united nations university (unu) - john toye – · web viewunited nations university (unu)...
TRANSCRIPT
United Nations University (UNU)World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER)Review and Evaluation 2002-2010Report of the External Panel
April 2011
2
United Nations University (UNU)
World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER)
Review and Evaluation 2002-2010 - Report of the External Panel
The Panel
John Toye (Panel Chair) Chair of the Advisory Council, Oxford Department of International Development, Oxford University
Bina AgarwalDirector and Professor of Economics, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University
Elizabeth AsieduAssociate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Kansas
Andres SolimanoDirector, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO), Chile
Rapporteur - Rosaleen McDonnell
3
List of Acronyms
DFID Department for International Development
IDS, Sussex Institute of Development Studies located at the University of Sussex
INET Institute for New Economic Thinking
IFIs International Financial Institutions
IMF International Monetary Fund
ISS (formerly) Institute of Social Studies at the Hague
ISSER, Ghana Institute of Statistical Social and Economic Research at the University of Ghana
MENA region Middle East and Northern Africa region
MMR (vaccine) Measles, Mumps and Rubella (vaccine)
QEH Department of International Development at the University of Oxford (Queen Elizabeth House)
(UN) DESA (United Nations) Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(UN) GA (United Nations) General Assembly
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNU-MERIT United Nations University Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology
UNRISD United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
(UNU) RTC (United Nations University) Research and Training Centre
UNU-WIDER United Nations University - World Institute for Development Economics Research
4
Table of Contents
1. Summary List of Conclusions and Recommendations................................................7Evaluation of publications......................................................................................................................7
Evaluation of the sharing and transfer of knowledge.............................................................................7
The challenges facing UNU-WIDER.....................................................................................................8
Addressing the challenges......................................................................................................................8
2. Introduction................................................................................................................11The Panel’s terms of reference.............................................................................................................11
The work of the Panel...........................................................................................................................11
A guide to the Report............................................................................................................................12
Basic facts about UNU-WIDER...........................................................................................................13
3. Evaluation of Publications.........................................................................................15Dimensions of UNU-WIDER research output 2002-10.......................................................................15
The research productivity of UNU-WIDER staff.................................................................................17
The relevance and quality of UNU-WIDER research..........................................................................19
4. Evaluation of the Sharing and Transfer of Knowledge.............................................22The PhD Internship Programme...........................................................................................................22
The Visiting Scholars’ Programme......................................................................................................24
Administrative support staff.................................................................................................................24
Computing facilities.............................................................................................................................24
Accessibility of academic journals.......................................................................................................24
UNU-WIDER Development Conferences............................................................................................25
Evaluation of UNU-WIDER’s outreach efforts...................................................................................26
5. The Challenges Facing UNU-WIDER.......................................................................28UNU-WIDER as a RTC of the UNU...................................................................................................28
Diversification into post-graduate degree teaching..............................................................................31
Relations with the Government of Finland...........................................................................................32
Relations with other special programme contributors..........................................................................34
Evolving the UNU-WIDER brand.......................................................................................................35
Getting to the research frontier.............................................................................................................36
Choosing a geographical focus.............................................................................................................38
5
Making a greater impact.......................................................................................................................39
6. Addressing the Challenges.........................................................................................41An improved UNU/UNU-WIDER relationship...................................................................................41
Better planning and sequencing of diversification...............................................................................42
Links with the Finnish government......................................................................................................42
Meeting the needs of specific programme contributors.......................................................................43
A neutral space with a core economic focus........................................................................................44
Looking for ways to innovate in research............................................................................................45
Global research collaboration and alternative models for expansion...................................................47
A strong expert presence......................................................................................................................49
7. Final General Observations........................................................................................51
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................52
List of Figures
Figure 1: Share of Books relative to Special Journal Issues (% of total), 2001-2010...................16
Figure 2: Share of all Publications Authored by UNU-WIDER Staff, 2001-2010 (%)................18
Figure 3: Impact of Conference Attendance on Professional Development.................................25
Figure 4: Breakdown by Year when Highest Degree was Attained..............................................26
Figure 5: Breakdown by Employment...........................................................................................27
Figure 6: Respondents residing in Developing Countries according to Region............................27
Appendices
Appendix 1 The Panel’s Terms of Reference
Appendix 2 Stakeholder discussion template
Appendix 3 Panel survey questionnaires
Appendix 4 UNU-WIDER: An Internal Review 2001-10 (Summary)
Appendix 5 Tables
6
1. Summary List of Conclusions and Recommendations
Evaluation of publications
a) The research produced by UNU-WIDER during the evaluation period, ranged between good and very good in quality, as indicated by the journal ranking analysis and the e-mail survey responses. [Para 37a)]
