52中英文雙語外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯成品以農(nóng)業(yè)研究為優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域的針對性扶貧（精準(zhǔn)扶貧）

1、<p>　　外文標(biāo)題：Targeting poverty alleviation in priority setting for agricultural research</p><p>　　外文作者：Derek Byerlee</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處: 《Food Policy》 , 2000 , 25 (4) :429-445 </p&

2、gt;<p>　　英文3081單詞， 18698字符，中文4178漢字。</p><p>　　此文檔是外文翻譯成品，無需調(diào)整復(fù)雜的格式哦！下載之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多元。</p><p>　　Targeting poverty alleviation in priority setting for agricultural research</p>&

3、lt;p>　　Derek Byerlee</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　This paper provides a brief overview of research priority setting methods at various levels in national research systems, no

4、ting the changing emphasis from supply- to demand-driven approaches at both macro- and micro-levels of priority setting. The scope for incorporating a poverty dimension into priority setting is then reviewed within a gen

5、eral framework that recog- nises the complexity of the link between research investments and poverty alleviation. The effectiveness of this targeting is lik</p><p>　　Keywords: Agricultural research; Poverty

6、alleviation; Research priority setting; Pakistan</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　Investment in agricultural research at both international and national levels has undoubtedly been a major success

7、 story of development experience in the past four decades. However, with growing pressure on public-sector budgets, the potential for agricultural research organisations (AROs) to use scarce resources more efficiently an

8、d effectively is widely recognised. Accordingly, many AROs have instituted for-mal priority setting exercises, often with donor support, to ensure that research resou</p><p>　　Recently, donors and government

9、s have given greater weight to poverty alleviation as the central objective of public-sector policies and investments. The international agricultural research centres have, for example, embraced poverty alleviation as th

10、eir overarching objective. However, the relationship between agricultural research and poverty alleviation is complex, involving both direct and indirect effects. Although the general consensus is that investment in agri

11、cultural research in aggregat</p><p>　　Overview of research priority setting methods</p><p>　　Broad approaches to priority setting</p><p>　　Priority setting is carried out explicitl

12、y or implicitly in all research programmes through the allocation of research resources to different commodities, regions, disci- plines, problems and types of technology. In AROs, priority setting occurs at various leve

13、ls of decision-making—most commonly at the national, programme, subprog- ramme and project levels. Resource allocation questions vary depending on the level at which priorities are set. Table 1 shows the types of decisio

14、ns typically made a</p><p>　　In practice, priority setting employs a range of approaches that can be broadly classified into supply- and demand-oriented, although some combination of approaches is often used

15、. In supply-oriented approaches, priorities are largely set within the research system. A variety of methods might be used from informal methods based on previous allocations (i.e. precedence), informal discussions and c

16、onsensus among research managers taking account of sectoral strategies and pri- orities, and formal qu</p><p>　　Macro- or national-level resource allocations across major research programmes and institutes p

17、rovide the greatest strategic leverage in priority setting. To the extent that these allocations can be targeted to maximise benefits to the poor, the poverty alleviation potential in macro-priority setting might be larg

18、e. These benefits may only be realised over the longer term because flexibility to shift specialised human and physical research infrastructure is limited in the short run. Conversely, </p><p>　　Formal econo

19、mic methods for priority setting</p><p>　　Formal economic methods have been applied to research priority setting at some time in most AROs in developing countries, although few have institutionalised them as

20、 an ongoing process (e.g. Collion and Kissi, 1995). Alston et al. (1995) provide a comprehensive treatment of formal methods. Although methods vary in complexity, most have applied a variant of the economic surplus appro

21、ach to allocate resources across commodities at the national level. If efficiency is the main decision-making crite</p><p>　　Economic surplus consists of producer surplus and consumer surplus, each of which

22、can be distributed between different income groups. On the consumer side, this is relatively straightforward because consumer expenditure information stratified by income or expenditure group is widely available (Pinstru

23、p-Andersen et al., 1976). On the producer side, lack of data on income sources by commodity for different income strata is a major constraint, although the increasing availability of household pover</p><p>　

