On May 23, FSE hosted its final symposium of a two-year series on global food policy and food security in the 21st century. The series was designed to look at the growing nexus of food, water and energy and to understand the disparities in agricultural productivity amongst developed and developing countries. What lessons can be learned from history, and how can these be applied to inform an effective and sustainable effort to eliminate food insecurity in sub-Saharan Asia and South Asia? FSE thanks the series participants and funder, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This summer FSE will be publishing a synthesis volume as a final product of the series. Past talks and papers are available for download on the FSE website. We hope you enjoyed the series!

Food and water security in sub-Saharan Africa remain a challenge despite the region’s abundance of arable land and untapped water resources. In FSE’s final global food policy and food security symposium, water expert John Briscoe drew upon his many years of international field experience (including a 20-year career at the World Bank) to deliver a personal assessment of the issues facing Africa and suggestions for the way forward.

Improvements in infrastructure, agricultural productivity and investment are crucial for tapping Africa’s agricultural and development potential. And middle-income countries, such as Brazil, may have the most lessons to share.

Dams and the quest for water security

“Africa’s infrastructure is lousy,” said Briscoe, an environmental engineer and director of Harvard’s Water Security Initiative. “Crumbling roads, patchy supplies of electricity, and inadequate water storage are some of Africa’s biggest impediments to growth.”

Sub-Saharan Africa has tremendous surface and groundwater resources, yet only 4 to 5 percent of cultivated land is irrigated. Most agricultural land relies on rainfall and is often limited to a three to six month rainy season. For many countries in Africa, economic growth and rainfall are closely linked.

Africa has the potential to irrigate an additional 20 million hectares of land, but building that infrastructure is expensive and finding funding has become more difficult. Historically, the World Bank and wealthy countries like the United States have helped. But funding dams is now unpopular.

Meanwhile, middle-income countries - such as Brazil, India and China - are building infrastructure for water-enabled growth, and are filling the funding gap left by rich countries. Whereas the World Bank now finances about five dams, the Chinese finance over 300 dams outside of China in the developing world.

Sub-Saharan Africa has benefited from some of these projects, but still contends with an international NGO and donor community resistant to dam development.  

Big is beautiful – the case of Brazil

“Africa must increase its agricultural productivity, and a romantic emphasis on small, local, organic farming is not going to get it there,” said Briscoe.

Sub-Saharan Africa’s agricultural growth rate remains very low. In some countries, yields for staple crops like maize are actually falling. A deficit in knowledge to increase agricultural productivity is part of the problem.

Briscoe shared a telling observation of a Ghanaian CEO of a multinational company: ‘Once the best and the brightest Ghanaians went into engineering. Now they become anthropologists because NGOs dominate the job market and this is the skill they want.’ 

Briscoe pointed to Brazil as a compelling case for greater investment in agriculture and agricultural research. Between 1985 and 2006, Brazilian agricultural production grew by 77 percent.

“Much of this growth did not come from cutting down the Amazon, but by doing things smarter than it did before,” said Briscoe. “Over the last 30 years, through financial crises and changing political parties, Brazil sustained public investment in agricultural research.”

Better farming practices led to improved soil quality, high yielding grasslands, and the transformation of soybeans into a tropical crop. Brazil is now the largest exporter of soybeans.

Additionally, Brazil pioneered the use of “no-till” agriculture, now practiced by over 50 percent of its farmers. The culmination of these activities increased productivity while farming more sustainably.

An important contribution to Brazil’s productivity has been its utilization of genetically modified crops. Brazil chose not to eulogize the “small and organic” philosophy of many NGOs, but embraced new technology. Middle-income countries are currently eight of the 10 largest users of GMOs.

Brazil was also pragmatic when it came to scale. Brazilian farms are large. Thirty percent are large commercial operations producing 76 percent of the country’s output. Many environmentalists and small farmers perceived large agrobusiness as the enemy, but these large enterprises were also the grey geese laying the golden eggs for the country.

Understanding that there are no silver-bullet solutions, the Brazilian government sought innovative ways to support smaller farmers. For example, concessions for a large irrigation project in the Pontal were awarded to agribusiness operators that integrated at least 25 percent of irrigable land to small farmers as part of the company’s production chain.

By 2009, Brazil had become the world’s number one exporter of orange juice, sugar, chicken, coffee, and beef.

“Brazil’s success did not happen over night,” said Briscoe. “African countries must be patient and persistent, particularly with respect to public investment in agricultural research…and pragmatic and realistic about scale.”

Role for foreign investors

In the face of low levels of public investment in agriculture and non-existent or shallow domestic capital markets, there is a role for foreign direct investment (FDI) to play. FDI projects, such as international land deals, can help create implementation capacity by bringing capital and know-how, creating employment and developing infrastructure.

