 .6 14 .6 7. 0 0. 0 57 .9 19 89 31 .4 12 .3 5. 7 0. 0 54 .2 19 90 36 .1 14 .4 6. 6 0. 0 62 .1 19 91 39 .2 15 .0 6. 8 0. 0 68 .9 75 .3 40 .5 55 .2 63 .4 81 .0 19 92 33 .0 12 .5 5. 8 0. 0 59 .5 77 .2 41 .0 56 .4 65 .7 81 .8 19 93 31 .2 11 .2 5. 2 0. 0 57 .4 56 .5 27 .9 36 .8 40 .3 67 .4 19 94 28 .7 10 .2 4. 8 0. 0 53 .3 57 .0 28 .4 36 .8 40 .9 64 .9 19 95 27 .6 9. 1 4. 1 0. 0 50 .2 44 .7 19 .8 22 .1 20 .5 58 .6 19 96 21 .9 7. 3 3. 3 0. 0 40 .5 42 .6 20 .2 22 .5 19 .8 55 .7 19 97 18 .8 6. 1 2. 8 0. 0 35 .5 42 .0 20 .4 21 .1 17 .0 57 .1 19 98 16 .8 5. 3 2. 4 0. 0 31 .7 48 .3 24 .0 24 .3 19 .4 63 .8 19 99 16 .2 5. 0 2. 2 0. 0 29 .9 44 .9 19 .3 18 .1 13 .2 63 .0 20 00 11 .9 3. 8 1. 7 0. 0 21 .6 46 .8 20 .9 18 .6 11 .8 63 .5 So ur ce : E st im at ed b y th e au th or s. 23 With the any-ancestor rule, IRRI accounted for 81 percent of the rice research benefits in 1991 and for 63 percent in 2000. With the most conservative scenario (all- credit-to-last-cross rule), IRRI�s contribution was still important, accounting for 63 percent of the research benefits in 1991 and for 12 percent in 2000. According to the binary-parents, all-antecedents, and geometric rule, IRRI�s contribution to research benefits ranged from 18 to 77 percent from 1991 to 2000. In contrast, the share of the rice benefits attributable to IRRI was smaller in China. IRRI�s varieties were mostly used as breeding materials in China and were not directly adopted by farmers. As a result, the all-credit-to-last-cross rule gives overall 0 percent of the research benefits to IRRI. With the any-ancestor rule, IRRI�s share of research benefits was 23 percent in 1981, increasing to 69 percent in 1991, but declining gradually to 22 percent in 2000. With the geometric rule, IRRI�s contribution to total benefits ranged from 1.7 to 8.2 percent over the 1981�2000 period compared with 12 to 39 percent with the binary-parents rule and 4 to 15 percent with the all-antecedents rule. Table 6 compares the benefits and costs of IRRI�s research. The benefits attributed to IRRI using the geometric- attribution rule are presented next to IRRI�s total budget and China�s and India�s contribution to IRRI. 24 Table 6. International rice research benefits and costs Year Research benefits contributed by IRRI IRRI's Expenditures China India Total China's contribution India's contribution (thousands of 2000 US$) 1981 270,402 38,942 1982 290,109 40,761 187 1983 356,711 38,350 195 1984 440,074 40,429 150 188 1985 396,607 45,592 146 218 1986 356,467 42,435 171 178 1987 346,393 45,243 69 173 1988 383,977 41,395 67 166 1989 317,536 47,010 64 129 1990 415,284 51,668 62 124 1991 328,615 2,167,777 46,224 60 119 1992 348,260 2,206,824 48,616 93 117 1993 277,479 1,436,881 50,993 103 114 1994 270,443 1,415,077 44,631 100 112 1995 221,254 887,621 44,008 98 219 1996 211,383 807,302 42,877 96 187 1997 196,548 892,439 36,736 95 158 1998 165,085 1,022,552 36,310 na na 1999 136,553 729,510 35,875 na na 2000 88,924 671,972 32,600 130 158 Source: Research benefits are compiled by the authors. Only the very conservative attribution rule, geometric, was used here. IRRI expenditures from 1981 to 1997 are from the CGIAR secretariat; 1998 to 2000 expenditures are taken from the CGIAR 1999 financial report and the 2000 annual report, respectively. China�s and India�s contribution to IRRI from 1982 to 1997 are from IRRI�s �Facts about Cooperation⎯People�s Republic of China and IRRI� and �Facts about Cooperation⎯India and IRRI�; China�s and India�s contribution to IRRI in 2000 are from the IRRI 2000 annual report. na = not available. The geometric attribution is one of the most conservative rules, taking into account not only the recent crosses but also past breeding efforts. More weights assigned to the recent crosses than the earlier ones attribute more benefits to the national agricultural research system than to IRRI. Even using this conservative rule, the benefits from IRRI�s research in India and China well exceed both countries� contributions. In 2000, benefits attributed to IRRI are 684 times China�s funding contribution to IRRI while they are over 4,000 times India�s. The benefits from IRRI research in China were nearly threefold greater than 25 IRRI�s budget, while in India the benefits were 20-fold greater than IRRI�s total budget. Total benefits attributed to IRRI from China and India are $761 million in 2000. This amount is twice as large as CGIAR�s annual budget. 