b) A slight reduction in research staff productivity occurred in the last few years of the evaluation period, but this is explicable in terms of staff turnover, including the change of Director. [Para 37b)]
c) Indicators show a definite rise in the quality of the journals in which UNU-WIDER Special Issues and individual articles were published during the period 2002-2010. [Para 37c)]
Evaluation of the sharing and transfer of knowledge
d) The Panel concluded that satisfaction with the overall internship experience was high, but the processes of mentoring and interaction could be strengthened. The Panel suggests that interns should be asked to present their research at the start of their tenure, and to submit a final report at the end of it, assessing the progress that they have made. [Para 42]
e) The Panel concluded that administrative support staff and library and computing support facilities had been maintained at a high standard in the evaluation period. [Para 47]
f) The Panel recommended that in future Development Conferences junior and senior scholars could share common platforms and panels to promote greater interaction between them. [Para 49]
g) Following the precedent of holding UNU-WIDER Annual Lectures and Development Conferences in different parts of the world, the Panel suggests strengthening and geographically diversifying this initiative. Where possible this should be undertaken with local partnership and sponsorship. [Para 50]
h) The Panel endorses the recommendations in the Internal Review that call for greater out-reach to female researchers. [Para 52]
i) The Panel believes that further effort would be desirable to raise the share of government employees in the total number to whom UNU-WIDER reaches out, in order to improve its impact on policy making. [Para 55]
7
j) The Panel observes that UNU-WIDER is effectively reaching out to scholars in SSA as indicated by analysis of the e-mail recipients’ survey. [Para 57]
k) The Panel suggests that the current information database and email list be up-dated. [Para 58]
The challenges facing UNU-WIDER
l) In introducing standardisation measures across all RTCs, the UNU risks ignoring the individual needs of specific RTCs including UNU-WIDER. [Para 61]
m) The request to introduce master’s degree teaching programmes at UNU-WIDER creates a wide range of challenges including funding, protecting research quality and staff recruitment and retention.[ Para 65]
n) The Government of Finland is generally supportive of UNU-WIDER but has expressed some concerns particularly in relation to improving links with the academic community in Finland. [Para 77]
o) The Panel observed that, although the sources of specific contributions should be diversified, the challenge was to do so without unduly distorting the objectives of UNU-WIDER in the process. [Para 84]
p) Within the framework of the current research theme of the triple crisis the challenge will be to identify research questions that will allow UNU-WIDER to pull off a major research breakthrough, generating implications both for development economics and development policy.[Para 95]
q) Global research issues do not neatly separate themselves from regional research issues with global implications, but UNU-WIDER needs to avoid selecting research issues that are of mainly regional interest. [Para 99]
r) It is necessary to be clear about what type of desirable impact can be achieved realistically, and who should be responsible for producing it .Diversity of types of impact suggests that evaluation should be done at different levels, or with a different focus. For evaluating an institution, the degree of expert presence is the appropriate criterion of evaluation.[Paras 102 and 103]
Addressing the challenges
s) It is an appropriate time for the UNU Centre to negotiate a new concordat governing its relations with UNU-WIDER.[Para 109]
t) The Panel was not convinced that it is necessary to insist that taught degrees are introduced by every RTC of the UNU, including UNU-WIDER. [Para 110]
8
u) The Panel believes that UNU-WIDER could be allowed to concentrate on its obvious comparative advantage which is research. Indeed it would be a positive benefit to the UNU to have one of its sub-units globally recognised for its high quality research. [Para 110]
v) The Panel believes that, in the event that a UNU post-graduate degree were to be launched at UNU-WIDER, it would need to be approached with great circumspection and more thorough planning and sequencing than has been evident to date. [Para 112]
w) UNU-WIDER’s proposal to contribute a module to the Master’s course in development economics at Helsinki Centre for Economic Research will strengthen links with the Finnish academic community, and the Panel agrees that this commitment should be fulfilled to the extent that it is feasible. [Para 116]
x) The Panel endorses the general agreement amongst stakeholders that UNU-WIDER research not only needs to maintain its high quality and innovativeness but also needs to explore its potential to raise the bar.[Para 122]
y) The Panel considers that to go from two Development Conferences a year to one (as envisaged by the Internal Review) would be a backward step. [Para 123]
z) The Panel suggests that, while development economics should remain the central driver of the Institute’s research, cross-disciplinary inclusiveness should continue to be the hallmark of the chosen research programme. This should also be reflected in UNU-WIDER’s recruitment practices. It further suggests that, in designing future research programmes, UNU- WIDER should try to co-ordinate more closely with the research of UNRISD, which concentrates on social issues. Para 124]
aa) UNU-WIDER’s current theme of the triple crises of finance, food and climate change provides an umbrella for work that could contribute new directions conceptually, methodologically and in terms of policy relevance. [Para 128]
bb) In view of the interest of several donors of specific contributions in assisting capacity building, the Panel believes that there is a case for trying to negotiate research collaboration with institutions in the South, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. However, this need not necessarily imply a greater focus on SSA research topics. [Para 130]
cc) While the Panel considered that UNU-WIDER should continue its efforts to recruit staff based in Helsinki, it also recommends consideration of three alternative models to complement those efforts. These models could, in addition,
9
enhance UNU-WIDER’s research networks and potential policy impact.[Para 132]
dd) The Panel recommends UNU-WIDER should seek to increase its impact and consider a range of suggestions with the aim of consolidating its expert presence. [Para 138, see list]
10
2. Introduction
The Panel’s terms of reference
1. In a letter dated 17th July 2010, Prof. Dr Konrad Osterwalder, the Rector of the United Nations University, invited Professor John Toye to serve on and chair an international panel to undertake a review and evaluation of the work of the UN University’s World Institute for Development Economics Research. The other Panel members appointed were Professor Bina Agarwal, Associate Professor Elizabeth Asiedu and Professor Andres Solimano. The Rector envisaged that the panel of four members would begin work at the end of August 2010, hold three or four meetings and present its final report in April 2011. The Panel’s terms of reference followed closely those of the external review and evaluation undertaken in 2001, but focussed on the period 2002-10. A copy of the Panel’s terms of reference is in Appendix 1.
The work of the Panel
2. The Panel met four times. The 1st meeting was held on August 30th 2010 at the Royal Over-Seas League, London. This was the inception meeting to plan the work of the Panel. The 2nd meeting, held on November 6th and 7th 2010 also at the Royal Over-Seas League, London, planned a series of surveys and stakeholder interviews. The 3rd meeting, on January 26th and 27th 2011 at UNU-WIDER offices, Helsinki, discussed the results of the surveys and conducted more stakeholder interviews. The 4th meeting, held on March 26th and 27th 2011 in New York, approved the final text of the Panel’s Report.
3. Under the guidance of Elizabeth Asiedu, four surveys were conducted. (Appendix 3, Panel survey questionnaires) They were sent to 24 external project directors, 85 visiting scholars, 73 PhD interns and 10,021 recipients of the monthly UNU-WIDER newsletter. These surveys provided part of the input into the evaluation presented in Sections 3 and 4 of this Report. The response rates are given in the Table 1 below.