“But it is easier said than done,” said Briscoe. “Foreign investors, including the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC), have struggled in sub-Saharan Africa because farming is a complex business.”

Briscoe noted a shortage of indigenous entrepreneurs, the small size of potential investments, and lack of access to markets have constrained IFC engagement and performance in sub-Saharan Africa.

While there are no shortcuts for Africa, Briscoe insisted optimism and a determination to move faster are needed. Africa must decide whether to follow the prescriptions of the advocacy community or, like Brazil, pursue an opposite strategy.

“Will Africa focus on its real problems, ‘the politics of the belly’?” asked Briscoe. “Or will it succumb again, to the western ‘politics of the mirror’?”

Greater income inequality among places, not just people, reshapes the labor market in America and beyond. Driving the change: the innovation cluster.

Image

Dr. Moretti's book, The New Geography of Jobs, was described by Forbes magazine as “easily the most important read of 2012.”

Americans frequently debate why wages are growing for the college-educated but declining for those with less education. What is less well-known is that communities and local labor markets are also diverging economically at an accelerating rate.

A closer look at the 300-plus metropolitan areas of the United States shows that Americans with high school degrees who work in communities dominated by innovative industries actually make more, on average, than the college graduates working in communities dominated by manufacturing industries, according to research by University of California, Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti, the author of The New Geography of Jobs, a book that Forbes magazine called “easily the most important read of 2012.” In the San Jose metropolitan area, for example, a high school graduate averages $68,009, compared with the $65,411 that is average for a college graduate in Bakersfield, Calif.

Some places have always been more prosperous than others, but these differences have increased more rapidly over the last 30 years as the gross domestic product and patents for new technologies have concentrated in two to three dozen communities that Moretti identifies as “brain hubs” or “innovation clusters.”

In these clusters, highly specialized innovation workers, such as engineers and designers, generate about three times as many local jobs for service workers ― such as doctors, carpenters, and waitresses ― as do manufacturing workers, Moretti said recently when speaking at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Here are edited excerpts from Moretti’s answers to questions from the Stanford audience.

What causes clusters to emerge?

This is a very active area of research, but I think fundamentally, there are three major reasons why clustering takes place. One is the thick labor market effect. If you are in a very highly specialized position, you want to be in a labor market where there are a lot of employers looking for workers, and a lot of workers looking for employers. The match between employer and employee tends to be more productive, more creative and innovative in thicker labor markets.

It is the same thing for the vendors, the providers of intermediate services. Companies in the Silicon Valley will find very specialized IP lawyers, lab services, and shipping services that focus on that niche of the industry. And because they are so specialized, they're particularly good at what they're doing.

The third factor is what economists call human capital spillovers ― the fact that people learn from their colleagues, random encounters in a coffee shop, at a party, from their children, and so on. There's a lot of sociological evidence that this is one of the attractions of Silicon Valley. You're always near other people who are at the frontier, so you tend to exchange information. Sometimes it's information about job openings. Sometimes it’s information about what you're doing, what type of technology you're adopting, what type of research you are doing. And this, as you can imagine, is important for R&D, for innovation.

So these three forces are crucial, and that means that localities that already have a lot of innovation tend to attract even more workers and even more employers. That further strengthens their virtuous circle.

Image

Dr. Enrico Moretti leading a seminar organized by the Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SPRIE) of the Stanford Graduate School of Business as part of its Silicon Valley Project.

Are these clusters sustainable forever?

Probably not. Previous clusters have collapsed in spectacular ways. The Silicon Valley of the 1950s was Detroit. People have researched the rise of Detroit, and it mimics very well the rise of Silicon Valley in terms of the amount of innovation, the type of engineering, the type of salaries they were paying. In the 1950s, if you were a car engineer, there wasn't any better place in the world to be, and if you were a car company, you had to be there. But then, of course, it collapsed.

In my book, I have a chapter on the difference between Detroit and Silicon Valley. This region has kept reinventing itself in ways that are remarkable. It was all orchards, and then it became all hardware, and then it became all software. And now it's becoming something else: social media and biotech and clean tech. Some types of clusters don't survive big negative shocks, and other clusters are able to leverage themselves into the next thing.

Is there a clean energy cluster that is structurally different from an internet or an IT or a biotech cluster? Or are they all intermingled?

Typically, clusters are very specialized. Silicon Valley is the exception in the sense that there are so many different technologies. More typical examples are Boise, Idaho, for radio technology or Portland, Oregon, for semiconductors. Seattle has a combination of software and now a growing body of life sciences. Boston is mostly life science. D.C. is a remarkable story. It's very diversified now in terms of private-sector innovation, but most clusters are going to be small pockets of one industry.

Does your argument hold for high-paid but non-high-tech sectors? I was thinking of New York being a financial sector or L.A. being entertainment, and Houston being oil and gas. Then you mentioned Washington, D.C. That's government.