5. IMPACT ON POVERTY New technology resulting from agricultural research can help alleviate poverty in several ways. First, following the releases of new and improved cultivars, farmers can produce more output at the same cost (or the same level of output at a lower cost), which directly improve farmers� income (Kerr and Kolavalli 1999). Second, the diffusion of modern varieties resulted in lower food prices as demonstrated in a number of studies such as Ruttan (1977), Lipton and Longhurst (1989), and more recently Datt and Ravallion (1998). This is critical given that the poorest people spent a large share of their income on food. Third, the productivity consequences of improved varieties resulted in greater demand for labor and wages. Hossain (1988), for example, studied the effects of technological progress in rice cultivation in Bangladesh, and found that the poor benefited from the new technology as a result of greater employment opportunities as well as the upward pressure on wage rate in the labor market. This finding concurs with a number of past studies such as Jayasuriya and Shand (1986), Quizon and Binswanger (1986), Basant (1987), Acharya (1989), and David and Otsuka (1994). The benefits arising from rice varietal improvement research are distributed between producers and consumers. Producers gain from expanded production due to reduced production cost. On the other hand, they may lose due to lowered price. The net gain by producers can be either positive or negative. For consumers, their gain will always 26 be positive due to lowered price. This study focuses on the impact on rural poor. The benefits to urban poor can be equally large as Fan (2003), and Fan, Fang, and Zhang (2003) have shown. Therefore, our estimates on the impact on poverty reduction are at the lower side. We use the following steps to estimate the impact of national and international rice varietal improvement research on poverty reduction. First, we calculate the marginal impact on poverty reduction of an increase in agricultural production value. This measure gives the number of poor reduced per additional unit of agricultural production value. The parameters needed are reported by two recent IFPRI publications (Fan, Hazell, and Thorat 2000; Fan, Zhang, and Zhang 2002). Second, we calculate the total number of poor reduced from rice varietal improvement research by considering the estimated research benefits as the additional increase in agricultural production value. Finally, we use IRRI�s share of total rice research benefits estimated from the geometric attribution rule to estimate the poverty reduction impact attributed to IRRI. These are lower bound estimates since the geometric rule is one of the most conservative. Fan, Hazell, and Thorat (2000) estimated a system of econometric equations to calculate the impact of different types of government spending on agricultural growth and rural poverty reduction in India using state-level data for 1970�93. The model is structured to enable the identification of the various channels through which different types of government expenditures affect the poor. The study distinguishes between direct and indirect effects of agricultural growth due to agricultural research. The direct effects arise in the form of benefits the poor receive from higher income through growth in agricultural production. The indirect effects come from increased rural wages and employment and changed food prices. This approach has two advantages. First, both 27 direct and indirect effects of agricultural growth were estimated. Second, other types of investment such as infrastructure, education, and health were also included to avoid at least some of the potentially upward-biased estimates of research investment impact. The estimated poverty equation in the cited system shows that with every 1 percent increase in agricultural production or productivity growth, the total number of rural poor in India is reduced by 0.241 percent as a result of all direct and indirect effects. Using this total elasticity, we can calculate the marginal impact of an additional unit in agricultural production value on poverty reduction. Multiplying this marginal poverty impact by the estimated productivity benefits from rice research gives the total number of poor reduced due to rice variety improvement research. Table 7 shows the estimated results for India. The number of poor reduced as a result of rice varietal improvement research increased from 4.95 million in 1991 to 4.81 million in 1997 then declined to 3.06 million in 1999. 28 Table 7. Poverty impact of rice research in India Rural poor Poor reduced from rice research Reduction as a percent of total poor No. of poor reduced from IRRI's research No. of poor reduced per $1 million of IRRI spending (million) (million) (%) (million) 1991 233 4.95 2.12 2.73 59,040 1992 237 5.12 2.16 2.89 59,379 1993 242 4.90 2.03 1.80 35,372 1994 274 5.29 1.93 1.95 43,629 1995 252 4.81 1.91 1.07 24,203 1996 251 4.39 1.75 0.99 23,033 1997 249 4.81 1.93 1.01 27,590 1998 212 4.23 1.99 1.02 28,221 1999 169 3.06 1.81 0.56 15,490 This annual reduction expressed as a percentage of total rural poor ranges from 2.12 percent in 1991 to 1.81 percent in 1999. Turning to the impact of IRRI varietal improvement research on rural poverty reduction, Table 7 shows that in 1991, some 2.73 million rural poor were lifted above the poverty line because of IRRI�s research. In 1999, the estimated reduction of rural poor due to IRRI varietal improvement research was some 0.56 million. We also calculated the reduction in the poor per $1 million of IRRI spending (Table 7). We simply divided the total number of poor reduced due to IRRI�s research by IRRI�s annual spending.16 For India, every $1 million invested by IRRI lifted 59,040 above the poverty line in 1991, and 15,490 in 1999. There is no sign of any significant decline in the poverty-reduction effects of rice varietal improvement research, suggesting that rice research will continue to be a factor in promoting rural poverty reduction in the future. 