- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Benefit-cost meta-analysis of investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
Journal ArticleSource:
Agricultural Systems, Volume 96, Number 1-3, p.108-123 (2008)URL:
files/private/Articles/Raitzer_benefitcost.pdfKeywords:
agricultural research; Benefit-cost analysis; Evaluation; impact assessment; R&D; Technological changeAbstract:
While the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has been long considered a driving force behind the successes of the 'Green Revolution', no prior study has attempted to develop an aggregate estimate of the value of the CGIAR System's impacts. However, economic ex post impact assessments have been conducted for some of the most outstanding individual innovations of the System. This study aggregates benefit estimates from specific technologies, and sets such against total investments in the CGIAR centers, so as to derive estimates for five different aggregate benefit?cost scenarios. Impact assessment has been pursued in a largely decentralized manner by individual research centers, and, as a result, methods and approaches differ among studies. Consequently, a critical review process was necessary for determining the reliability of individual impact estimates. A framework including two overarching principles for evaluating study reliability ? (1) transparency and (2) demonstration of causality, as well as accordant criteria and indicators, was developed to assess individual estimates of economic impact before inclusion in scenarios of aggregate benefits. Against an aggregate investment of 7120 million 1990 US dollars, resultant benefit?cost ratios for research to date range from 1.9 to 17.3, depending on scenario. However, the true value of benefits arising from the CGIAR is probably in excess of even the upper bounds of these results, as only a small subset of System impacts have been quantified.
Sublibrary:
Evaluation
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page