11
Table 1: Survey Response Rate
Survey Number of Recipients
Number of Respondents
Response rate %
PhD Interns 73 24 33
Visiting Scholars 85 21 25
External Project Directors 24 8 33
Email Recipients 10,021 1008 10Source: Surveys conducted by the External Review Panel.
4. In addition, Panel members conducted twenty-eight semi-structured interviews. The prompt questions used are given in Appendix 2. The interviews were distributed over four sets of stakeholders – distinguished members of the academic development economics community, UN officials, past and present staff of UNU-WIDER and past and present officials of governments that make specific programme contributions. In order to encourage frank responses during the interview, interviewees were promised that they would not be identified by name. When quotations from the interviewees’ responses are used, they are not attributed.
A guide to the Report
5. Section 1 provides a summary listing of the conclusions and recommendations of the Report for the convenience of those who have no time to read through the entire text. The Introduction to the main text sets out some of the basic facts about UNU-WIDER (paragraphs 6-10 below), then we provide in section 3 our evaluation of UNU-WIDER’s publications in the years 2002-10. Drawing on the survey results and other statistics, we evaluate the quantity and quality of the Institute’s publications, and the research productivity of its research staff. Section 4 evaluates the various knowledge sharing and transfer activities (PhD internships, visiting scholars’ programme, Development Conferences and outreach work). Section 5 of the Report then uses material from the stakeholder interviews to identify what the Panel regards as the main challenges currently facing UNU-WIDER. Section 6 offers the Panel’s suggestions on ways of addressing these challenges. Section 7 presents a list of general, overarching, final observations.
12
Basic facts about UNU-WIDER
6. The Institute was founded in 1984 and initially attracted a group of outstanding development economists (among them the Nobel Prize laureate Amartya Sen) who made it a place for independent-minded, high quality research in development economics. Located in Helsinki, Finland, following an endowment made by the Finnish government, the Institute also receives special programme contributions (SPCs) from Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the UK. It is part of the UNU system of affiliated Research and Training Centres (RTCs) but it does not receive budgetary allocations from the United Nations. It is thus not subject to the influences and pressures which can affect regular UN agencies. The research staff, recruited on UN contracts for a maximum of 6 years, work in an independent and quiet environment. UNU-WIDER benefits from a worldwide network of individuals, from an excellent support staff, good external communications and a good reputation in the field of development research.
7. UNU-WIDER played an important role in the first ten years of its existence in global debates on macroeconomic policy and development strategies, offering an independent perspective on global development, more nuanced than those provided by Washington–based multilateral institutions. A salient point in UNU-WIDER´s work has been the emphasis on innovative research including themes that were often beyond the purview of economics narrowly defined, such as hunger, social entitlements, conflict, migration, poverty and destitution, elites, talent management and other topics. In the last 10-15 years the institution turned to academic research with more focus on sector issues, such as access to land, insurance, entrepreneurship, small and medium enterprises and utility privatisation, and regional issues, such as the franc zone, small island vulnerability, Southern engines of growth and aid to Africa.
8. UNU-WIDER has never had control over the investment of its initial endowment, which was placed in the Endowment Fund of the UNU, managed by a fund manager in New York. UNU-WIDER’s share of the UNU Endowment Fund stood at 16.2 per cent at the end of 2009. From 2002 to 2007, the Fund steadily rose in value from $233 to $350 million, fell to $258m, then climbed back to $310m in 2010, yielding a rate of return of around 4.46 per cent over the last ten years. UNU-WIDER currently derives about 60% of its income from the endowment, and is thus at a significant financial advantage compared with the majority of development think-tanks and research institutes.
13
9. UNU-WIDER is required to submit a biennial research programme and budget through the UNU-WIDER Board and UNU Centre to the UNU Council, which approves a budget for the two years ahead. For 2010-11, UNU-WIDER’s budget is $9.28m, out of a total UNU budget of $104.8m. This compares with $22.3m for the UNU Centre budget, $6.5m for the Headquarters building and $1.2m for the UNU Press. Compared with the other RTCs of the UNU, the UNU-WIDER budget is the third largest, coming in just ahead of UNU-MERIT ($8.4m).1
10.An unusual, and little appreciated fact about UNU-WIDER is the size of its staff - it is very small, compared with almost every other institution that undertakes development research and training. During 2002-10, the research staff in Helsinki averaged about a dozen people. Its small size means that it is very difficult to compare UNU-WIDER with most other research and training institutes in the development field, or to benchmark it against them. The closest comparable organisation is perhaps UNRISD in Geneva, which is similarly small. However, UNRISD is not part of the UNU, does not have any endowment income and researches in a different segment of the development field.
11.Issues of career paths within UNU-WIDER also deserve consideration. The current practice is for regular research staff to be expected to stay in the Institute for a maximum period of about 5-6 years and then leave for other endeavours. Staff rotation has some positive aspects, such as bringing fresh ideas and new people into the organization and preventing tendencies to bureaucratization and stagnation. However, the lack of longer term contracts may also penalize medium term commitment with the organization and the development of outputs with longer gestation periods but potentially higher pay-offs in terms of perspective, depth and continuity.
12.The small size of the Helsinki research staff has been counter-balanced by developing a large external network of project directors and researchers that is managed by the Helsinki research staff. The extensive “leveraging” of external research characterised the work of UNU-WIDER in the years 2002-10. The ‘small spider, large web’ mode of operation is quite unusual among development research institutes. UNU-WIDER is also atypical of research institutes in that it has its own publication series with the Oxford University Press and Palgrave-Macmillan.
1 This information is extracted from the document entitled “Overview of the Financing of the United Nations University”.
14
3. Evaluation of Publications
Dimensions of UNU-WIDER research output 2002-10
13.Before we evaluate the quality of UNU-WIDER research, we present the quantity of work produced. The publications produced by UNU-WIDER may be broadly classified into two categories: (i) Publications under the UNU-WIDER badge, which includes working papers, books, and special issues of journals; and (ii) UNU-WIDER work that is published elsewhere, which includes individual articles in journals and individual chapters in edited books. Table 2 below shows the number in each of these categories published between 2001 and 2010. In addition to the items in the Table, UNU-WIDER also published under its own badge 24 policy briefs and 2 research briefs.