24、　The scope for targeting poverty alleviation in priority setting</p><p>　　The complexity of the research–poverty link results partly from the interaction of several effects (Renkow, 1991): (i) direct effects

25、 on producer incomes, (ii) indirect effects on consumer welfare through changes in consumer prices, (iii) indirect effects on non-adopting producers through market prices, (iv) employment and wage effects, and (iv) growt

26、h-induced effects throughout the economy resulting from increased incomes. A conceptual understanding of the complexity of these effects is a prere</p><p>　　Direct effects on producer surplus</p><

27、p>　　Direct effects of research result from increases in incomes of farmers and other direct users of innovations produced by the research system. Targeting of poor far- mers through research is the vehicle for maximis

28、ing direct poverty alleviation effects. Because research is not conducted for individual farmers, this targeting must be done through proxy variables such as the selection of commodities, regions, technology types or tec

29、hnology characteristics. The effectiveness of this targeting will d</p><p>　　A case study of targeting by commodity in research priority setting in Pakistan</p><p>　　Priority setting for nationa

30、l commodity research was analysed for Pakistan where data on commodity-research pay-offs and on poverty were readily available. Rural households predominate in poverty profiles for Pakistan (70% of the 34% of the populat

31、ion classified as below the poverty line are rural). About half of rural poor households are small farmers, although a significant share (11%) are landless labour- ers and non-farm workers (World Bank, 1995). Food consum

32、ption accounts for half the expe</p><p>　　An examination of the consumption and production patterns of poor households</p><p>　　suggests considerable potential for commodity targeting through re

33、search. Coarse cereals and pulses are relatively more important to poor households, both in pro- duction and consumption. Conversely, most fruits, vegetables and livestock products are relatively more important to non-po

34、or consuming households. On the production side, a mixed group of coarse grains and pulses, some vegetables and livestock are relatively more important to the poor.</p><p>　　Economic surplus, computed as NPV

35、 for each commodity for a set of national commodity research programmes, was based on Nagy and Quddus (1998). Research costs were subtracted and benefits discounted and cumulated following standard pro- cedures. Total ec

36、onomic surplus was then divided between producer surplus and consumer surplus based on linear supply and demand curves paying particular atten- tion to the tradable status of the commodity, and then further divided among

37、 poor producers and consume</p><p>　　Conclusions</p><p>　　Although a variety of methods are available for targeting poverty alleviation through the allocation and use of research resources, a co

38、mprehensive incorporation of direct and indirect effects into research priority setting is often a complex under- taking, requiring considerable resources and analytical skills. At the macro-level, concerns for poverty a

39、lleviation can be built into standard economic methods for prioritising commodities and regions. Increasingly, data on poverty are becoming avai</p><p>　　Even if poverty effects of research can be comprehens

40、ively estimated ex ante, it is very much an open question whether including a poverty dimension in research priority setting will, in fact, result in a significant shift in priorities at the macro-level. As the Pakistan

41、case study shows, macro-level research priorities may be relatively insensitive to inclusion of poverty-related variables. Where food staples can be classi- fied as non-tradable for most producers and consumers, a focus

42、on majo</p><p>　　Finally, whether analysing policy options at the national level or fostering more</p><p>　　participatory approaches at the micro-level, allocation of resources to social science

43、 research can greatly inform decision making on research priorities and poverty allevi- ation. However, social sciences are usually among the weakest disciplines in tech- nology-oriented AROs. Until national research sys

44、tems are able to sharply expand their capacity in the social sciences, expectations about improved targeting of research resources for poverty alleviation must be modest.</p><p>　　References</p><p

45、>　　Alston, J.M., Norton, G.W., Pardey, P.G., 1995. Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University Press, New York.</p><p>　　Ashby, J.A

46、., Gracia T., Guerrero, M., Quiros, C.A., Roa, J.I., Beltran, J.A., 1995. Institutionalizing farmer participation in adaptive technology testing with the CIAL. Agricultural Research and Extension Net-work Paper 57. Overs

47、eas Development Institute, London.</p><p>　　Bigman, D., Fofack, H., 1999. Geographic targeting for poverty alleviation: methodology and applications. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Assessin