I would argue that three you mentioned would belong to what I define as innovation sectors in the following sense: Finance in New York is not bank tellers; it’s people who invent new products, new technology, and new ways of making things. They are unique, and you can't easily reproduce the cluster somewhere else. That certainly applies to entertainment, especially the digital part of entertainment that is the fastest-growing part of entertainment jobs.

It also applies to the D.C. cluster. The growth of D.C. over the last 20 years is mostly driven by private-sector headquarters moving there, and an educated labor force. Some of the companies are military contractors. Some companies are life science. They're anchored by the National Institutes of Health being there, and other government agencies. But most of the growth actually comes from the private sector.

Now oil, Houston, I'm not sure. I don't know how strong these clustering forces are for these type of jobs. I would imagine ― and we're not talking about the guy who drills, but it's more like the guy who plans where to drill ― to the extent that there is a high component of innovation that makes something that is unique, I would say it applies.

If I'm a high-tech worker, how am I responsible for creating five other jobs? It’s hard for me to accept there are five.

The way to interpret the multiplier is to imagine dropping 1,000 innovation jobs in one city but not in another, and then going back 10 years later to measure how many additional local service jobs there are in the city that experienced that innovation-sector drop of jobs. So it's a long-run effect, but it’s not impossible for three reasons.

One is that the average high-tech worker tends to do very, very well, and people who are wealthy tend to spend a large fraction of their salary on personal and local services. They tend to go to restaurants and movies, and to use taxis and therapists and doctors on average more than people who are paid less.

The second reason is high-tech companies themselves employ a lot of local services; everything from security guards to IP lawyers, from the janitor to the very specialized consultant. High-tech companies tend to use more services than manufacturing companies.

The third reason is the clustering effect. Once you attract one of those high-tech workers, then in the medium to long run, you're going to be attracting even more of those high-tech workers and companies, which will further increase your multiplier. So it's a long-run number, measured over a 10-year period.

You pointed out that the salaries of the less-educated part of the local population are higher in those places that do have a lot of the innovation. How is that reconciled with the drastic drop over 30 years in their national average compensation?

We don't have enough brain hubs where innovation is concentrated. We have 320 metro areas in the U.S., and probably, by my definition, we have 15 to 20 brain hubs. In those places, you have brisk job creation outside the innovation sector, and you have decent wages for people outside. But we also have a big chunk of the country producing not very much, in part because manufacturing jobs have been shrinking, and innovation hasn't really taken place.

So what hope is there for these areas?

That's a million-dollar question. It's tough because, in some sense, if this clustering effect is particularly strong, it's good news for places like here, but it's terrible news for places like Flint or Detroit. A successful local labor market has a very nice equilibrium, where you have a lot of skilled workers who want to go there and a lot of innovative employers who want to go there. It's really hard to re-create somewhere else.

And it's not like we're not trying. We're spending $15 to $18 billion annually in what economists call place-based policies, which are essentially subsidies to try to attract employers to these areas. The idea being: “They're not coming, so if we just break this vicious circle, if we just bring some, then the clustering effect starts taking off. We can effectively create innovation hubs where they don't exist.”

I haven't found one example of an innovation hub in the U.S. that has been created by deliberate policy that says, "We're going to create an innovation hub here." Taiwan might be a good success story. It’s hard to get data, but Taiwan was an agricultural economy in the 1960s that had very little innovation. Then in the 1970s, it created enormous government subsidies for semiconductors and a lot of other technologies. All the others didn't pan out, but semiconductors worked. Taiwan is still putting money in, so it's not exactly clear whether it's a perfect example. Picking the next big thing is very hard for the venture capitalist. It's virtually impossible for the government worker.

What's the situation in other regions around the world ?

Obviously, India and China are major success stories, but that doesn't mean that this clustering effect is not at play within those countries. A different example is Italy, where I am from. Italy has been the Detroit in this story. It had a very strong pharmaceutical sector in the 1980s, and a smaller computer cluster. Once the pharmaceutical industry started becoming global, you saw mergers and a concentration of the industry’s R&D in a few places. I know because my dad was employed there, and his lab was first moved to Sweden and then to New Jersey.

I think the same is happening throughout many countries in continental Europe, and even in places like China and India, which have success stories but enormous regional differences. The innovative part of the Chinese economy is concentrated in a handful of megalopolises.

This is an interesting paradox of the current economy. Probably the best news of the last 20 years globally is the vast increase in the standard of living in places like China and India and Brazil, so there's certainly been a convergence in the standard of living when you compare nations. But when you look within those developing nations, you see the same great divergence that you see here.