Table 2: UNU-WIDER Publications, 2001-2010
Year UNU-WIDER Publications UNU-WIDER work published
elsewhere
Total publications including Working Papers
Total publications excluding Working Papers
Working Papers
Books Journal Special Issues
Chapters & Articles in Books & Journals
Total 1058 79 34 186 1357 299
Average per year 106 8 3 19 136 30
Source: UNU- WIDER: An Internal Review 2001-10. Figures have been rounded.The full table, showing figures for individual years, is included in Appendix 5.
14.Within the period 2001-10, these figures show first a rise and then a decline in research publication over time. The number of working papers peaks in 2006 at 163, after which it begins to fall. The number of book publications peaks at 12 in 2006, and then falls. Individual journal articles and chapters in edited books peaked in 2004 at 32 and declined sharply in 2009 and 2010.
15.However, if we split the data into two sub-periods, 2001-5 and 2006-10, and calculate 5 year averages, we get the following results.
15
Table 3: UNU-WIDER Publications by Sub-periods 2001-5 and 2006-10
Sub-period 2001-5 2006-10Working Papers (WPs) 106 106
Books 8 7
Journal Special Issues 3 4
Individual articles/chapters 20 18
Total (excluding WPs) 31 29
Total (including WPs) 137 135Source: UNU- WIDER: An Internal Review 2001-10. Figures have been rounded.
16.Comparing quinquennia, the production of Working Papers remained steady, but there was some tailing off in the second quinquennium in the conversion of Working papers into other forms of publication. Reflecting this, the overall publication figures show a minor decline in the second sub-period. This is subject to the caveat that our figures may not be quite complete for the final quarter of 2010, and, if so, that would exaggerate the extent of the decline.
17.Accompanying the slight decline in non-Working Paper publications was a shift away from books and towards journal special issues. Figure 1 below shows the percentage share of books to the total of books and journal special issues over the evaluation period. Averaging over sub-periods, the percentage share of books reduced from 72.4 % in 2001-2005 to 67.2 % in 2006-2010.
Figure 1: Share of Books relative to Special Journal Issues (% of total), 2001-10
16
The research productivity of UNU-WIDER staff
18.The absolute numbers of research items that were produced by UNU-WIDER staff are shown in Table 4 below, together with the number of research staff years. This indicates the average productivity of the research staff with respect to their own publications.
Table 4: Research by UNU-WIDER Staff 2001-2010
Year Research Staff/yr
Books Chaptersin Books
Journal Articles
Journal Special Issues
WorkingPapers
TOTAL 117 52 45 75 25 212Average 12 5 5 8 3 21
Source: UNU- WIDER: An Internal Review 2001-10. Figures have been rounded.The full table, showing figures for individual years, is included in Appendix 5.
19.The stock of research personnel has been pretty stable, hovering between 11 and 14 in the period. This research staff produced an average of 5 books, 5 book chapters, 8 journal articles, 3 special issues of journals and 21 Working Papers each year during the evaluation period.
20.The average productivity of each researcher over the evaluation period was 4 books, 4 book chapters, 6 journal articles, 2 special issues and 18 Working Papers. This research productivity per person looks favourable if compared to the Regional Economic Commissions and perhaps DESA of the UN system. However, UNU-WIDER’s research mandate is not exactly the same as these UN agencies, which unlike UNU-WIDER, have responsibilities of producing flagship publications and providing technical assistance to member-countries. Another comparison would be with the Research Department of the IMF. In the period 1999-2008 it produced nearly 1,150 research outputs written by IMF-affiliated authors. This compares with 1,357 written by UNU-WIDER affiliated authors in the period 2001-10.
21. A comparison of 2001-2005 and 2006-2010 indicates decreases in research publications in all categories except special issues of journals. These declines resulted from a 5 percent reduction on the stock of available research personnel in the second sub-period, plus a small fall in output productivity per staff member. The productivity loss was probably the result of the departure in 2008 of a particularly energetic publications editor, and the interregnum between Directors in 2009.
17
22.As explained in paragraph 13 above, their research publications form only a part of the total UNU-WIDER staff’s research and publication effort. Another very important part of their task is to manage the UNU-WIDER global research network. The division of labour between internal and external researchers is displayed in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Share of all Publications Authored by UNU-WIDER Staff, 2001-10 (%)
23.Internal staff members begin the research process either by commissioning external researchers to write research papers, or engaging an external project director to do the commissioning. Then the internal staff members organise conferences and workshops at which the commissioned papers are presented and discussed, and (after revision) posted as Working Papers. Note that four-fifths of all Working Papers are authored externally (col. 1). Next, internal staff or external project directors write introductory and/or concluding chapters around a selection of the Working Papers, and the whole package is offered to book publishers or to editors of academic journals willing to publish special issues. The internal researchers are responsible for most of the packaging of material into books and special journal issues, as can be seen in columns 3 and 4 of Figure 2.
24.Understanding the stages of the research process alerts us to the fact that the publication figures used in our analysis represent what economists call “gross output” rather than “final output”. That is because some of the same material may appear twice in different formats. For example, the material in a Working Paper may re-appear as a chapter in a book or an article in a journal special issue. There is a very good reason for doing this. Publishing as soon as possible in Working Paper format makes new research results freely available through the Institute’s
18
website at the earliest opportunity to the development community. Re-publishing in book or journal format then gives the work greater permanence, but it also inserts an element of double counting into the gross figures. It would be a very laborious undertaking to net out the intermediate element in order to arrive at a figure of final output, and we did not attempt that task.
The relevance and quality of UNU-WIDER research
25.To assess the perceived quality and relevance of UNU-WIDER research, two questions were inserted in the survey of e-mail recipients. Respondents were asked to rate the quality of UNU-WIDER research as high, good, medium or low. In answer to this question 94% of respondents rated UNU-WIDER’s research as being of either high or good quality. Of these, 36% chose the description “high” and 58% chose the description “good”.
