[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/diedps/252016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Results-based approaches in agriculture: what is the potential?

Author

Listed:
  • Janus, Heiner
  • Holzapfel, Sarah
Abstract
Increased and more effective public and private investments in the agricultural sector are needed to address the challenge of ending hunger and achieving food security by 2030. This paper analyses the potential of results-based approaches – an innovative financing instrument that links payments to predefined results – to contribute to this challenge. Results-based approaches promise several potential advantages over traditional aid modalities, such as a greater focus on results, better accountability systems and improved incentives that increase aid effectiveness. They are also discussed as an important tool to accelerate innovation and to leverage additional resources from private investors for agricultural and food security interventions. Although widely applied in the health and education sectors, there are only a few experiences with results-based approaches in the agricultural sector, and the suitability of the sector for the instrument is debated. The aim of this paper is to contribute to this debate by reviewing three pilot interventions representing different types of results-based approaches: results-based aid (contract between governments), results-based finance (contract between a funder/host-country government and a service provider/company) and development impact bonds (contract between a funder, service provider and private investor). The analysis draws on existing literature on results-based approaches, expert interviews as well as on programme and guidance documents by various development agencies. The three interventions are compared based on three dimensions that have been shown in the literature to be important building blocks of results-based approaches. These are (1) selecting measurable results (2) setting up payment and verification mechanisms and (3) providing support to the incentivised actor. In addition, the potential and limitations of each pilot are assessed towards dealing with external factors influencing results, such as climate variability, addressing the complexities of different rural worlds – ranging from large-scale agro-economic companies to the landless poor – and the prospects for scaling-up. The analysis shows that results-based approaches have the potential to foster innovation in agriculture and can play an important role to increase food security in developing countries. Results-based aid programmes can provide additional incentives for partner country governments to focus on reducing hunger and malnutrition in the long run. Results-based finance programmes – by offering economic incentives to service providers or private companies – can help to overcome market failure and foster the adoption of new technologies. Development impact bonds are an innovative way to engage private actors in addressing development challenges. However, we also find that the agricultural sector poses additional challenges for implementing results-based approaches. For example, paying for results is more difficult in agriculture than in many other sectors. Desired outcomes such as increased yields or incomes are highly variable and influenced by external conditions (e.g. weather and world market prices). Intermediate outcome or output indicators, such as increased areas under irrigation or hectares under new technologies, are easier to measure and more attributable to a programme, but leave less room for innovation and experimentation. In addressing the complexities of different rural worlds, results-based programmes already show their benefits in targeting specific groups. However, a more systematic assessment of the inter-linkages between the rural worlds can yield additional benefits for the implementation of results-based approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Janus, Heiner & Holzapfel, Sarah, 2016. "Results-based approaches in agriculture: what is the potential?," IDOS Discussion Papers 25/2016, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:diedps:252016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/199488/1/die-dp-2016-25.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sitko, Nicholas J. & Chapoto, Antony & Kabwe, Stephen & Tembo, Solomon & Hichaambwa, Munguzwe & Lubinda, Rebecca & Chiwawa, Harrison & Mataa, Mebelo & Heck, Simon & Nthani, Dorothy, 2011. "Technical Compendium: Descriptive Agricultural Statistics and Analysis for Zambia in Support of the USAID Mission’s Feed the Future Strategic Review," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 104016, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Altenburg, Tilman & Kleinz, Maria & Lütkenhorst, Wilfried, 2016. "Directing structural change: from tools to policy," IDOS Discussion Papers 24/2016, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    3. Cassimon, Danny & Claessens, Stijn & Campenhout, Bjorn van, 2007. "Empirical Evidence on the New International Aid Architecture," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Göttingen 2007 2, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    4. Lividini, Keith & Fiedler, John L., 2015. "Assessing the promise of biofortification: A case study of high provitamin A maize in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 65-77.
    5. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    6. Thomas O'Brien & Ravi Kanbur, 2014. "The Operational Dimensions Of Results‐Based Financing," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 34(5), pages 345-358, December.
    7. Conceição, Pedro & Levine, Sebastian & Lipton, Michael & Warren-Rodríguez, Alex, 2016. "Toward a food secure future: Ensuring food security for sustainable human development in Sub-Saharan Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-9.
    8. Keijzer, Niels & Janus, Heiner, 2014. "Linking results-based aid and capacity development support: conceptual and practical challenges," IDOS Discussion Papers 25/2014, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    9. Masters, William J., 2003. "Research Prizes: A Mechanism To Reward Innovation In African Agriculture," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22162, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Grittner, Amanda Melina, 2013. "Results-based financing: evidence from performance-based financing in the health sector," IDOS Discussion Papers 6/2013, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    11. Christopher B. Barrett & Michael R. Carter, 2010. "The Power and Pitfalls of Experiments in Development Economics: Some Non-random Reflections," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(4), pages 515-548.
    12. Tembo, Solomon & Sitko, Nicholas, 2013. "Technical Compendium: Descriptive Agricultural Statistics and Analysis for Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 155988, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    13. Janus, Heiner, 2014. "Real innovation or second-best solution? First experiences from results-based aid for fiscal decentralisation in Ghana and Tanzania," IDOS Discussion Papers 3/2014, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    14. Svendsen, M., 2009. "Measuring irrigation performance in Africa," IWMI Working Papers H043570, International Water Management Institute.
    15. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    16. Holzapfel, Sarah & Janus, Heiner, 2015. "Improving education outcomes by linking payments to results: an assessment of disbursement-linked indicators in five results-based approaches," IDOS Discussion Papers 2/2015, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    17. Judy L. Baker, 2000. "Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty : A Handbook for Practitioners," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 13949.
