Annual data on Kenya from 1950 to 2014 are used to analyze the determinants of the level and composition of government expenditures and estimate the agricultural-output returns to the different types of government expenditures. The paper analyzes expenditures for six functions (general administration, defense, education, health, agriculture, and other economic functions—transport, communications, etc.) as well as the capital-to-recurrent expenditure ratios within each of the six functions. Simultaneous equations modeling methods are employed, and different diagnostic tests are used to check for and address issues with stationarity, causality, and autocorrelation. Different model specifications are used to assess the sensitivity of the results to using different measures and combinations of the conceptual variables that are hypothesized to affect the composition of government expenditures and agricultural production.

This paper analyzes the determinants of the composition of government agriculture expenditure (GAE) in Africa and estimates the effect of the composition on agricultural productivity using cross-country annual data from 2014 to 2020 and structural equations modeling methods. It includes different specifications of the explanatory variables to assess the sensitivity of the results to different assumptions of the conceptual variables that are hypothesized to affect the composition and pathways of impact of government expenditure. The results show that there is a wide variation in GAE across African countries, and few have achieved the 10 percent CAADP agriculture expenditure target. Most African countries spend much smaller proportions of the national budget on agriculture than the sector’s share in the economy, and total agriculture expenditure seems to be allocated across subsectors according to their relative contribution to the sector’s output, with forestry and fisheries being slightly favored compared with crops and livestock, which dominate the sector. The allocation is also affected by several factors, such as past output and size of the subsector, official development assistance, education, irrigation, and state of agricultural transformation, although there are cross-subsector differences in their influence. There are also subsector differences in the estimated effect of GAE on land productivity: 0.06 to 0.08 for expenditure on the total sector, 0.02 for research, 0 to 0.09 for crops, 0 to 0.08 for livestock, and 0 to 0.07 for fisheries. The lower bound of zero means that the estimated effect is not statistically significant in some of the model specifications, such as whether cross-subsector expenditure effects are considered. We discuss implications of the results and suggestions for future research.

This analysis is composed of two parts. The evolving structure of Kenya’s agrifood system (AFS) and its contribution to national development is assessed using a series of Social Accounting Matrixes (SAMs) for Kenya for the period 2009–2019. Economic performance is also assessed at subsector level to better understand the contributions of different agrifood value chains to Kenya’s development and economic transformation in recent years. The analysis reveals that the effects of AFS transformation stretches well beyond primary agriculture, creating jobs and income opportunities throughout the economy. In fact, the off-farm components of the AFS have grown more rapidly than primary agriculture, although differences in market structure and internationally tradable status contributed to varied patterns of growth across value chains. The analysis further reveals that it is the domestic market, not exports, that has driven the recent growth in Kenya’s AFS. Rapid urbanization and increased income generating opportunities in the rural nonfarm sector are causing dietary patterns to shift, which will continue to shape the transformation of the AFS in Kenya. A forward-looking analysis using IFPRI’s Rural Investment and Policy Analysis (RIAPA) model – an economywide modeling framework – assesses the potential impacts of future value chain growth on development outcome indicators. The findings reveal that value chains differ considerably in their effectiveness in achieving various development outcomes. Promoting only one value chain may also result in trade-offs across these development goals. For example, the coffee and tea value chains are highly effective at raising off-farm employment in the AFS, but they have weak impacts on diet quality. Likewise, cattle and dairy have strong off-farm GDP effects within the AFS, but are relatively ineffective at reducing poverty. By promoting and investing in several value chains simultaneously, policymakers can leverage synergies and mitigate trade-offs across development outcomes associated with specific value chains. The RIAPA analysis here suggests that joint promotion of the pulses and oilseeds, fruits and nuts, and cattle and dairy value chains will be most effective at impacting the full spectrum of development outcomes tracked in the model, including poverty, growth, jobs, and diets. However, the final value chain selection may change depending on the importance policymakers attach to the respective development outcomes.

The new Kenyan government faces a complex domestic and global environment, and it is widely expected to address key food and agricultural challenges with a new set of policies and programs. This policy brief presents key recommendations from a forthcoming book, Food Systems Transformation in Kenya: Lessons from the Past and Policy Options for the Future, which provides research-based “food for thought and action” to support the Kenyan government’s efforts to improve food security.