26.Respondents were also asked to rate the relevance of the topics of UNU-WIDER research as very relevant, moderately relevant, somewhat relevant or not relevant. In answer to that question, about 63% of the respondents reported that UNU-WIDER research addresses very relevant topics and 30% chose the description “moderately relevant”. The remaining 7% opted for the description “somewhat relevant”. No-one chose the option of “not relevant”.
27.The Panel provisionally concluded that these survey responses indicate that UNU-WIDER was doing good quality research on topics that were relevant to the thousand people who responded to our request for their opinions. However, we wanted to probe further on the question of research quality, using objective as well as subjective data. It was not possible to do this in relation to books and chapters in books. Although sales figures of the books were available from all publishers, except the UNU Press, they are not very meaningful because of the existence of buy-back agreements with publishers. In addition, some of the most influential books (e.g. David Fielding’s book on the CFA Franc zone) sold relatively few copies. Moreover, relevant citation data for books is not readily available. So we concentrated our analysis on the quality of the journals in which UNU-WIDER research was published. We make the assumption that, to a large extent, the quality (ranking) of a journal provides a strong signal about the quality of the papers published in that journal.
19
28.We decided to assess the quality of the journals in which UNU-WIDER research was published in two ways. The first uses the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List 2, and the second uses the Impact Factor3 of the journal.
UNU-WIDER journal special issues
29.Table 5 (see Appendix 5) shows the names, ABDC ranking and Impact Factor of the journals that have published UNU-WIDER journal special issues as well as the number of issues published by each journal. The 36 special issues produced between 2001-2010 were widely distributed among 26 different academic journals. The maximum number of special issues appearing in any one journal was three—the three journals that each published three UNU-WIDER special issues were The World Economy, Journal of International Development and Review of Development Economics. The weighted average ABDC numeric rank was 3.3 and the weighted average Impact Factor was 0.97.
2 ABCD Journal Quality List: Journals are ranked on a four letter scale; A*, A, B and C. Examples of A* journals are American Economic Review (AER), Quarterly Journal of Economics (QJE), Journal of International Economics and The Journal of Development Economics?. In order to facilitate the comparison, the ratings were converted from a letter scale to a numeric scale: A*=5 (Excellent), A=4 (Very Good); B=3 (Good) and C=2 (Fair). See: http://www.abdc.edu.au3 The Impact Factor: The Impact Factor (IF) of a journal is defined as A divided by B, where A is the number of citations of articles published in the journal and B is the total number of articles published in the journal. Thus the IF is a rough measure of the frequency in which articles published in a journal are cited. For example, the IF of The Journal of International Economics and The Journal of Development Economics is 2.99 and 2.254, respectively. Unfortunately, not all journals report their IF on their website. Further, most of the journals that report their IF report it for only one year. In order to maximise the number of observations, we used the one year IF for our analysis. See: http://www.sciencegateway.org/impact
20
30.In relation to the ABDC Ranking, the data are available for 22 out of 26 journals. The results show that no UNU-WIDER special issue was published in an A* journal. This is not very surprising, given that A* journals hardly ever agree to publish special issues taken from one institutional source. Of the UNU-WIDER special issues, 47 % were published in type A journals; 44% in type B journals; and only 9% in type C journals. The average numeric journal rating (3.3) corresponds to a type B journal, suggesting that the overall quality of research lies somewhere between good and very good. It is also important to note that the UNU-WIDER special issues appeared more frequently in better-rated journals towards the end of the evaluation period. The average journal rating between 2002-2005 was 3.1, and between 2006-10 the average rating rose to about 3.5.
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Average ABCD Numeric Ranking
3.5 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.8 3.5 3.0 3.3 3.8
Notes: ABCD ranking: The numeric rating range from 2 to 5 and correspond with A*=5 (Excellent), A=4 (Very Good); B=3 (Good) and C=2 (Fair).
31.For the Impact Factor evaluation, the data are available for only half of the journals (13 out of 26 journals). The average IF for these journals (0.97) indicates the journals are of good quality. The Impact Factor analysis also confirms that the quality of the journals in which UNU-WIDER was publishing special issues improved over time. The average Impact Factor rating rose from approximately 0.84 in 2002-2005, to approximately 0.94 in 2006-2010.
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Impact Factor 1.05 0.70 0.93 0.70 0.99 0.65 0.81 1.09 1.17
UNU-WIDER individual journal articles
32.Table 6 (see Appendix 5) shows the names, ABDC ratings and Impact Factor of the journals that have published articles authored by both UNU-WIDER staff and UNU-WIDER network researchers, and by UNU-WIDER staff only.
UNU-WIDER staff and external researchers
33.There are 93 articles published in 65 journals. The ABDC ratings are available for 65% of these journals (42 out of 65 journals); 35% of the journals are not ranked. A breakdown of the affiliation by author is as follows: 76 UNU-WIDER staff, 15 network researchers and one visiting scholar.
21
34.About 6% of the articles are published in A* journals (all by network researchers), 34% are in A journals, 49% in B journals and only 11% are in C journals. The average ABDC numeric ranking is 3.23. The average Impact Factor is 0.96, which is higher than the Impact Factor for The Journal of Development Studies (0.90). In addition, the ABDC ranking of The Journal of Development Studies is A. The Panel concluded that the single articles published by UNU-WIDER may be classified “very good/good”.
UNU-WIDER staff only
35.The ABDC ratings are available for 65% of the journals (35 out of 54 journals); 35% of the journals are not ranked. The average ABDC numeric ranking for articles published by UNU-WIDER staff alone is 3.06. About 37% of the articles are published in A journals, 54% in B journals and only 9% are in C journals.
36.The average Impact Factor is 0.86, which is higher than the Impact Factor for The Oxford Review of Economic Policy (0.81). In addition, the ABDC ranking of The Oxford Review of Economic Policy is an A. The single articles published by UNU-WIDER staff may thus be classified as “very good/good”.
