- 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
Public-private partnerships for innovation-led growth in agrichains : a useful tool for development in Latin America?
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
MiscellaneousSource:
ISNAR Discussion Paper 1, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. (2005)Keywords:
agrichains; agricultural research; Innovation; Latin American Airlines; partnership; Public-private partnershipsAbstract:
Public-private partnerships have become increasingly important as an arrangement that serves to encourage innovation in agricultural production chains in Latin America. However, some observers have expressed concern that this institutional arrangement may mostly favor the interests of the private sector without producing sufficient social benefits for the public. This paper presents the results of a study of 124 cases of public-private partnerships in agricultural innovation in nine countries in Latin America. The data from the study suggest that the partnership concept is used to generate agricultural innovations in many different ways, involving public research and private entities to varying degrees and focusing on different types of agricultural products, processing, or marketing. The results indicate that public as well as private sector actors often enter into partnerships based on unclear expectations of the benefits to be obtained, but once involved, these actors are usually satisfied with the results. Given the high degree of satisfaction that partners experience in public-private partnerships, they constitute an interesting new tool for development. However, in many cases public sector agents do not clearly establish public priorities; in consequence, public sector goals are not addressed sufficiently. Also due to the limited commitment of some of the partners to partnerships their potentials of generating synergy are not met. One key recommendation to emerge from the study is that when entering into public-private partnerships, public agents should ensure that these partnerships comply with public needs.
Sublibrary:
Innovation
Partnership
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page