- 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
Colombia: a public-private partnership
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
Book ChapterSource:
Agricultural R&D in the developing world: too little, too late?, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, p.283-311 (2006)Abstract:
Despite efforts in many Latin American countries to diminish the government role in the funding and performing of agricultural research and development (R&D), general government revenues are still the predominant source of support for agricultural research, as in many less-developed countries (Pardey and Beintema 2001). Colombia is an exception, evidenced by the presence of 12 nonprofit organizations, which together accounted for about a quarter of the country's agricultural research investments in 2000. Many of these organizations are linked to producer organizations and are funded largely through export or production taxes or voluntary contributions.1 In addition, public agricultural research in Colombia underwent a major reform in 1993 with the creation of the Colombian Corporation for Agricultural Research (CORPOICA).2 The main objective of its creation was to give the agency more flexibility in its organization compared with its predecessor, the Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA), in addition to stimulating privatesector involvement and investment. Nonetheless, CORPOICA remained heavily dependent on government contributions. In recent years, the agency's funding situation has deteriorated, but this trend is common to all agricultural R&D agencies in Colombia as a consequence of the country's ongoing economic and social crises.
Notes:
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/oc51/oc51ch11.pdf
Sublibrary:
Partnership
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page