16A more complete analysis would have allowed for the lagged relationships between agricultural research expenditures and their productivity increases by calculating research stocks from past investment data and using estimated lagged structures (as in Fan, Hazell, and Thorat (2000) and Fan, Zhang, and Zhang (2002)). However, we do not have enough years of rice expenditure data to undertake these calculations here. 29 Similar to the India study, Fan, Zhang, and Zhang (2002) developed and estimated a simultaneous equation model to estimate the effects of different types of government expenditure in China using provincial-level data for 1970�97. From their estimated poverty equation, the total elasticity of poverty reduction with respect to agricultural output growth is 1.924 percent. As for India, we use this elasticity to calculate the number of poor reduced per unit of increase in agricultural production value, and the number of poor reduced from IRRI rice varietal improvement research. The total reduction in rural poor through rice research in China has been much larger than that in India (Table 8). Table 8. Poverty impact of rice research in China Rural poor Poor reduced from rice research Reduction as percentage of total poor No. of poor reduced due to IRRI�s research No. of poor reduced per $1 million of IRRI spending (million) (million) (%) (million) 1981 194 23.07 11.89 1.02 26,083 1982 140 16.23 11.60 0.70 17,259 1983 123 12.06 9.80 0.70 18,224 1984 89 7.54 8.48 0.54 13,443 1985 96 7.85 8.17 0.51 11,211 1986 97 7.24 7.46 0.44 10,416 1987 91 5.71 6.27 0.37 8,197 1988 86 5.92 6.88 0.37 8,883 1989 103 7.63 7.41 0.39 8,229 1990 97 7.15 7.37 0.42 8,104 1991 95 5.20 5.47 0.32 6,828 1992 90 5.89 6.54 0.30 6,224 1993 80 4.40 5.50 0.20 3,978 1994 70 3.57 5.10 0.15 3,362 1995 65 2.85 4.39 0.10 2,345 1996 58 2.98 5.13 0.09 2,022 1997 50 2.77 5.53 0.07 1,828 1998 42 2.15 5.12 0.05 1,254 1999 34 1.53 4.51 0.03 839 30 In 1981, 23 million came out of poverty as a result of rice varietal improvement research. However in 1999, only 1.53 million rural poor made such an escape from poverty because of rice research. In relative terms, escape from poverty through rice research as a proportion of the total number of rural poor was 12 percent in 1981 and 5 percent in 1999. Table 8 also shows that the number of poor reduced from IRRI�s varietal improvement research declined from 1,016,000 in 1981 to 30,000 in 1999. Finally, the number of poor reduced per $1 million of IRRI spending was 26,083 in 1981. Due to the rapid reduction in rural poverty, the number of poor reduced for every $1 million spent by IRRI declined to 839 in 1999. 6. CONCLUSIONS The Green Revolution, characterized by the adoption of HYVs, resulted in very high economic payoff and contributed to the eradication of starvation and hunger in many Asian developing countries. However, the question remains whether Green Revolution technology still has positive economic returns today and how it has helped to reduce rural poverty. Using varietal adoption and performance data, this study calculated the total benefits from rice varietal improvement research in China and India for the past two decades. We then used genetic or pedigree information to partition the total benefits between these two countries and IRRI. Finally, we used reported elasticity of poverty reduction with respect to agricultural output growth to assess the effects of national and international research on poverty reduction in rural India and China. The results indicated that rice varietal improvement research has contributed tremendously to increased rice production in both countries. In China, research benefits as 31 a share of rice production value range from 14 to 20 percent.17 In India, they range from 20 to 24 percent. In both countries, the benefits produced just from rice research are, on average, 10 times higher than their respective total agricultural research investment. Rice research has also helped reduce large numbers of rural poor.18 Without research investments in rice, the number of poor would be much higher today. For every $1 million invested at IRRI in 1999, more than 800 and 15,000 rural poor were lifted above the poverty line in China and India respectively. A similar or even larger poverty impact is observed in Indonesia, Vietnam, and Bangladesh, although formal analyses have not been done yet in these countries. However, most of