Peter Hazell and Frank Place POLICY SEMINAR Lessons from IFPRI Country Programs on Informing Policy Decisions and Strengthening Capacity Co-Organized by IFPRI and the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) MAY 22, 2019 - 12:15 PM TO 01:45 PM EDT

1. Lessons from IFPRI country programs
on informing policy decisions and
strengthening capacity
Peter Hazell, External Coordinator of Impact Assessment,
International Food Policy Research Institute
Frank Place, Director, CGIAR Research Program on Policies,
Institutions, and Markets (PIM)
Washington DC | May 22, 2019

2. IFPRI Country Program Offices Between 1980s and 2019

3. Country programs and decentralization of
IFPRI’s staff
Number of outposted and headquarters IRS staff, 1987-2015
20 26 31 29 20 16 18 26 25 31 31 29 31 40 52 61 61 64 79 64
82 82 85 93106
106
122
132
131
4 9 8 8
12 10 5 6 8 10 14 14 13
12
8
5 6 12
11
25
25 2533
39
40
43
43
45 44
0
50
100
150
200
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
HQ+telecommuters Outpost

4. Objectives of the studies
Overall: A mid-term assessment of IFPRI country programs/decentralization
strategy to find lessons for making them more effective
1. Identify factors that are associated with successful cases of informing
policies and improving capacity, drawing upon reflections of IFPRI country
program leaders
2. Conduct an in-depth assessment of country strategy support programs in
Africa (focus on Ghana, Malawi, Uganda) drawing upon reflections of
different stakeholders
3. Advance a methodology and empirical understanding of the quantitative
impacts of IFPRI country programs/decentralization strategy

5. Conceptual design
Self identified successes
from country program
leaders
A sample subjected to an
interview questionnaire
General lessons distilled
on success factors
Inputs into
deeper dive of
African country
programs
Reassessed based
on Africa study
Interviews and
surveys primarily
in 3 countries
Justification for
quantitative “impact”
study
Econometric study at
country level covering 33
years and 57 countries
Cautious findings

6. Country program leader interviews
▪ Hazell and Place (2018) interviewed all current Country Strategy Support
Program leaders as of 2017 (Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria,
Bangladesh and Pakistan) and former leaders in Bangladesh, China,
India, DRC, Malawi, Uganda, Costa Rica
▪ Agreed to focus on specific case study examples where a policy outcome
was clear and influence was perceived to be significant (n=18)
▪ Discussion focused on importance of the research, partnerships,
communications and other outreach activities in achieving successful
policy outcomes
▪ Synthesized results and analyzed them against the Kaleidoscope Model
framework (Resnick et al 2015, 2018)

7. In-depth study of current and recent African
country programs
▪ External assessment by Professor Eric Tollens
▪ Reviewed materials from six countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi,
Mozambique, Nigeria, and Uganda
▪ Visited Ghana, Malawi, and Uganda and interviewed/surveyed many
stakeholders
▪ Focused on effectiveness of programs and areas for improvement in the
IFPRI and external environment

8. Country program success case studies
▪ Bangladesh – food rations
system, response to food
shortages, social protection
program
▪ China - public expenditures
▪ Costa Rica – Central America
Free Trade Agreement
▪ DRC – agricultural business parks
▪ Egypt – food subsidy program
▪ Ethiopia - input distribution
programs, social protection
▪ Ghana – input policy
▪ India – pulses policies and
programs, ICAR capacity
strengthening
▪ Malawi – famine response, input
subsidies, maize export ban
▪ Nigeria – Agricultural Promotion
Policy
▪ Pakistan – agricultural research
council reforms
▪ Uganda – food price spike
response

9. Findings: Are CPs having impact?
▪ Qualitative evidence: CPs have made many valuable contributions to
the policies and capacities of their host countries, which are widely
recognized by national stakeholders and donors.
▪ Econometric analysis: encouraging results in terms of the estimated
impacts on selected policy and development outcomes in host countries.
Economic benefits to host countries far exceed the costs to IFPRI of
outposting staff.
▪ But the study also demonstrated the serious model specification, data,
and estimation problems that bedevil such quantitative evaluations.