    18. Lindenberg, Nannette & Pöll, Caroline, 2015. "Financing global development: Is impact investing an investment model with potential or just blowing smoke?," Briefing Papers 20/2015, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    19. World Bank, 2012. "World Development Report 2012 [Rapport sur le développement dans le monde 2012]," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 4391.
    20. Yogita Mumssen & Lars Johannes & Geeta Kumar, 2010. "Output-Based Aid : Lessons Learned and Best Practices," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2423.
    21. Dawson, Neil & Martin, Adrian & Sikor, Thomas, 2016. "Green Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications of Imposed Innovation for the Wellbeing of Rural Smallholders," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 204-218.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Janus, Heiner & Holzapfel, Sarah, 2017. "Ergebnisbasierte Ansätze für die Landwirtschaft: Potential und Grenzen," Analysen und Stellungnahmen 3/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    2. Rudolph, Alexandra, 2017. "The concept of SDG-sensitive development cooperation: implications for OECD-DAC members," IDOS Discussion Papers 1/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    3. Janus, Heiner & Holzapfel, Sarah, 2017. "Introducing results-based approaches in agriculture: challenges and lessons learnt," Briefing Papers 2/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    4. Stepping, Katharina, 2016. "Urban sewage in Brazil: drivers of and obstacles to wastewater treatment and reuse. Governing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus Series," IDOS Discussion Papers 26/2016, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    5. Marschall, Paul, 2018. "Evidence-oriented approaches in development cooperation: experiences, potential and key issues," IDOS Discussion Papers 8/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arild Angelsen, 2017. "REDD+ as Result-based Aid: General Lessons and Bilateral Agreements of Norway," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 237-264, May.
    2. Julius Manda & Cornelis Gardebroek & Makaiko Khonje & Arega Alene & Munyaradzi Mutenje & Menale Kassie, 2016. "Determinants of child nutritional status in the eastern province of Zambia: the role of improved maize varieties," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 239-253, February.
    3. Janus, Heiner & Keijzer, Niels, 2015. "Big results now? Emerging lessons from results-based aid in Tanzania," IDOS Discussion Papers 4/2015, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    4. Manda, Julius & Khonje, Makaiko G. & Alene, Arega D. & Gondwe, Therese, 2017. "Welfare impacts of improved groundnut varieties in eastern Zambia: A heterogeneous treatment effects approach," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 56(4), December.
    5. Manda, J. & Gardebroek, C. & Kuntashula, E. & Alene, A.D., 2018. "Impact of Improved Maize Varieties on Food Security in Eastern Zambia: a doubly robust analysis," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277004, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Fisher, Monica & Kandiwa, Vongai, 2014. "Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 101-111.
    7. Franziska Schuenemann & James Thurlow & Stefan Meyer & Richard Robertson & Joao Rodrigues, 2018. "Evaluating irrigation investments in Malawi: economy†wide impacts under uncertainty and labor constraints," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 237-250, March.
    8. Christensen, Cheryl, 2018. "Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 0(01), February.
    9. Faaiqa Hartley & Dirk van Seventer & Paul Chimuka Samboko & Channing Arndt, 2019. "Economy-wide implications of biofuel production in Zambia," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 213-232, March.
    10. Boris Bravo & Horacio Cocchi & Daniel Solís, 2006. "Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies in El Salvador: A cross-Section and Over-Time Analysis," OVE Working Papers 1806, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    11. Stefano Pagiola & Ana Rios & Agustin Arcenas, 2010. "Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindío, Colombia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 371-394, November.
    12. Christopher B. Barrett & Asad Islam & Abdul Mohammad Malek & Debayan Pakrashi & Ummul Ruthbah, 2022. "Experimental Evidence on Adoption and Impact of the System of Rice Intensification," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 4-32, January.
    13. Hegde, Ravi & Bull, Gary Q., 2011. "Performance of an agro-forestry based Payments-for-Environmental-Services project in Mozambique: A household level analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 122-130.
    14. Paul C. Samboko & Mitelo Subakanya & Cliff Dlamini, 2017. "Potential biofuel feedstocks and production in Zambia," WIDER Working Paper Series 047, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. Prof dr Erik Stam & Felix Meier zu Selhausen, MSc MA, 2014. "Husbands and Wives. The powers and perils of participation in a microfinance cooperative for female entrepreneurs," Working Papers 2014/20, Maastricht School of Management.
    16. Barrett, Christopher B. & Bachke, Maren E. & Bellemare, Marc F. & Michelson, Hope C. & Narayanan, Sudha & Walker, Thomas F., 2012. "Smallholder Participation in Contract Farming: Comparative Evidence from Five Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 715-730.
    17. Beatrice W. Muriithi & Kassie Menale & Gracious M. Diiro & Michael N. Okal & Daniel K. Masiga, 2023. "Effect of use of tsetse repellant collar technology on the farm performance and household welfare of small-scale livestock farmers in Kenya," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 15(3), pages 751-770, June.
    18. Sichilima, Timothy & Mapemba, Lawrence & Tembo, Gelson, 2016. "Drivers of Dry Common Beans Trade in Lusaka, Zambia: A Trader’s Perspective," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(2).
    19. Agnes Quisumbing & Bob Baulch & Neha Kumar, 2011. "Evaluating the long-term impact of anti-poverty interventions in Bangladesh: an overview," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 153-174.
    20. Kabwe Harnadih Mubanga & Willem Ferguson, 2017. "Threats to food sufficiency among smallholder farmers in Choma, Zambia," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(4), pages 745-758, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:diedps:252016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ditubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.