48、g the Impact of Research on Poverty Alleviation, San Jose, Costa Rica, Sept. 14–16.</p><p>　　Biggs, S., 1989. Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from nine national agr

49、icultural research systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper 3. International Service for National Agricultural Research, Neths.</p><p>　　Biggs, S., Farrington, J., 1991. Agricultural Research and the Poor: A R

50、eview of Social Science Analysis. International Development Research Center, Ottowa.</p><p>　　Binswanger, H.P., Quizon, J.B., 1986. What can agriculture do for the poorest rural groups? Report No. 57, Agricu

51、ltural and Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington.</p><p>　　Byerlee, D., 1973. Indirect employment and income distribution effects of agricultural development stra- tegies: a simulation approac

52、h applied to Nigeria. African Rural Employment Paper No. 9, Michigan State University, Michigan.</p><p>　　Byerlee, D., 1992. Dryland wheat in India: the impact of technical change and future research challen

53、ges. Economics Working Paper No. 92-05, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico. Byerlee, D., Morris, M.L., 1993. Calculating levels of protection: is it always appropriate to use world reference prices

54、based on current trading status? World Development 21 (50), 805–815.</p><p>　　Collion, M., Kissi, A., 1995. Guide to Program Planning and Priority Setting, Research Management</p><p>　　Guideline

55、s No. 2E. International Service for National Agricultural Research, Netherlands.</p><p>　　Collion, M., Rondot, P., 1997. Lessons from Experiences and Conclusions from a Workshop on Partner- ships between Agr

56、icultural Services Institutions and Producer Organizations: Myth or Reality? World Bank, Washington.</p><p>　　Cox, A., Farrington, J., Gilling, J., 1998. Reaching the poor? Developing a poverty screen for ag

57、ricultural</p><p>　　research proposals. Working Paper 112, Overseas Development Institute, London.</p><p>　　Coxhead, I.A., Warr, P.G., 1991. Technical change, land quality, and income distributi

58、on: A general</p><p>　　equilibrium analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (2), 345–360.</p><p>　　David, C., Otsuka, K. (Eds.), 1994. Modern Rice Technology and Income Distributi

59、on in Asia. Lynn Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO.</p><p>　　de Janvry, A., Graff, G., Sadoulet, E., Zilberman, D., 1999. Agricultural biotechnology and poverty: can the potential be made a reality? Paper prep

60、ared for the Conference, The Shape of the Coming Agricul- tural Biotechnology Transformation: Strategic Investment and Policy Approaches from an Economic</p><p>　　Perspective, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergatt

61、a’, June 17–19.</p><p>　　Evenson, R.E., 1994. Analyzing the transfer of agricultural technology. In: Anderson, J.R. (Ed.), Agricul- tural Technology: Policy Issues for the International Community. CAB Intern

62、ational, Wallingford, pp.166–179.</p><p>　　Fan, S., Hazell, P., 1997. Should India invest more in less-favored areas? EPTD Discussion Paper No.25. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington.<

63、;/p><p>　　Hazell, P., Haggblade, S., 1993. Farm–nonfarm growth linkages and the welfare of the poor. In: Lipton,</p><p>　　M., Van der Gaag, J. (Eds.), Including the Poor. World Bank, Washington, pp

64、. 190–205.</p><p>　　Janssen, W., Kissi, A., 1997. Planning and Priority Setting for Regional Research: A Practical Approach to Combine Natural Resource Management and Productivity Concerns, Research Guidelin

65、es No. 4.</p><p>　　International Service for Agricultural Research, Netherlands.</p><p>　　Janssen, W., Sanint, L., Rivas, L., Henry, G., 1990. CIAT’s commodity portfolio reexamined: indicators o

66、f present and future importance. In: Janssen, W. (Ed.), Trends in CIAT Commodities. International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Colombia, pp. 1–39.</p><p>　　Lipton, M., Longhurst, R., 1989. New Seeds and

67、Poor People. Johns Hopkins University Press, Balti-more, MD.</p><p>　　Mills, B. (Ed.), 1998. Agricultural Research Priority Setting: Information Investments for the Improved</p><p>　　Use of Rese

