This report answers the question: “What guidelines can be used to identify the types of agricultural investments that have the highest economic return, where “agriculture” is broadly defined to include primary production, handling, storage, transportation, distribution, processing, and retailing?” Using the literature and MCC’s ERR analyses, we explain how agricultural investments fit in a wider development context, identify information useful to MCC’s decision making that is not provided by the ERR analyses, and suggest IFPRI tools for exploratory and ex-ante evaluative analysis that MCC can use in their decision-making process.

Through the Notification of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the project “Advisory Services – Program Management for Development and Implementation within the Agricultural Sector” (DCO-PR-18-0293) issued a to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) described a series of information needs and how IFPRI could provide research and analysis that would help the MCC maximize the effectiveness of their agricultural interventions. This report focuses on how agricultural investment should be prioritized across territories within countries to maximize economic returns. With this purpose in mind, we develop a spatial and economic tool for strategic analysis and visioning to help understand where the best opportunities for investments in agriculture, with specific examples for investments in irrigation and roads in Ethiopia and Malawi. For such investments to be effective for poverty alleviation, it is necessary that they lead to farm-level increases in productivity and are translated into higher incomes and better livelihoods for rural households. Our proposed approach utilizes stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) to estimate smallholders’ agricultural potential under optimal conditions and compare it with their current performance to assess their efficiency levels. SFA allows the econometric exploration of the notion that, given fixed local agroecological and economic conditions in a region and the occurrence of random shocks that affect agricultural production, the decisions farmers and policymakers make translate into higher or lower production and profits. Inefficiency is then defined as the loss incurred by operating away from an ideal production frontier, and by estimating where this frontier lies, and how far each producer is from it, SFA helps to identify local potential and efficiency levels to construct the typology. For this report, we show how this approach can allow us to compare estimated agricultural potential and efficiency levels under current conditions and hypothetical investment scenarios and calculate what are the agricultural profit gains linked to each case. We can then extrapolate these results at the regional level for the whole country and combine them with GIS data on local agroecological conditions, water availability, topography, and road infrastructure to construct our typology. In particular, we use our typology results to assess where investments in agriculture would be more effective in bringing rural households out of poverty (closing the poverty gap), and how two different types of investments can increase rural households’ incomes through an increase in the profitability of smallholder agriculture. The first scenario looks at the impact of an increase in access to irrigation through river diversion methods, while the second scenario looks at the impact of an increase in market access, which we simulate by analyzing what would be the impact of reducing travel time to the nearest market (city of least 25,000 inhabitants) from any farm in the country by 50%. For Ethiopia, we find pockets of considerable unattained farm profits located throughout the central and western parts of the country, where opportunities for investments to close efficiency gaps in agricultural production and marketing can yield high returns. Low potential in the eastern lowlands limit opportunities for gains from efficiency-oriented investments, and development efforts in these regions should be focused in long-term, large scale interventions that shift the agricultural frontier. With respect to poverty alleviation, our results show that for many regions in the country, especially in the high central plateau, investing in increasing the efficiency of smallholders would be enough to close the poverty gap. In contrast, many areas in the Somali, Tigray, Afar, Oromia, and SNNP regions would require unrealistically high shifts in their agricultural potential due to its current low level combined in many cases with higher than average poverty gaps. The results from the improved irrigation access scenario are heavily constrained by the surface water availability constraint and show that the largest impacts would be observed in Somali and Afar, while in the case of the improved market access scenario, these benefits would extend to Tigray as well. For Malawi, our maps show higher agricultural potential in the Northern and Central regions of the country, consistent with the higher precipitation levels and the agroecological suitability for horticulture in the Kasungu Lilongwe Plain (central), and the staple crop producing areas in the north (such as Chipita). The southern region suffers from lower potential due to poorer general weather conditions and lower rainfall levels. The unattained potential map shows that despite high levels of efficiency, potential in the north is high enough for the remaining gap to be significant, and that the levels of efficiency in the southern tip of the country are low enough to offer some opportunities for efficiency enhancing investments in those areas as well. The poverty analysis shows that the incidence and depth of poverty are higher in the Southern Region of Malawi, but that the poverty gap in all districts of the country could be closed by investing in efficiency enhancing interventions in agriculture without depending on investments that shift the agricultural profit frontier. The results from the improved irrigation access scenario show a larger impact in the Central Region of the country, particularly the districts of Kasungu, Dowa, and Salima, while the improved market access scenario benefits are more evenly spread out across the country.

Substantial increases in agricultural investments in developing countries are needed to combat poverty and realize food security and nutrition goals. There is evidence that agricultural investments can generate a wide range of developmental benefits, but these benefits cannot be expected to arise automatically and some forms of large-scale investment carry risks for host countries. Although there has been much debate about the potential benefits and risks of international investment, there is no systematic evidence on the actual impacts on the host country and their determinants. In order to acquire an in-depth understanding of potential benefits, constraints and costs of foreign investment in agriculture and of the business models that are more conducive to development, FAO has undertaken research in developing countries.This publication summarizes the results of this research, in particular through the presentation of the main findings of case studies in nine developing countries. It presents case studies on policies to attract foreign investment in agriculture and their impacts on national economic development in selected countries in Africa, Asian and Latin America.

A 2005 analysis of both the causes and consequences of the international expansion of Spanish multinational firms.

This report provides an overview of a study conducted in the NENA region in 2015-2016 in partnership with FAO, CIRAD, CIHEAM-IAMM and six national teams, each of which prepared a national report. In the six countries under review in the NENA region (Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Mauritania, Sudan and Tunisia), agriculture is carried out primarily by small-scale family farmers, the majority of whom run the risk of falling into the poverty trap, largely due to the continuous fragmentation of inherited landholdings. As such, the development of small-scale family farming can no longer be based solely on intensifying agriculture, as the farmers are not able to produce sufficient marketable surplus due to the limited size of their landholdings. An approach based strictly on agricultural activity is also insufficient (as small-scale family farms have already diversified their livelihoods with off-farm activities). In fact, developing small-scale farming cannot be achieved by focusing strictly on t he dimension of production.

American government securities); 1928-53 in 5 annual vols.:[v.1] Railroad securities (1952-53. Transportation); [v.2] Industrial securities; [v.3] Public utility securities; [v.4] Government securities (1928-54); [v.5] Banks, insurance companies, investment trusts, real estate, finance and credit companies (1928-54).

ÿ Inclusive business is hailed as a win-win scenario for the development of poor communities; yet there is little insight into how these inclusive businesses work and, more importantly, for whom. This book aims for a thorough understanding of the range of inclusive businesses in agriculture by examining: the structures they implement, the actors involved, and whether they are effectively inclusive of smallholders. It presents a range of case studies and is therefore empirically based and practically oriented. By offering a critical assessment of inclusive businesses overall, it allows for a better perception of what works where, and under which conditions. It provides useful insights that will benefit smallholders, agri-businesses, support groups, policy makers and investors who are willing to promote more inclusive businesses, that foster a better integration of smallholders into commercial value-chains and a more equitable and sustainable agricultural sector.