these benefits are the results of research conducted in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. For both China and India, the increase in experimental yield has slowed in the 1990s. One of the reasons is the lack of agricultural research investment at both the national and international levels. As a percentage of agricultural gross domestic product, agricultural research investment in both countries was relatively low, 0.3 percent for China and 0.4 percent for India. For other low-income Asian countries, the percentages are in the range of 0.5 to 1. For developed countries, the range is as high as 2 to 4 percent. IRRI�s budget has been severely cut in recent years. IRRI�s budget of $32.6 million in 2000 was the lowest in 20 years, and was only 63 percent of its peak of $51.6 million (measured in 2000 prices) in 1990. Worldwide there are still more than 1 billion poor, and most of them depend on agriculture. It has been established that national and 17 This is consistent with the findings of Fan and Pardey (1997), who concluded that about 20 percent of the total production value from 1965 to 1993 is from the increased agricultural research investment. 18 In separate studies, Fan et al. (2003) and Fan (2003) concluded that the effects of agricultural research on urban poverty are as large as those on rural poverty, and agricultural research may play an even larger role in helping the urban poor in the future as more poor will be concentrated in the urban centers. 32 international agricultural research has made a large impact on poverty reduction in the past. Together with improvements in rural infrastructure, education, and health, agricultural research will play an even larger role in the future in reducing poverty in developing countries. However, increased and stable funding for national and international agricultural research will be necessary to reduce both rural and urban poverty. 33 REFERENCES Acharya, S. 1989. Agricultural wages in India: A disaggregated analysis. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 44(1):121�39. Alston, J.M., G.W. Norton, and P.G. Pardey. 1995. Science under scarcity: Principles and practice for agricultural research evaluation and priority setting. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Basant, R. 1987. Agricultural technology and employment in India: A survey of recent research. Economic and Political Weekly 22(1,2). China State Statistics Bureau (SSB).1990. China development report. Beijing: China Statistical Press. China State Statistics Bureau (SSB).1999. China development report. Beijing: China Statistical Press. Dalrymple, D.G. 1986. Development and spread of high-yielding rice varieties in developing countries. Washington, DC: USAID. Datt, G., and M. Ravallion. 1997. Why have some Indian states performed better than others at reducing rural poverty? FCND Discussion Paper No. 26. Washington, DC: IFPRI. David, C., and K. Otsuka. 1994. Modern rice technology and income distribution in Asia. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Evenson, R.E., C.E. Pray, and M.W. Rosegrant. 1998. Agricultural research and productivity growth in India. Research Report 109. Washington DC: IFPRI. Evenson, R.E., and D. Gollin. 2002. The Green Revolution: An end-of-century perspective. Paper presented at the conference �Why has impact assessment research not made more of a difference?� San José, Costa Rica. February 4�7, 2002. Fan, S., L. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2002a. Growth and poverty in rural China: The role of public investment. IFPRI Research Report 125. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Fan, S., C. Fang, Zhang X. 2002b. How agricultural research affects urban poverty in developing countries: The case of China. EPTD Discussion Paper 83. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Fan, S. 2002. Agricultural research and urban poverty in India. EPTD Discussion Paper 94. Washington, DC: IFPRI. 34 Fan, S., P. Hazell, and S. Thorat. 2000. Government spending, agricultural growth and poverty in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economices 82(4):1038� 51. Fan, S. 2000. Research investment and the economic returns to Chinese agricultural Research. Journal of Production Analysis 14(2):163�82. Fan, S., and P. Pardey. 1997. Research, productivity, and output growth in Chinese agriculture. Journal of Development Economics 53:115�37. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2002. FAOSTAT. http://apps.fao.org (accessed 2002). Griliches, Z. 1957. Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25(4):501�22. Hayami Y, and V. Ruttan. 1985. Agricultural development: An international perspective. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hazell, P., and L. Haddad. 2001. Agricultural research and poverty reduction. IFPRI 2020 Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Heisey, P.W., and M.L. Morris. 2002. Practical challenges to estimating the benefits of agricultural R&D: The case of plant breeding research. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA), July 28�31, Long Beach, California. Hossain, M. 1988. Nature and impact of green revolution in Bangladesh. IFPRI Research Report No. 67. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Indiastat. 2002. Datanet India Private Limited. www.indiastat.com (accessed 2002). IRRI. Facts about cooperation: People�s Republic of China and IRRI. http://www.irri.org/media/facts/pdfs/china.pdf.. Manila: International Rice Research Institute. IRRI. Facts about cooperation: India and IRRI. www.irri.org/VIS/facts/india.pdf. Manila: International Rice Research Institute. Jayasuriya, S., and R. Shand. 1986. Technical change and labor absorption in Asian agriculture: Some emerging trends. World Development 14:415�28. Kerr, J., and S. Kolavalli. 1999. Impact of agricultural research on poverty alleviation: Conceptual framework with illustration from the literature. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 56. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Lipton, M., and W.R. Longhurst. 1989. New seeds and poor people. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University Press. 35 Pardey, G.P., J.M. Alston, J.E. Christian, and S. Fan. 1996. Summary of a productive partnership: The benefits from U.S. participation in the CGIAR. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 18. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Pardey, G.P., J.M. Alston, C. Chan-Kang, E.C. Magalhaes, and S.A. Vosti. 2002. Assessing and attributing the benefits from varietal improvement research: Evidence from Embrapa, Brazil. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 95. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Quizon, J., and H.P. Binswanger. 1986. Modeling the impact of agricultural growth and government policy on income distribution in India. The World Bank Economic Review 1:103�48. Rosegrant, R.W., and P.B. Hazell. 2001. Transforming the rural Asian economy: The unfinished revolution. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Rozelle, S., S. Jin, J. Huang, and R. Hu. 2003. The impact of investments in agricultural research on total factor productivity in China. In Crop variety improvement and its effect on productivity, R.E. Evenson and D.Gollin, eds. Cambridge: CABI Publishing. Ruttan, V.W. 1977. The green revolution: Seven generalizations. International Development Review 19(4):13�16. Shen, J-H. 1980. Rice breeding in China. In Rice improvement in China and other Asian Countries. Manila: International Rice Research Institute and Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. World Bank. 2000. China: Overcoming rural poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank. EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS LIST OF EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS 01 Sustainable Agricultural Development Strategies in Fragile Lands, by Sara J. Scherr and Peter B.R. Hazell, June 1994. 02 Confronting the Environmental Consequences of the Green Revolution in Asia, by Prabhu L. Pingali and Mark W. Rosegrant, August 1994. 03 Infrastructure and Technology Constraints to Agricultural Development in the Humid and Subhumid Tropics of Africa, by Dunstan S.C. Spencer, August 1994. 04 Water Markets in Pakistan: Participation and Productivity, by Ruth Meinzen- Dick and Martha Sullins, September 1994. 05 The Impact of Technical Change in Agriculture on Human Fertility: District-level Evidence From India, by Stephen A. Vosti, Julie Witcover, and Michael Lipton, October 1994. 06 Reforming Water Allocation Policy Through Markets in Tradable Water Rights: Lessons from Chile, Mexico, and California, by Mark W. Rosegrant and Renato Gazri S, October 1994. 07 Total Factor Productivity and Sources of Long-Term Growth in Indian Agriculture, by Mark W. Rosegrant and Robert E. Evenson, April 1995. 08 Farm-Nonfarm Growth Linkages in Zambia, by Peter B.R. Hazell and Behjat Hoijati, April 1995. 09 Livestock and Deforestation in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s: A Policy Perspective, by David Kaimowitz (Interamerican Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture. June 1995. 10 Effects of the Structural Adjustment Program on Agricultural Production and Resource Use in Egypt, by Peter B.R. Hazell, Nicostrato Perez, Gamal Siam, and Ibrahim Soliman, August 1995. 11 Local Organizations for Natural Resource Management: Lessons from Theoretical and Empirical Literature, by Lise Nordvig Rasmussen and Ruth Meinzen-Dick, August 1995. EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS 12 Quality-Equivalent and Cost-Adjusted Measurement of International Competitiveness in Japanese Rice Markets, by Shoichi Ito, Mark W. Rosegrant, and Mercedita C. Agcaoili-Sombilla, August 1995. 13 Role of Inputs, Institutions, and Technical Innovations in Stimulating Growth in Chinese Agriculture, by Shenggen Fan and Philip G. Pardey, September 1995. 