68、arch Resources. International Service for National Agriculture Research, Netherlands. Mills, B., M’Ragwa, L., 1999. Beyond economic benefits: sorghum in Kenya. In: Mills, B. (Ed.), Agricul- tural Research Priority Settin

69、g: Information Investments for the Improved Use of Research Resources. International Service for National Agricultural Research, Netherlands, pp. 121–136.</p><p>　　Mutangadura, G., Norton, G.W., 1999. Agricu

70、ltural research priority setting under multiple objectives:</p><p>　　an example from Zimbabwe. Agricultural Economics 20 (3), 277–292.</p><p>　　Nagy, J.G., Quddus, M.A., 1998. National agricultu

71、ral commodity research priorities for Pakistan. Agricul-</p><p>　　tural Economics 19, 327–340.</p><p>　　Pardey, P.G., Wood, S., 1994. Targeting research by agricultural enviroments. In: Anderson

72、, J.R. (Ed.), Agricultural Technology: Policy Issues for the International Community. CAB International, Wall-</p><p>　　ingford, pp. 566–590.</p><p>　　Perrin, R., Winkelmann, D.L., 1976. Impedim

73、ents to technical progress on small versus large farms.</p><p>　　American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58, 888–894.</p><p>　　Pinstrup-Andersen, P., De London?o, N.R., Hoover, E., 1976. The

74、impact of increasing food supply on human nutrition: implications for commodity priorities in agricultural research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (2), 131–142.</p><p>　　Renkow, M., 1991. Mod

75、eling the aggregate effects of technological change on income distribution in Pakistan’s favored and marginal production environments. Economics Paper No. 4. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico.</

76、p><p>　　Schultz, T.W., 1990. The economics of agricultural research. In: Eicher, C.K., Staatz, J.M. (Eds.), Agricul- tural Development in the Third World, 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD,

77、pp. 335–348.</p><p>　　Scobie, G.M., Posada, R., 1978. The impact of technological change on income distribution: the case of rice in Colombia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (1), 85–92.</p&

78、gt;<p>　　World Bank, 1995. Pakistan Poverty Assessment. Report No. 14397-PAK, World Bank, Washington.</p><p>　　以農(nóng)業(yè)研究為優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域的針對性扶貧</p><p>　　Derek Byerlee</p><p><b>　　摘要<

79、;/b></p><p>　　本文簡要概述了國家研究體系中各方面的研究優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域方法，指出在優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域的宏觀和微觀兩個(gè)層面上，強(qiáng)調(diào)了從供給驅(qū)動(dòng)到需求驅(qū)動(dòng)方法的變化。然后在考慮研究投入與減貧之間復(fù)雜聯(lián)系的總體框架內(nèi)，將貧困問題納入優(yōu)先重點(diǎn)的范圍。這種針對性帶來的效果很可能是非常具體的。對巴基斯坦宏觀優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域的案例研究表明，相對于基于以效率為目標(biāo)的排名，通過重新分配商品等研究對象，向窮人提供即得利益范圍有限。鑒于目

80、前的知識(shí)，應(yīng)該強(qiáng)調(diào)研究系統(tǒng)在促進(jìn)基礎(chǔ)廣泛的技術(shù)變革方面的效率和效力，而不是直接針對貧困加大努力。這將涉及供給和需求驅(qū)動(dòng)方法的相結(jié)合，在研究系統(tǒng)的不同層面上確定優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域，從而提升扶貧研究的效率和降低貧困帶來的影響。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：農(nóng)業(yè)研究，扶貧，研究優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域，巴基斯坦</p><p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　國