Ending poverty and stabilizing climate change will be two unprecedented global achievements and two major steps toward sustainable development. But the two objectives cannot be considered in isolation: they need to be jointly tackled through an integrated strategy. This report brings together those two objectives and explores how they can more easily be achieved if considered together. It examines the potential impact of climate change and climate policies on poverty reduction. It also provides guidance on how to create a “win-win†? situation so that climate change policies contribute to poverty reduction and poverty-reduction policies contribute to climate change mitigation and resilience building. The key finding of the report is that climate change represents a significant obstacle to the sustained eradication of poverty, but future impacts on poverty are determined by policy choices: rapid, inclusive, and climate-informed development can prevent most short-term impacts whereas immediate pro-poor, emissions-reduction policies can drastically limit long-term ones.

The Fund has recognized in recent years that one cannot separate issues of economic growth and stability on one hand and equality on the other. Indeed, there is a strong case for considering inequality and an inability to sustain economic growth as two sides of the same coin. Central to the Fund’s mandate is providing advice that will enable members’ economies to grow on a sustained basis. But the Fund has rightly been cautious about recommending the use of redistributive policies given that such policies may themselves undercut economic efficiency and the prospects for sustained growth (the so-called “leaky bucket” hypothesis written about by the famous Yale economist Arthur Okun in the 1970s). This SDN follows up the previous SDN on inequality and growth by focusing on the role of redistribution. It finds that, from the perspective of the best available macroeconomic data, there is not a lot of evidence that redistribution has in fact undercut economic growth (except in extreme cases). One should be careful not to assume therefore—as Okun and others have—that there is a big tradeoff between redistribution and growth. The best available macroeconomic data do not support such a conclusion.

This paper explores how fiscal policy can affect medium- to long-term growth. It identifies the main channels through which fiscal policy can influence growth and distills practical lessons for policymakers. The particular mix of policy measures, however, will depend on country-specific conditions, capacities, and preferences. The paper draws on the Fund’s extensive technical assistance on fiscal reforms as well as several analytical studies, including a novel approach for country studies, a statistical analysis of growth accelerations following fiscal reforms, and simulations of an endogenous growth model.

This paper analyzes the extent of income inequality from a global perspective, its drivers, and what to do about it. The drivers of inequality vary widely amongst countries, with some common drivers being the skill premium associated with technical change and globalization, weakening protection for labor, and lack of financial inclusion in developing countries. We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down. This suggests that policies need to be country specific but should focus on raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring there is no hollowing out of the middle class. To tackle inequality, financial inclusion is imperative in emerging and developing countries while in advanced economies, policies should focus on raising human capital and skills and making tax systems more progressive.

This paper examines the empirical evidence on the contribution that government and, in particular, capital expenditure make to the growth performance of a sample of developing countries. Using the Denison growth accounting approach, this study finds that social expenditures may have a significant impact on growth in the short run, but infrastructure expenditures may have little influence. While current expenditures for directly productive purposes may exert a positive influence, capital expenditure in these sectors appears to exert a negative influence. Experiments with other explanatory variables confirm the importance of the growth of exports to the overall growth rate.

"The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic marks the most significant, singular global disruption since World War II, with health, economic, political, and security implications that will ripple for years to come." -Global Trends 2040 (2021) Global Trends 2040-A More Contested World (2021), released by the US National Intelligence Council, is the latest report in its series of reports starting in 1997 about megatrends and the world's future. This report, strongly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, paints a bleak picture of the future and describes a contested, fragmented and turbulent world. It specifically discusses the four main trends that will shape tomorrow's world: - Demographics-by 2040, 1.4 billion people will be added mostly in Africa and South Asia. - Economics-increased government debt and concentrated economic power will escalate problems for the poor and middleclass. - Climate-a hotter world will increase water, food, and health insecurity. - Technology-the emergence of new technologies could both solve and cause problems for human life. Students of trends, policymakers, entrepreneurs, academics, journalists and anyone eager for a glimpse into the next decades, will find this report, with colored graphs, essential reading.