14 Investments in African Agricultural Research, by Philip G. Pardey, Johannes Roseboom, and Nienke Beintema, October 1995. 15 Role of Terms of Trade in Indian Agricultural Growth: A National and State Level Analysis, by Peter B.R. Hazell, V.N. Misra, and Behjat Hoijati, December 1995. 16 Policies and Markets for Non-Timber Tree Products, by Peter A. Dewees and Sara J. Scherr, March 1996. 17 Determinants of Farmers� Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation Investments in India�s Semi-Arid Tropics, by John Pender and John Kerr, August 1996. 18 Summary of a Productive Partnership: The Benefits from U.S. Participation in the CGIAR, by Philip G. Pardey, Julian M. Alston, Jason E. Christian, and Shenggen Fan, October 1996. 19 Crop Genetic Resource Policy: Towards a Research Agenda, by Brian D. Wright, October 1996. 20 Sustainable Development of Rainfed Agriculture in India, by John M. Kerr, November 1996. 21 Impact of Market and Population Pressure on Production, Incomes and Natural Resources in the Dryland Savannas of West Africa: Bioeconomic Modeling at the Village Level, by Bruno Barbier, November 1996. 22 Why Do Projections on China�s Future Food Supply and Demand Differ? by Shenggen Fan and Mercedita Agcaoili-Sombilla, March 1997. 23 Agroecological Aspects of Evaluating Agricultural R&D, by Stanley Wood and Philip G. Pardey, March 1997. 24 Population Pressure, Land Tenure, and Tree Resource Management in Uganda, by Frank Place and Keijiro Otsuka, March 1997. EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS 25 Should India Invest More in Less-favored Areas? by Shenggen Fan and Peter Hazell, April 1997. 26 Population Pressure and the Microeconomy of Land Management in Hills and Mountains of Developing Countries, by Scott R. Templeton and Sara J. Scherr, April 1997. 27 Population Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: The Case of Customary Land Area in Malawi, by Frank Place and Keijiro Otsuka, April 1997. 28 Water Resources Development in Africa: A Review and Synthesis of Issues, Potentials, and Strategies for the Future, by Mark W. Rosegrant and Nicostrato D. Perez, September 1997. 29 Financing Agricultural R&D in Rich Countries: What�s Happening and Why? by Julian M. Alston, Philip G. Pardey, and Vincent H. Smith, September 1997. 30 How Fast Have China�s Agricultural Production and Productivity Really Been Growing? by Shenggen Fan, September 1997. 31 Does Land Tenure Insecurity Discourage Tree Planting? Evolution of Customary Land Tenure and Agroforestry Management in Sumatra, by Keijiro Otsuka, S. Suyanto, and Thomas P. Tomich, December 1997. 32 Natural Resource Management in the Hillsides of Honduras: Bioeconomic Modeling at the Micro-Watershed Level, by Bruno Barbier and Gilles Bergeron, January 1998. 33 Government Spending, Growth, and Poverty: An Analysis of Interlinkages in Rural India, by Shenggen Fan, Peter Hazell, and Sukhadeo Thorat, March 1998. Revised December 1998. 34 Coalitions and the Organization of Multiple-Stakeholder Action: A Case Study of Agricultural Research and Extension in Rajasthan, India, by Ruth Alsop, April 1998. 35 Dynamics in the Creation and Depreciation of Knowledge and the Returns to Research, by Julian Alston, Barbara Craig, and Philip Pardey, July, 1998. 36 Educating Agricultural Researchers: A Review of the Role of African Universities, by Nienke M. Beintema, Philip G. Pardey, and Johannes Roseboom, August 1998. EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS 37 The Changing Organizational Basis of African Agricultural Research, by Johannes Roseboom, Philip G. Pardey, and Nienke M. Beintema, November 1998. 38 Research Returns Redux: A Meta-Analysis of the Returns to Agricultural R&D, by Julian M. Alston, Michele C. Marra, Philip G. Pardey, and T.J. Wyatt, November 1998. 39 Technological Change, Technical and Allocative Efficiency in Chinese Agriculture: The Case of Rice Production in Jiangsu, by Shenggen Fan, January 1999. 40 The Substance of Interaction: Design and Policy Implications of NGO- Government Projects in India, by Ruth Alsop with Ved Arya, January 1999. 41 Strategies for Sustainable Agricultural Development in the East African Highlands, by John Pender, Frank Place, and Simeon Ehui, April 1999. 42 Cost Aspects of African Agricultural Research, by Philip G. Pardey, Johannes Roseboom, Nienke M. Beintema, and Connie Chan-Kang, April 1999. 43 Are Returns to Public Investment Lower in Less-favored Rural Areas? An Empirical Analysis of India, by Shenggen Fan and Peter Hazell, May 1999. 44 Spatial Aspects of the Design and Targeting of Agricultural Development Strategies, by Stanley Wood, Kate Sebastian, Freddy Nachtergaele, Daniel Nielsen, and Aiguo Dai, May 1999. 45 Pathways of Development in the Hillsides of Honduras: Causes and Implications for Agricultural Production, Poverty, and Sustainable Resource Use, by John Pender, Sara J. Scherr, and Guadalupe Durón, May 1999. 