81、際和國家層面上的農(nóng)業(yè)研究投入，無疑是過去四十年發(fā)展經(jīng)驗(yàn)的一個(gè)重大成功故事。然而，隨著公共部門預(yù)算的壓力越來越大，農(nóng)業(yè)研究組織（AROs）要更有效地利用稀缺資源的潛力是一個(gè)被廣泛認(rèn)識(shí)到的問題。因此，許多ARO通常會(huì)在投資人的支持下制定正式的優(yōu)先發(fā)展工作，以確保研究資源的分配符合國家目標(biāo)和客戶需求。研究優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域涉及多個(gè)目標(biāo)和多種方法。許多學(xué)者使用經(jīng)濟(jì)剩余方法，強(qiáng)調(diào)效率目標(biāo)并根據(jù)產(chǎn)生效益的凈現(xiàn)值（NPV）優(yōu)先考慮研究計(jì)劃（Alston等，19

82、95）。有時(shí)還納入了其他各種目標(biāo)，包括與公平和減貧相關(guān)的變量，例如，農(nóng)場規(guī)模、地區(qū)人均收入或窮人收益的多少。但是，在確定優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域時(shí)卻很少將扶貧作為核心。</p><p>　　投資人和政府作為公共部門政策和投入的核心，近日更加重視扶貧工作。 例如，國際農(nóng)業(yè)研究中心已將扶貧作為其總體目標(biāo)。 然而，農(nóng)業(yè)研究與扶貧之間的關(guān)系是復(fù)雜的，涉及直接和間接的影響。 雖然普遍的共識(shí)是對農(nóng)業(yè)研究的投入對窮人來說總體上是有利的，但一些

83、觀察人士警告說，扶貧不能只是在某一方面進(jìn)行投入。 他們認(rèn)為從長遠(yuǎn)來看，廣泛的技術(shù)引導(dǎo)的研究將對扶貧產(chǎn)生最大的影響（David和Otsuka，1994）。</p><p>　　研究優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域方法概述</p><p>　　確定優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域的廣泛途徑</p><p>　　通過對不同商品、地區(qū)、紀(jì)律、問題和技術(shù)類型分配研究資源，在所有研究計(jì)劃中將明確地執(zhí)行優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域。在ARO中，優(yōu)

84、先領(lǐng)域的確定發(fā)生在各級(jí)決策層面， 通常在國家計(jì)劃，子計(jì)劃和項(xiàng)目層面。資源分配問題取決于設(shè)定優(yōu)先的級(jí)別。表1顯示了在每個(gè)優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域通常做出的決策類型。</p><p>　　在實(shí)踐中，優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域的確定采用了一系列方法，可以大致分為面向供給和需求的方面，盡管經(jīng)常使用一些組合的方法。在以供應(yīng)為導(dǎo)向的方法中，優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)主要集中在研究系統(tǒng)內(nèi)。根據(jù)先前的分配（即優(yōu)先級(jí)），討論和考慮到部門戰(zhàn)略和優(yōu)先級(jí)的研究管理人員之間達(dá)成的共識(shí)，使用

85、評(píng)分模型，確定一致性或經(jīng)濟(jì)盈余的正式定量方法。在以需求為導(dǎo)向的方法中，優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域是基于研究系統(tǒng)外部的主要利益相關(guān)者，特別是為相關(guān)人的觀點(diǎn)而設(shè)定的。這些可能要采用協(xié)商的參與方法，或者相關(guān)人自己可能有權(quán)決定研究重點(diǎn)</p><p>　　主要研究機(jī)構(gòu)的宏觀或國家層面上的級(jí)資源分配，為優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域確定提供了最大的戰(zhàn)略杠桿。只要這些撥款能夠以最大限度地惠及窮人這一目標(biāo)能達(dá)成，宏觀重點(diǎn)環(huán)境下的扶貧效率將大大提升。這些利好只能在更長

86、的時(shí)間內(nèi)實(shí)現(xiàn)，因?yàn)樵诙唐趦?nèi)轉(zhuǎn)變?nèi)肆脱芯炕A(chǔ)設(shè)施的靈活性是有限的。相反，系統(tǒng)中較低層次的優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域，特別是通過更多參與性方法來選擇技術(shù)類型和技術(shù)特性，可能會(huì)增強(qiáng)短期到中期研究的減貧效果，貧困農(nóng)民可立即享受到研究成果帶來的利好。</p><p>　　確定優(yōu)先重點(diǎn)扶貧范圍</p><p>　　貧困關(guān)系研究的復(fù)雜性部分是因?yàn)閹追N效應(yīng)的相互作用（Renkow，1991）：（i）對生產(chǎn)者收入的直接影響