10. Findings: Factors contributing to CP success
▪ Select countries where IFPRI has established reputation and
knowledge base from past research, and governments keen for greater
engagement. Donor interest alone is not sufficient.
▪ Need sufficient time and resources to become effectively embedded
within the local policy ecosystem, and to build long-term relationships of
trust and credibility with key policy makers.
▪ Good partnerships critical, but care required in selecting the best
partner for each role.
▪ Location: an independent office is best but with one or more team
members working in the policy analysis section of relevant ministries.

11. Findings: Factors contributing to CP success
Setting the research agenda
▪ IFPRI’s comparative advantage lies in providing
original research contributions to the policy debate.
▪ Need to balance “firefighting” responses to new and
urgent policy problems with longer-term research.
▪ Need to avoid capture by donor priorities, especially
when these diverge from the government’s priorities.
▪ Having a national consultative body or process in
which key stakeholders have a voice helps ensure a
relevant, demand-driven agenda.

12. Findings: Factors contributing to CP success
CP head’s leadership skills
▪ CPs need an appropriately skilled leader — not
just research skills but also softer skills in
engaging with and influencing policy makers,
donors and other partners.
▪ Not all researchers have these skills and may
need additional training, mentoring, and other
types of support, especially when newly hired.
▪ These softer skills should also receive adequate
recognition in staff performance reviews.

13. Findings: Factors contributing to CP success
Capacity strengthening
▪ The most effective way to build national capacity
is through collaborative research and
strengthening national statistical systems and
databases, and the on-the-job training these
entail.
▪ Although most CPs also provide numerous one-
off trainings on special topics, these trainings
seem not to be very effective.
▪ More strategic approaches to capacity building
are needed that take into account institutional
needs as well as those of individual
collaborators.

14. Findings: Factors contributing to CP success
Communications
▪ The main communication channels through which
CPs have influenced policies are direct contact
with senior policy makers, indirectly via well-
connected partner organizations and champions of
IFPRI, and through evidence-based conferences
and workshops.
▪ Written materials and websites have played mixed
roles.
▪ Use of the media has been less common and
possibly underexploited.
▪ Establishing a community of practice on
communications within IFPRI might prove useful.

15. Findings: Factors contributing to CP success
The last mile
▪ A successfully embedded CP team and strong evidence
are not always enough for influencing policies. The right
conditions are also necessary for policy change.
▪ Three factors seem particularly important:
1.The existence of a specific and relevant problem
2. Solid evidence from rigorous research on the expected
impact of a policy change and of available alternatives
3. Focusing event, such as an emerging policy crisis
▪ The Kaleidoscope Model developed at IFPRI provides a
useful framework for CP teams to prioritize their research
agendas and outreach strategies for greater policy
influence.

16. Other findings
▪ CPs are funded through bilateral grants and are vulnerable to premature
termination because of unforeseen funding cuts. CP’s should strive for a
diversified funding base and have exit strategies that protect and sustain
their in-country achievements.
▪ CPs could usefully play bigger roles in coordinating IFPRI’s activities in
their host countries—serving as clearinghouses for all IFPRI’s work
relevant to their host countries, and helping to identify opportunities for
integrating more of IFPRI’s research findings into national development
policies.
▪ This is not to argue that CPs should assume managerial responsibility
for all of IFPRI’s work in their host country.

17. References to papers
▪ Place and Hazell (2018) IFPRI country programs: Lessons from case
study successes. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/ifpri-country-programs-
lessons-case-study-successes
▪ Hazell, Place and Tollens (2018) Taking stock of IFPRI’s experience with
country programs. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/taking-stock-ifpris-
experience-country-programs
▪ Benin, Place and Hazell (2018) Has IFPRI’s research decentralization
strategy made a difference? An econometric study of African and Asian
Countries, 1981–2014. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/has-ifpris-research-
decentralization-strategy-made-difference-econometric-study-african