46 Determinants of Land Use Change: Evidence from a Community Study in Honduras, by Gilles Bergeron and John Pender, July 1999. 47 Impact on Food Security and Rural Development of Reallocating Water from Agriculture, by Mark W. Rosegrant and Claudia Ringler, August 1999. 48 Rural Population Growth, Agricultural Change and Natural Resource Management in Developing Countries: A Review of Hypotheses and Some Evidence from Honduras, by John Pender, August 1999. EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS 49 Organizational Development and Natural Resource Management: Evidence from Central Honduras, by John Pender and Sara J. Scherr, November 1999. 50 Estimating Crop-Specific Production Technologies in Chinese Agriculture: A Generalized Maximum Entropy Approach, by Xiaobo Zhang and Shenggen Fan, September 1999. 51 Dynamic Implications of Patenting for Crop Genetic Resources, by Bonwoo Koo and Brian D. Wright, October 1999. 52 Costing the Ex Situ Conservation of Genetic Resources: Maize and Wheat at CIMMYT, by Philip G. Pardey, Bonwoo Koo, Brian D. Wright, M. Eric van Dusen, Bent Skovmand, and Suketoshi Taba, October 1999. 53 Past and Future Sources of Growth for China, by Shenggen Fan, Xiaobo Zhang, and Sherman Robinson, October 1999. 54 The Timing of Evaluation of Genebank Accessions and the Effects of Biotechnology, by Bonwoo Koo and Brian D. Wright, October 1999. 55 New Approaches to Crop Yield Insurance in Developing Countries, by Jerry Skees, Peter Hazell, and Mario Miranda, November 1999. 56 Impact of Agricultural Research on Poverty Alleviation: Conceptual Framework with Illustrations from the Literature, by John Kerr and Shashi Kolavalli, December 1999. 57 Could Futures Markets Help Growers Better Manage Coffee Price Risks in Costa Rica? by Peter Hazell, January 2000. 58 Industrialization, Urbanization, and Land Use in China, by Xiaobo Zhang, Tim Mount, and Richard Boisvert, January 2000. 59 Water Rights and Multiple Water Uses: Framework and Application to Kirindi Oya Irrigation System, Sri Lanka, by Ruth Meinzen-Dick and Margaretha Bakker, March 2000. 60 Community natural Resource Management: The Case of Woodlots in Northern Ethiopia, by Berhanu Gebremedhin, John Pender and Girmay Tesfaye, April 2000. EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS 61 What Affects Organization and Collective Action for Managing Resources? Evidence from Canal Irrigation Systems in India, by Ruth Meinzen-Dick, K.V. Raju, and Ashok Gulati, June 2000. 62 The Effects of the U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act on Wheat Genetic Improvement, by Julian M. Alston and Raymond J. Venner, May 2000. 63 Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Water Modeling at the Basin Scale: The Maipo River Basin, by M. W. Rosegrant, C. Ringler, DC McKinney, X. Cai, A. Keller, and G. Donoso, May 2000. 64 Irrigation and Water Resources in Latin America and he Caribbean: Challenges and Strategies, by Claudia Ringler, Mark W. Rosegrant, and Michael S. Paisner, June 2000. 65 The Role of Trees for Sustainable Management of Less-favored Lands: The Case of Eucalyptus in Ethiopia, by Pamela Jagger & John Pender, June 2000. 66 Growth and Poverty in Rural China: The Role of Public Investments, by Shenggen Fan, Linxiu Zhang, and Xiaobo Zhang, June 2000. 67 Small-Scale Farms in the Western Brazilian Amazon: Can They Benefit from Carbon Trade? by Chantal Carpentier, Steve Vosti, and Julie Witcover, September 2000. 68 An Evaluation of Dryland Watershed Development Projects in India, by John Kerr, Ganesh Pangare, Vasudha Lokur Pangare, and P.J. George, October 2000. 69 Consumption Effects of Genetic Modification: What If Consumers Are Right? by Konstantinos Giannakas and Murray Fulton, November 2000. 70 South-North Trade, Intellectual Property Jurisdictions, and Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Research on Staple Crops, by Eran Binenbaum, Carol Nottenburg, Philip G. Pardey, Brian D. Wright, and Patricia Zambrano, December 2000. 71 Public Investment and Regional Inequality in Rural China, by Xiaobo Zhang and Shenggen Fan, December 2000. 72 Does Efficient Water Management Matter? Physical and Economic Efficiency of Water Use in the River Basin, by Ximing Cai, Claudia Ringler, and Mark W. Rosegrant, March 2001. EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS 73 Monitoring Systems for Managing Natural Resources: Economics, Indicators and Environmental Externalities in a Costa Rican Watershed, by Peter Hazell, Ujjayant Chakravorty, John Dixon, and Rafael Celis, March 2001. 74 Does Quanxi Matter to NonFarm Employment? by Xiaobo Zhang and Guo Li, June 2001. 75 The Effect of Environmental Variability on Livestock and Land-Use Management: The Borana Plateau, Southern Ethiopia, by Nancy McCarthy, Abdul Kamara, and Michael Kirk, June 2001. 76 Market Imperfections and Land Productivity in the Ethiopian Highlands, by Stein Holden, Bekele Shiferaw, and John Pender, August 2001. 