37.The Panel’s conclusions
a) The research produced by UNU-WIDER during the evaluation period, ranged between good and very good in quality, as indicated by the journal ranking analysis and the e-mail survey responses.
b) A slight reduction in research staff productivity occurred in the last few years of the evaluation period, but this is explicable in terms of staff turnover, including the change of Director. 4
c) Indicators show a definite rise in the quality of the journals in which UNU-WIDER Special Issues and individual articles were published during the period 2002-2010.
4. Evaluation of the Sharing and Transfer of Knowledge
The PhD Internship Programme
38.There were 73 PhD interns during the period 2001-2010, an average of about 7 interns per year. We evaluated the PhD Internship Programme in two ways. The first examines the output of the interns during their tenure at UNU-WIDER,
4 Five positions are currently being advertised internationally in the range from research fellow to senior research fellow.
22
specifically, the number of working papers authored by interns.5 This data may reflect the level of collaboration or mentoring between UNU-WIDER staff and the PhD interns. The second method of assessment is based on responses to five questions from the questionnaire sent to former PhD interns.
39.The distribution of Working Paper publications among the 70 PhD interns for whom we had information was: 44 (63%) had none, 19 (27%) had one, 4 (6%) had two and one intern had 3 (1%).6 The Panel was not united on whether this situation was a cause for concern. Some of us thought that one Working Paper should be expected during a 3 months internship, while others thought that the period was too short for such an expectation to be reasonable.
40.The former PhD interns were invited to comment on their mentoring experience by responding to five questions in the PhD intern survey. The first question probed their satisfaction with the level of interaction they had had with other researchers at UNU-WIDER. 58% of the respondents were very satisfied, 29% were moderately satisfied and 13% were somewhat satisfied. When asked directly whether they were satisfied with the level of mentoring that they had received, a rather smaller proportion (46%) said their mentoring had been very adequate, 42% said moderately adequate, 8% said somewhat adequate and 4% said not adequate.
41.Nevertheless, 81% of respondents expressed a high level of satisfaction with their time as an intern at UNU-WIDER, and the remaining 19% said they were moderately satisfied. 71% said the effect of the UNU-WIDER internship on their career growth was very beneficial; the remaining 29% said it was moderately beneficial. 83% of intern respondents thought that UNU-WIDER was doing enough to support young researchers from developing countries; 17% held the view that UNU-WIDER was not doing enough.
42.The Panel concluded that satisfaction with the overall internship experience was high, but the processes of mentoring and interaction could be strengthened. The Panel suggests that interns should be asked to present their research at the start of their tenure, and to submit a final report at the end of it, assessing the progress that they have made.
5 There is no data on other types of publications, e.g., articles in journals or books.6 Please note percentages do not add to 100% because of rounding.
23
The Visiting Scholars’ Programme
43.There were 54 visiting scholars during the period 2001-2010, with an average of about 5 scholars per year. Our assessment of the Visiting Scholars’ Programme is based on responses to two questions from the visiting scholars’ survey. 80% of visiting scholars reported that they were very satisfied with the level of interaction with the other researchers at UNU-WIDER; the remaining 20% were evenly divided between being slightly satisfied and somewhat satisfied.80% of visiting scholars reported their level of satisfaction as a Visiting Research Fellow as very satisfied; 20% were moderately satisfied.
Administrative support staff
44.The quality of the support staff and facilities in Helsinki contributes to the success of internships and scholarly visits. How good was it? The evaluation is based on questions from the PhD intern survey, visiting scholars’ survey and the project directors’ survey. More than 90% of the PhD interns and visiting scholars who responded to our surveys described UNU-WIDER administrative staff as very helpful. 75% of the External Project Directors who responded to the survey rated the technical support provided by UNU-WIDER as “very high support”; the remaining 25% rated the support as “high support”. All the Project Director respondents rated the staff as being highly cooperative.
Computing facilities
45.The assessment is based on the responses from the PhD intern survey, visiting scholars’ survey and Project Directors’ survey. About 90% of PhD interns and visiting scholars reported that the computer technology is of good or high quality. However, one Project Director mentioned that, although he had had no IT problems, other researchers whose work was more computationally intensive did voice some concerns to him.
Accessibility of academic journals
46.Based on the responses from the PhD intern survey and visiting scholars’ survey, about 96% of the PhD interns and 75% of the visiting scholars reported that journals at UNU-WIDER were either very highly accessible or highly accessible. One survey respondent, however, made a plea for “a bigger and better library”.
47.The Panel concluded that administrative support staff and library and computing support facilities had been maintained at a high standard in the evaluation period.
24
UNU-WIDER Development Conferences
48.Three questions from the email recipient survey questionnaire sought feedback on UNU-WIDER Development Conferences. While 48% of the email recipient survey respondents had attended one or more Conference, 52% had not. Those who had attended were asked to say how they perceived the impact of their attendance on their professional development. Rather remarkably, only 5% said it had had no impact. 38% said that the impact was moderate. 42% said that it was high and 17% rated it “very high”. The Panel read this as strong testimony to the success of the Development Conference programme that was introduced by Director Shorrocks.
Figure 3: Impact of Conference Attendance on Professional Development
49.One of the main benefits of attendance that was mentioned was the opportunity for younger scholars to meet and discuss issues with well-known and well-established counterparts. This kind of face-to-face interaction is evidently highly appreciated, adding to UNU-WIDER’s research reputation. The Panel recommended that in future Development Conferences junior and senior scholars could share common platforms and panels to promote greater interaction between them.
50.Following the precedent of holding UNU-WIDER Annual Lectures and Development Conferences in different parts of the world, the Panel suggests strengthening and geographically diversifying this initiative. Where possible this should be undertaken with local partnership and sponsorship.