Enrico Moretti is professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he holds the Michael Peevey and Donald Vial Career Development Chair in Labor Economics. He is also director of the Infrastructure and Urbanization Program at the International Growth Centre at the London School of Economics and Oxford University. His talk at Stanford was hosted by the Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, located in the Graduate School of Business.

 

Kathleen O'Toole is a journalist who frequently writes about social science. She is currently assistant editorial director of marketing and communications at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Sharon Gourdji spent three months this winter down in Colombia at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) as a Fulbright Scholar studying climate impacts on bean production in Central America and adaptation options. During her stay she led a series of Decision and Policy Analysis workshops focused on climate data sources and crop statistical models.

Actors in government, civil society, and academia have been pioneering innovative approaches to advance transparency, accountability, and democracy around the world. Citizen engagement is at the forefront of democratic practices worldwide and a key pillar to support civil society is access to information.

Andrea Sanhueza, a 2012 Draper Hills Summer fellow, shares her success story of how a group of civil society organizations helped advocate for improved environmental governance cooperation across government and civil society in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

Sanhueza has been an active civil society stakeholder in the Summit of the Americas process, which works to build regional cooperation among governments of the Western Hemisphere. In 2009, Sanhueza drafted a strategy for the Organization of American States (OAS) to structure participation of civil society organizations in OAS activities. From 2001-2010, she served as the executive director of PARTICIPA, a Chilean NGO that works in the democracy field on issues of elections, transparency, access to information, and citizen participation.

 

What is The Access Initiative?

Founded in 2000, The Access Initiative (TAI) is a global coalition of civil society organizations that work towards the implementation of the right to access of information, participation and justice regarding environmental issues. These rights —known as access rights — are included in Principle 10 of the Río Declaration that was signed at the first Earth Summit in 1992.

 

Why are access rights important?

Access rights are key for democracy and governance because they are the foundation for exercising human rights. If a person can have access to information about a public issue (education, health, or pension) and can participate in a meaningful way, then he/she will be able to effectively exercise their rights. Without access to information — which is the major building block — it is almost impossible to exercise human rights.

Since its founding, TAI has been dedicated to improving citizens’ access to environmental decision-making, strengthening the enforcement of environmental law and policy, combating corruption, and realizing human rights.

 

What has been one of The Access Initiatives' key milestones?

In June 2012, the second conference on sustainable development took place in Brazil, known as the Río+20 Summit. TAI came together to advocate for the advancement of access rights for countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region.

I visited the government of Chile — specifically the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the Ministry of the Environment — to let them know about the TAI proposal for a regional convention. The proposal included evidence-based advocacy to encourage collaboration across government and civil society and promote innovation that advances transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness of civil society at all levels.

The government of Chile submitted the TAI proposal for a regional convention on the Principal 10 Declaration to the U.N. The governments of Jamaica and Brazil also submitted the TAI proposal and showed their support. This was a milestone in the longer process.

 

How were you and your partners successful in convincing other governments to support TAI?

TAI was successful in getting other governments on board to support the initiative through a strategic partnership with the government of Chile who was key to getting other governments to sign the declaration.

TAI and representatives of the government of Chile started advocating during the preparatory meetings of the summit to other governments. We encouraged them to join this proposal for the advancement of access rights for countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region. After two years of advocating for the relevance of a regional instrument in the declaration, we had 11 governments supporting our proposal for the development of a regional instrument to strengthen access to information, public participation, and access to justice in sustainable development decision‐making. These governments include: Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.

 

What was the outcome of this collation of governments in the Latin American and Caribbean region?

The signatory governments committed to drafting and implementing a Plan of Action 2012-14, to work towards an international instrument. The U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) is serving as the technical secretariat for the process.

In November 2012, ECLAC hosted the first meeting of representatives appointed by the signatory governments in Santiago, Chile. The representatives agreed on a roadmap that defines the next steps for the collation and appointed a steering committee composed of the governments of Chile, Dominican Republic, and Mexico to coordinate the process.

 

What role does civil society play in advancing environmental democracy?

The participation of civil society in the development of a Latin American and Caribbean Principle 10 instrument is essential to the process. There now exists a real opportunity to advance environmental democracy and access rights in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Civil society's participation would ensure that the instrument is capable of actually strengthening public institutions in the region, and ensure its legitimacy and viability as a tool to strengthen environmental governance for sustainable development. Governments have committed to a participatory process, but this commitment will not materialize if civil society lacks the actual capacity to participate in the relevant meetings of the process.

 

What does the future hold for TAI?

We are very excited about the possibility of creating a regional instrument for the efficient implementation of access rights in Latin American and Caribbean region. Today there is a real opportunity for both governments and civil society to promote good environmental governance through implementation of the LAC Principle 10 Declaration. The dec­laration is still open for signature by other Latin American and Caribbean countries, and it is expected that more countries will join the process and lend increased vigor to this innovative approach to regional coopera­tion on environmental governance.