77 Strategies for Sustainable Agricultural Development in the Ethiopian Highlands, by John Pender, Berhanu Gebremedhin, Samuel Benin, and Simeon Ehui, August 2001. 78 Managing Droughts in the Low-Rainfall Areas of the Middle East and North Africa: Policy Issues, by Peter Hazell, Peter Oram, Nabil Chaherli, September 2001. 79 Accessing Other People�s Technology: Do Non-Profit Agencies Need It? How To Obtain It, by Carol Nottenburg, Philip G. Pardey, and Brian D. Wright, September 2001. 80 The Economics of Intellectual Property Rights Under Imperfect Enforcement: Developing Countries, Biotechnology, and the TRIPS Agreement, by Konstantinos Giannakas, September 2001. 81 Land Lease Markets and Agricultural Efficiency: Theory and Evidence from Ethiopia, by John Pender and Marcel Fafchamps, October 2001. 82 The Demand for Crop Genetic Resources: International Use of the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System, by M. Smale, K. Day-Rubenstein, A. Zohrabian, and T. Hodgkin, October 2001. 83 How Agricultural Research Affects Urban Poverty in Developing Countries: The Case of China, by Shenggen Fan, Cheng Fang, and Xiaobo Zhang, October 2001. 84 How Productive is Infrastructure? New Approach and Evidence From Rural India, by Xiaobo Zhang and Shenggen Fan, October 2001. EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS 85 Development Pathways and Land Management in Uganda: Causes and Implications, by John Pender, Pamela Jagger, Ephraim Nkonya, and Dick Sserunkuuma, December 2001. 86 Sustainability Analysis for Irrigation Water Management: Concepts, Methodology, and Application to the Aral Sea Region, by Ximing Cai, Daene C. McKinney, and Mark W. Rosegrant, December 2001. 87 The Payoffs to Agricultural Biotechnology: An Assessment of the Evidence, by Michele C. Marra, Philip G. Pardey, and Julian M. Alston, January 2002. 88 Economics of Patenting a Research Tool, by Bonwoo Koo and Brian D. Wright, January 2002. 89 Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research On Poverty Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, by Michelle Adato and Ruth Meinzen-Dick, March 2002. 90 The Role of Rainfed Agriculture in the Future of Global Food Production, by Mark Rosegrant, Ximing Cai, Sarah Cline, and Naoko Nakagawa, March 2002. 91 Why TVEs Have Contributed to Interregional Imbalances in China, by Junichi Ito, March 2002. 92 Strategies for Stimulating Poverty Alleviating Growth in the Rural Nonfarm Economy in Developing Countries, by Steven Haggblade, Peter Hazell, and Thomas Reardon, July 2002. 93 Local Governance and Public Goods Provisions in Rural China, by Xiaobo Zhang, Shenggen Fan, Linxiu Zhang, and Jikun Huang, July 2002. 94 Agricultural Research and Urban Poverty in India, by Shenggen Fan, September 2002. 95 Assessing and Attributing the Benefits from Varietal Improvement Research: Evidence from Embrapa, Brazil, by Philip G. Pardey, Julian M. Alston, Connie Chan-Kang, Eduardo C. Magalhães, and Stephen A. Vosti, August 2002. 96 India�s Plant Variety and Farmers� Rights Legislation: Potential Impact on Stakeholders Access to Genetic Resources, by Anitha Ramanna, January 2003. EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS 97 Maize in Eastern and Southern Africa: Seeds of Success in Retrospect, by Melinda Smale and Thom Jayne, January 2003. 98 Alternative Growth Scenarios for Ugandan Coffee to 2020, by Liangzhi You and Simon Bolwig, February 2003. 99 Public Spending in Developing Countries: Trends, Determination, and Impact, by Shenggen Fan and Neetha Rao, March 2003. 100 The Economics of Generating and Maintaining Plant Variety Rights in China, by Bonwoo Koo, Philip G. Pardey, Keming Qian, and Yi Zhang, February 2003. 101 Impacts of Programs and Organizations on the Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Technologies in Uganda, Pamela Jagger and John Pender, March 2003. 102 Productivity and Land Enhancing Technologies in Northern Ethiopia: Health, Public Investments, and Sequential Adoption, Lire Ersado, Gregory Amacher, and Jeffrey Alwang, April 2003. 103 Animal Health and the Role of Communities: An Example of Trypanasomosis Control Options in Uganda, by Nancy McCarthy, John McDermott, and Paul Coleman, May 2003. 104 Determinantes de Estrategias Comunitarias de Subsistencia y el uso de Prácticas Conservacionistas de Producción Agrícola en las Zonas de Ladera en Honduras, Hans G.P. Jansen, Angel Rodríguez, Amy Damon, y John Pender, Juno 2003. 105 Determinants of Cereal Diversity in Communities and on Household Farms of the Northern Ethiopian Highlands, by Samuel Benin, Berhanu Gebremedhin, Melinda Smale, John Pender, and Simeon Ehui, June 2003. 106 Demand for Rainfall-Based Index Insurance: A Case Study from Morocco, by Nancy McCarthy, July 2003. 107 Woodlot Devolution in Northern Ethiopia: Opportunities for Empowerment, Smallholder Income Diversification, and Sustainable Land Management, by Pamela Jagger, John Pender, and Berhanu Gebremedhin, September 2003. 108 Conservation Farming in Zambia, by Steven Haggblade, October 2003.