25
Evaluation of UNU-WIDER’s outreach efforts
51.In order to assess UNU-WIDER’s electronic outreach activities, we used data from the email recipient survey. The profiles (gender, educational attainment, area of residence, etc) of the thousand survey respondents provide a basis to determine the scope of the organization’s outreach effort. We assume that those who responded to the survey are a representative sample.
52.The gender profile is that 71% of the respondents to the email recipient survey were male and 29% were female. (We note that the internal review shows that women constitute only 25% of UNU-WIDER’s network.) The Panel endorses the recommendations in the Internal Review that call for greater out-reach to female researchers.
53. One of the important roles of UNU-WIDER is to build human capital among “young” researchers. In the Internal Review, a young researcher is defined as a person who is 35 years old or younger. This chronological age-based definition excludes junior researchers from developing countries whose education is more drawn out. In many African countries, for example, people typically do not pursue graduate studies immediately after completing the bachelor’s degree—instead, they work for several years before obtaining scholarships to pursue further studies abroad. We therefore employ a different definition of a junior scholar to assess UNU-WIDER’s effort to reach out to them. We define a junior scholar as a person who obtained his/her highest degree in the past 5 years.
Figure 4: Breakdown by Year when Highest Degree was Attained
54.The breakdown of the responses by the year in which the respondent obtained their highest degree is shown in Figure 4. About 27 % of UNU-WIDER’s outreach population received their highest degree in the past 5 years and about
26
51% obtained their highest degree in the past 10 years. This suggests that UNU-WIDER is successfully reaching out to those junior researchers who can benefit from what it has to offer.
55.About 70% of e-mail survey respondents are affiliated with Universities or research institutions, while 30% are in other occupations. Only 11% of the total are in government employment (see Figure 5). The Panel believes that further effort would be desirable to raise the share of government employees in the total number to whom UNU-WIDER reaches out in order to improve its impact on policy making.
Figure 5: Breakdown by Employment
56.E-mail survey responses came from 104 different countries, indicating that current outreach has a global spread. 501 respondents reside in developed countries and 503 respondents reside in developing countries – a more or less equal split.
Figure 6: Respondents residing in Developing Countries according to Region
27
57.Within the developing countries, the highest share comes from sub-Saharan Africa (179 respondents or 35%). (See Figure 6) This is surprising given the relatively sparse internet access available there. The Panel observes that UNU-WIDER is effectively reaching out to scholars in SSA as indicated by analysis of the e-mail recipients’ survey.
58.One of the limitations of the above profiling exercise is that the e-mail list on which it is based might not be up to date. People continually move on, but e-mail lists are costly to maintain and so have a tendency to ossify. The Panel suggests that the current information database and email list be up-dated. This can be done by asking recipients to confirm that their e-address is currently active and that they wish to continue to subscribe to the monthly e-mails.
5. The Challenges Facing UNU-WIDER
UNU-WIDER as a RTC of the UNU
59.UNU-WIDER was the first Research and Training Centre of the United Nations University. Since 1984, other governments have taken similar initiatives to the pioneering one of the Government of Finland. As a result, the number of RTCs of the UNU now stands at fourteen. The proliferation of RTCs has inevitably changed the dynamic of the relationship between the UNU and UNU-WIDER. No longer is it the sole example of a sub-unit producing research. It has gradually become one among many, even if it is still primus inter pares.
60.In the early years of the evaluation period, relations between UNU and UNU-WIDER were cordial and any differences negotiated in a frank and relaxed manner. However, it is not surprising that, as the number of RTCs has increased, the UNU Centre has embarked on standardising the administration of the RTCs. An example of this was the Atlas project, which introduced an administrative software system used by UNDP across the RTCs. The advantage of this software from the Centre’s perspective is that it gives access to all transactions of the RTCs on line, providing total transparency. The problem from the UNU-WIDER perspective was that the Atlas software was much too complex for their needs and was never customised for their use. We found that the general opinion in UNU-WIDER was that the change had actually lowered work efficiency there.
61.We did not encounter objections in principle to administrative standardisation. For example, the current effort to build an integrated UNU website that would replace the existing UNU-WIDER website was being carefully evaluated in Helsinki with
28
the hope that it would bring about a genuine improvement. However, examination of the alpha version was raising some concerns about the extent to which the identity of UNU-WIDER and the other RTCs would be sufficiently recognised in the alpha design. In introducing standardisation measures across all RTCs, the UNU risks ignoring the individual needs of specific RTCs including UNU-WIDER.
62.Undoubtedly, the most contentious issue of the period was the UNU plan for the introduction of taught courses leading to advanced UNU degrees across all of the RTCs. The reports and discussions surrounding the establishment of the United Nations University in 1972 make it clear that member countries did not establish the UNU on the same model as national universities. On the contrary, the purpose of the new institution was to complement the functions of national universities, and not to try to compete with them. In 1985, soon after UNU-WIDER was set up, the issue of granting UNU degrees was re-examined and again rejected.
63.At the turn of the present century, the issue was examined yet again. This time, the UNU Council Bureau, in a paper entitled “Award of Degrees and Diplomas by the UNU” (No. 6 dated 24 May 2002) made the following statement. “In order to proceed further it is advised that the UNU undertake a review/study of the feasibility and implications (including the academic, institutional, financial and legal aspects) governing the possible award of degrees and diplomas”. We enquired whether any such study of feasibility had been made. The Office of the Rector of the UNU informed the Panel that “there was never a feasibility study conducted relating to awarding degrees”.
64.Nevertheless, despite the absence of any feasibility study, in December 2009 the UN General Assembly amended the Charter of the UNU empowering the UNU to grant academic degrees and to raise tuition fees. The UNU Council has now included in its Strategic Plan that all its RTCs should in future offer post-graduate teaching programmes. Specifically, this would require MA and PhD teaching by UNU-WIDER for UNU degrees. This will involve national legislation in countries that currently do not recognize foreign degrees (e.g. Japan, which had to change its education law to recognize a UNU degree). Students would be sought from developing countries (to build capacity) as well as from Finnish and other universities. One route is the European model with an MA preceding a PhD, the other is the US model where course work for one year precedes a PhD and an MA is not separately awarded. The target number is 15-20 MA students and about 10 PhD students. The rationale is that teaching is essential to sustain good research.
