Focuses on economic growth in the agricultural sectors of Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. The agricultural sectors of these economies have diverged considerably over the last 40 years. The volume investigates the ways in which policy, institutions, investments and resource constraints have driven this divergence.

Understanding economic growth is central to the study of development. Rural economic growth is an important aspect of economic growth. Historically, rural agriculture has employed most people in most countries, and continues to do so today. Nevertheless, the casual relationship between economic growth and growth in agriculture remain poorly understood. This volume focuses on economic growth in the agriculture sectors of Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Starting from similar positions, the agriculture sectors of these economies have diverged considerably over the last 40 years. This volume investigates the ways in which policy, institutions, investments, resource constraints and the reallocation of agricultural labor have driven this divergence. It volume documents the interplay of endowments, technology, the accumulation of productive factors, policy, and advocacy in the rural sectors of these three countries. It contributes in its own ways to an explanation of the past. Good policy rests on an understanding of successes and failures in the past. This book is a critical contribution to such an understanding.

The introduction of new high-yielding varieties of cereals in the 1960s, know as the green revolution, changed dramatically the food supply in Asia as well as in other countries. Mundlak, Larson, and Butzer examine over an extended period the growth consequences for agriculture in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand. Despite geographic proximity, similar climate, and other shared characteristics, gains in productivity and income differed significantly among the countries. The authors quantify these differences and examine their determinants. Mundlak, Larson, and Butzer find that the new technology changed the returns to fertilizers, irrigated land, and capital, all of which proved scarce to varying degrees. Complementing technology-related changes in factor use were investments--public and private--driven in part by policy. The authors find that factor accumulation played an important role in output growth and that accumulations from policy-driven investments in human capital and public infrastructure were important sources of productivity gains. They conclude that policies that ease constraints on factor markets and promote public investment in people and infrastructure provide the best opportunities for agricultural growth. This paper--a product of Rural Development, Development Research Group--is part of a larger effort in the group to understand appropriate policies that promote rural development. The study was funded by the Bank's Research Support Budget under the research project "Dynamism of Rural Sector Development" (RPO 683-06). The authors may be contacted at [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected].

Southeast Asia made considerable progress in building and strengthening its agricultural R&D capacity during 2000–2017. All of the region’s countries reported higher numbers of agricultural researchers, improvements in their average qualification levels, and higher shares of women participating in agricultural R&D. In contrast, regional agricultural research spending remained stagnant, despite considerable growth in agricultural output over time. As a result, Southeast Asia’s agricultural research intensity—that is, agricultural research spending as a share of agricultural GDP—steadily declined from 0.50 percent in 2000 to just 0.33 percent in 2017. Although the extent of underinvestment in agricultural research differs across countries, all Southeast Asian countries invested below the levels deemed attainable based on the analysis summarized in this report. The region will need to increase its agricultural research investment substantially in order to address future agricultural production challenges more effectively and ensure productivity growth. Southeast Asia’s least developed agricultural research systems (Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar) are characterized by low scientific output and researcher productivity as a direct consequence of severe underfunding and lack of sufficient well-qualified research staff. While Malaysia and Thailand have significantly more developed agricultural research systems, they still report key inefficiencies and resource constraints that require attention. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam occupy intermediate positions between these two groups of high- and low-performing agricultural research systems. Growing national economies, higher disposable incomes, and changing consumption patterns will prompt considerable shifts in levels of agricultural production, consumption, imports, and exports across Southeast Asia over the next 20 to 30 years. The resource-allocation decisions that governments make today will affect agricultural productivity for decades to come. Governments therefore need to ensure the research they undertake is responsive to future challenges and opportunities, and aligned with strategic development and agricultural sector plans. ASTI’s projections reveal that prioritizing investment in staple crops will still trigger fastest agricultural productivity growth in Laos. However, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam could achieve faster growth over the next 30 years by prioritizing investment in research focused on fruit, vegetables, livestock, and aquaculture. In Cambodia, Myanmar, and Thailand, the choice between focusing on staple crops versus high-value commodities was less pronounced, but projections did indicate that prioritizing investments in oil crop research would trigger significantly lower growth in agricultural productivity.

Examines contradictory economic and political trends occurring in the Philippines in order to gain a sense of the country's prospects.

Author is an alumnus of Evanston Township High School, class of 1952.