Record Details

Comparing modeling approaches for assessing priorities in international agricultural research

CGSpace

View Archive Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Comparing modeling approaches for assessing priorities in international agricultural research
 
Creator Petsakos, A.
Hareau, Guy
Kleinwechter, U.
Wiebe, K.
Sulser, T.
 
Subject research
international organizations
agriculture
economic analysis
 
Description This article examines how the estimated impacts of crop technologies vary with alternate methods and assumptions, and also discusses the implications of these differences for the design of studies to inform research prioritization. Drawing on international potato research, we show how foresight scenarios, realized by a multi-period global multi-commodity equilibrium model, can affect the estimated magnitudes of welfare impacts and the ranking of different potato research options, as opposed to the static, single-commodity, and country assumptions of the economic surplus model which is commonly used in priority setting studies. Our results suggest that the ranking of technologies is driven by the data used for their specification and is not affected by the foresight scenario examined. However, net benefits vary significantly in each scenario and are greatly overestimated when impacts on non-target countries are ignored. We also argue that the validity of the single-commodity assumption underpinning the economic surplus model is case-specific and depends on the interventions examined and on the objectives and criteria included in a priority setting study.
 
Date 2018-04
2018-04-09T16:36:01Z
2018-04-09T16:36:01Z
 
Type Journal Article
 
Identifier Petsakos, A.; Hareau, G.; Kleinwechter, U.; Wiebe, K.; Sulser, T. 2018. Comparing modeling approaches for assessing priorities in international agricultural research. Research Evaluation. (United Kingdom). ISSN 0958-2029. 27(2): 145–156
0958-2029
https://hdl.handle.net/10568/92040
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx044
 
Language en
 
Rights Open Access
 
Format 145-156
 
Source Research Evaluation