87、，（ii）通過消費(fèi)者價(jià)格變化對消費(fèi)者福利的間接影響，（iii）間接影響 （4）就業(yè)和工資效應(yīng);（4）收入增加導(dǎo)致整個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長引起的影響。 對這些影響復(fù)雜性的概念理解將是在研究重點(diǎn)領(lǐng)域中有效瞄準(zhǔn)扶貧的先決條件。</p><p>　　對生產(chǎn)者剩余的直接影響</p><p>　　研究系統(tǒng)中的研究結(jié)果帶來的直接影響是農(nóng)民收入的增長以及由此帶來的決策創(chuàng)新。通過研究精準(zhǔn)的貧窮群體，能最大限度地提高直接

88、扶貧的效果。由于研究不是針對個(gè)體農(nóng)民進(jìn)行的，因此必須通過諸如商品選擇、地區(qū)、技術(shù)類型或技術(shù)特征等變量來完成這一目標(biāo)。這種定位的有效性取決于以下程度： （i）生產(chǎn)者獲得的研究收益，（ii）貧窮生產(chǎn)者依賴農(nóng)業(yè)收入而不是其他來源，（iii）貧困群體與目標(biāo)變量的相關(guān)性，（iv）目標(biāo)研究可以產(chǎn)生高于研究成本的經(jīng)濟(jì)剩余（v）技術(shù)層面的程度和性質(zhì)。表2顯示了針對不同研究優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域的可能性。在宏觀層面，研究資源通常按商品、因素或區(qū)域進(jìn)行分配。這種目標(biāo)的有

89、效性在很大程度上取決于農(nóng)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)、農(nóng)業(yè)收入對貧困家庭收入和農(nóng)業(yè)氣候變量的重要性等實(shí)證問題。例如，如果某些產(chǎn)品相對重要，以商品為目標(biāo)就可能是貧窮人口的有效收入，特別是如果商品與貧困程度高的族裔或宗教群體，更加密切相關(guān)（Cox等，1998）。</p><p>　　巴基斯坦研究重點(diǎn)領(lǐng)域的商品定位案例研究</p><p>　　對巴基斯坦國家商品研究的優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域進(jìn)行了分析，其商品研究回報(bào)和貧窮數(shù)據(jù)很容易

90、獲得。農(nóng)村家庭在巴基斯坦貧困線中占主導(dǎo)（34％的貧困線以下人口中有70％是農(nóng)村）。大約一半的農(nóng)村貧困家庭是小農(nóng)戶，盡管很大一部分（11％）是無地勞工和非農(nóng)工人（世界銀行，1995年）。食品消費(fèi)占貧困家庭支出的一半。小麥?zhǔn)侨珖饕闹魇?，但畜產(chǎn)品，特別是牛奶是最大的支出項(xiàng)目。</p><p>　　對貧困家庭的消費(fèi)和生產(chǎn)模式的考察表明通過研究確定商品目標(biāo)的潛力巨大。在生產(chǎn)和消費(fèi)方面，粗糧和豆類對貧困家庭相對重要得多。

91、相反，大多數(shù)水果，蔬菜和畜產(chǎn)品對非貧困消費(fèi)家庭來說相對更重要。在生產(chǎn)方面，混雜的粗糧和豆類，一些蔬菜和牲畜對窮人來說比較重要。</p><p>　　依據(jù)Nagy和Quddus（1998）的觀點(diǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)盈余以一系列國家商品研究計(jì)劃中的每種商品的凈現(xiàn)值為基礎(chǔ)。根據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)程序減去研究費(fèi)用并折扣和累計(jì)利益。然后根據(jù)線性供求曲線，將生產(chǎn)者剩余和消費(fèi)者剩余之間的總量分配，特別注意商品的可貿(mào)易狀況，然后按生產(chǎn)者和消費(fèi)者在生產(chǎn)和消費(fèi)中

