Daniel Hulls asks whether we can learn from the private sector to reverse declining support for public-funded research.

Research that works

Agricultural scientists and researchers say that public funding of their work is a good way to improve the livelihoods of the poor in low income countries. Well, they would say that wouldn’t they? But what is the evidence?

Technology can certainly make a real difference in reducing poverty. The “Green Revolution” which introduced modern farming methods to developing countries, although not without controversy, has undoubtedly contributed to sharp falls in poverty in China and India over recent decades. A recent study led by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (CEPA) for DFID confirmed that there are many examples where research and development and the use of agricultural technologies can be a factor in poverty reduction in developing countries. One survey of research and extension schemes estimated returns to be as high as 35 per cent a year.

The case for public funding of research is also strong. Without it, research and development priorities would be driven exclusively by commercial considerations. Pro-poor research and development would not be funded. Research in areas where the benefits are made widely and freely available, such as livelihoods management and improved seed varieties, would simply not take place.

So, if agricultural R&D is so important, why is budget support for it declining? There is a growing perception that publicly funded R&D has not made much of a difference to poverty reduction, despite heavy investment over several decades. Is this perception valid?

If we are to get a pay-off for the poor, then the subject of publicly funded research must be determined by their needs, and the results must get to end users. Science may have extremely high returns on paper, but the return is zero if there is no demand for technology, if it is not affordable, or if appropriate production and distribution are not available.

For many years, research programmes have been seeking to improve links in developing countries and trying to ensure that research is “demand-led”. But has it been working?

At the risk of caricature, publicly funded research priorities still tend to be supply-driven – more by the interests of the academics in the developed world than by the needs of the poor overseas. There are also strong incentives to “keep programmes going” rather than to stop or redirect them as results emerge.

Relatively few research programmes seek to integrate lab-based R&D with programmes to produce and distribute outputs to poor farmers. If the research results in information on new approaches to improving livlihoods, then strategies to disseminate the information need to be part of the plan. If the research is about a physical technology, then researchers must work with in-country partners to address who will fund the registration of the product, who will produce and distribute it and whether farmers are willing to use and pay for it.

If publicly funded research is to be made more effective, then we need to think more fundamentally about how it is managed. How can we make research more responsive to the needs of the poor? How can we ensure that the resulting technology gets used? And how do we strengthen links between the labs and the fields?

Paradoxically there are important lessons to be learned from the private sector. Private sector researchers are routinely challenged about the costs and benefits of their work. Projects which do not meet agreed criteria are stopped, in favour of others with higher possibilities of success. There is unremitting attention to the value of the likely results. Use of these research management processes – adapted to take account of the purchasing power of poor farmers – could be used to improve the effectiveness of public research.

Furthermore, there is currently not enough interaction between the public and private sectors. The private sector has unprecedented access to skills, intellectual property and equipment. In many cases it is also willing to contribute these resources free to tackle problems in developing countries. However, public researchers are generally suspicious of the private sector, and lack experience of putting together balanced partnerships. As a result, there are instances where research being proposed for public funding duplicates work already undertaken by private sector companies.

The challenge is to find new ways to manage publicly funded research to increase effectiveness. Alternative approaches do exist, particularly in human health. Two examples are the Medicines for Malaria Venture and the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development. Both are non-government, not-for-profit entities with a global remit to manage public research funding to deliver specific objectives.

Although it is too early to say whether they will succeed, early indications are promising. They do not themselves carry out research – and so are able to make independent judgements about the effectiveness of particular research institutions and projects. They are focused on the delivery of defined technologies with high social and economic pay-offs. They actively seek to bring together a mix of public and private expertise.

The issues in agricultural technology development and use are even greater than in health, because reaching the millions of small farmers is so difficult. However, these new models are almost certainly applicable for agricultural research, and are actively being explored by DFID and others. If they are successful they may point the way to more effective publicly funded research across a much wider research and development agenda.

Daniel Hulls is a Director of CEPA.

For more details about this and other Developments content see Find out more.