92、的份額進(jìn)一步分配。根據(jù)世界銀行（1995）對貧困線的的定義重新分析了為貧困研究收集的家庭消費(fèi)數(shù)據(jù)，以便估算22個(gè)商品中每個(gè)商品的商品生產(chǎn)和消費(fèi)比例。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　盡管通過分配和使用研究資源，可以采取多種方法來減輕貧困，但將其直接和間接影響全面納入研究重點(diǎn)領(lǐng)域通常是一項(xiàng)復(fù)雜的工作，需要大量的資源和分析技能。在宏觀層面，可

93、以將商品和地區(qū)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)經(jīng)濟(jì)方法納入到扶貧考慮的工作中去。盡管這些數(shù)據(jù)需要以更加便于學(xué)者使用的格式提供（例如消費(fèi)者支出表和商品和收入組的收入來源表），但國家層面上越來越多地提供了貧困數(shù)據(jù)和地區(qū)情況）。技術(shù)和價(jià)格溢出、勞動(dòng)力市場效應(yīng)、區(qū)域間分配和增長與貧窮的聯(lián)系，通常超出了大多數(shù)公共研究機(jī)構(gòu)的需要全面核算的資源范圍。然而，僅僅基于直接利益的貧困生產(chǎn)者研究資源的“原先”定位，可能在總體減貧效果方面產(chǎn)生相當(dāng)令人誤解的結(jié)果。</p>

94、<p>　　即使事先對研究的貧困影響進(jìn)行了全面的估計(jì)，但將貧困因素納入研究優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域是否會(huì)導(dǎo)致宏觀層面上給優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)帶來重大轉(zhuǎn)變，這是一個(gè)懸而未決的問題。正如巴基斯坦的案例研究所表明的，宏觀層面的研究重點(diǎn)可能對納入與貧困有關(guān)的變量相對不敏感。對于大多數(shù)生產(chǎn)者和消費(fèi)者來說，主食可以被分類為不可交易的地方，如文獻(xiàn)中常規(guī)認(rèn)可的那樣，重點(diǎn)主要的主食可能對貧困家庭有最大的好處。然而，貿(mào)易自由化、產(chǎn)品需求隨收入增加而變化，貧困轉(zhuǎn)移到農(nóng)村和城市

95、地區(qū)的非農(nóng)業(yè)群體，導(dǎo)致研究資源配置與其扶貧效果之間更復(fù)雜的相互作用。在某些情況下，區(qū)域定位可能是適當(dāng)?shù)模夹g(shù)和價(jià)格溢出往往會(huì)主宰對某一地區(qū)生產(chǎn)者和消費(fèi)者收入的直接影響。其總體影響可能在高度特定的情況下，需要對具有一系列貧困狀況和經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)的國家進(jìn)行更深入的分析，以概括研究資源分配中效率平等權(quán)衡邊界的情形。</p><p>　　最后，無論是分析國家層面的政策選擇還是促進(jìn)更多微觀層面的參與式方法，這都為社會(huì)科學(xué)研究分

96、配資源以及重點(diǎn)研究扶貧優(yōu)先領(lǐng)域提供了決策意見。然而，社會(huì)科學(xué)通常是以技術(shù)為導(dǎo)向，這是ARO機(jī)構(gòu)中最薄弱的部分。在國家研究系統(tǒng)能夠大幅擴(kuò)大其在社會(huì)科學(xué)領(lǐng)域的能力之前，對提升扶貧研究資源定位的期望必須適度。</p><p>　　References</p><p>　　Alston, J.M., Norton, G.W., Pardey, P.G., 1995. Science under S

97、carcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University Press, New York.</p><p>　　Ashby, J.A., Gracia T., Guerrero, M., Quiros, C.A., Roa, J.I., Beltran, J.A., 1

98、995. Institutionalizing farmer participation in adaptive technology testing with the CIAL. Agricultural Research and Extension Net-work Paper 57. Overseas Development Institute, London.</p><p>　　Bigman, D.,

99、Fofack, H., 1999. Geographic targeting for poverty alleviation: methodology and applications. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Assessing the Impact of Research on Poverty Alleviation, San Jose, Costa Rica