29
65. The request to introduce master’s level degree teaching programmes at UNU-WIDER creates a wide range of challenges including funding, protecting research quality and staff recruitment and retention. Those whom we interviewed, almost without exception, reacted critically to the idea of UNU-WIDER taking on master’s level teaching. Among the problems that UNU-WIDER would face, if it tried to undertake a major teaching programme, interviewees mentioned the following.
a) No current donor agency of SPCs to UNU-WIDER has indicated an interest in funding taught master’s degrees. Some donors of specific programme contributions warned strongly against UNU-WIDER embarking on master’s degree teaching. An official of one donor told us: “Our money is not meant for that. If we were interested in funding teaching we would give money directly to a national university.” This donor stated that if UNU-WIDER took on teaching, it could easily decide to withdraw its funding.
b) Teaching staff shortages. It would need a substantially larger staff, with specialists hired for their teaching skills. The existing staff were hired for their research capabilities.
c) Internationally renowned researchers would not want to come to Helsinki to teach, when they could do so by remaining at their home institutions.
d) It would need more funding to launch a teaching programme without detracting from research activity and rendering the quality of its research mediocre.
e) Any new MA/PhD programme would have to compete with many other more established and well-reputed programmes in universities elsewhere, such as those of ISS, IDS and QEH. (One interviewee told the Panel “it will be hard for UNU-WIDER to compete as a teaching location with other university departments. At best it may become a B class institution.”)
f) Teaching would take UNU-WIDER away from research where its comparative advantage lies and undermine UNU-WIDER’s ranking as one of the top social science research institutions globally.
66.A few interviewees from the academic development community were in favour of a limited teaching activity, such as attaching doctoral students to faculty, an internship programme, a summer school run through a network of international visiting faculty, and short term research methodology courses. UNU-WIDER currently is planning some master’s level teaching in collaboration with a consortium of Finnish universities, with UNU-WIDER teaching one or two
30
modules within the university’s development studies programme. The business model for teaching in Finland is not yet resolved. University education is presently free in Finland and will not therefore generate a revenue stream. The present Director is also trying to negotiate a twinning arrangement with the ISSER in Ghana, which could provide the matrix for further teaching of some sort.
Diversification into post-graduate degree teaching
67.If UNU-WIDER were to be obliged to introduce taught degrees, it would need the process to be properly planned, including the legal, academic and financial pre-requisites.
68.Legally, while the GA has approved changes to the UNU Charter, no corresponding empowering changes have been made to the UNU-WIDER Statute. In its Statute’s Preamble, the functions of the UNU-WIDER are defined as a “research and training centre”. Its personnel are described in Article I as “fellows and trainees”. In respect of its trainees, its purpose is described as “the training of young scholars” by means of organising “conferences, seminars, workshops and panels” (Article II). Since trainees are personnel of the Institute, they have to be selected not exclusively on academic merit, but “with due regard to appropriate representation in terms of geography, social systems, cultural traditions, age and sex” (Article VI). Article VII of the Statute, sections 1 and 3, provides for the Institute to accept “voluntary contributions or gifts” and for these to be used for the current activities of the Institute. There is no provision for the Institute to make charges for services or to receive tuition fees from students. This means that its training activities must be provided free to the trainees that it selects.
69.The question of how students are to be charged, by whom and how the fee revenue is to be shared between the UNU Centre and the RTCs, appears not to have been settled. Yet the system of charging and sharing of fees has obvious implications for the RTCs’ incentive to teach, and to teach well. The Panel observed that this important issue seemed to have been neglected.
70.Academically, many things need to be planned in introducing post-graduate teaching, apart from the curriculum itself. One of these is staffing. The present system of fixed term contracts would not give the continuity needed to establish the reputation of a newly launched course. Longer-term appointments will be needed. A related point is that those to whom the existing fixed term contracts are
31
attractive may be deterred by the prospect of teaching – indeed they may be looking to move away from teaching and back into full time research.
71.A key academic step is establishing the reputation of any new course. The UNU lacks credibility in the conferment of academic degrees, so that will need to be built up. The examination system, including the role assigned to external examiners, should be designed with this in mind.
72.The financial challenge is equally significant. Only if additional resources can be found will it be possible to diversify into teaching without detracting from the research, training and outreach effort. Yet our interviews with officials of donor agencies made it perfectly clear that they are reluctant to make special programme contributions to support diversification into taught degree courses. They see no valued added from such a move, given the multitude of universities already providing taught master’s courses.
73.Diversification into teaching without undermining other activities implies that new funding has to be raised from different sources – such as philanthropic foundations. Although the Panel understands that efforts have begun to build a funding-raising structure within UNU, it also understands that no fund-raising results are expected for another two years. If this is correct, the Panel suggests that the move into degree teaching should be sequenced in step with the availability of additional finance.
Relations with the Government of Finland
74.The relations of UNU-WIDER with the Finnish government have been in good repair in the period under evaluation, with no recurrence of the turbulence that characterised an earlier period. The Finnish government continues to believe that, as its founder donor and host country, it has a special relationship with UNU-WIDER. It sees it as “our” UN institute, and has a commitment toward sustaining it. Confidence was expressed in the new senior management team, which has obviously made a good impression.
75.Nevertheless, the relationship has come under pressure from various directions. The withdrawal of the Norwegian government from making specific programme contributions came as a shock to the Finnish government, and induced some anxiety in the latter that others might also withdraw and leave Finland with sole responsibility. In that context the recent agreement with the Danish government - more recently matched by Sweden - had a double benefit. Apart from the new Danish and Swedish financial contributions, these pledges have brought renewed
32
confidence to the Finnish government that it would not be put in the unenviable position of being UNU-WIDER’s last remaining donor.
76.The Finnish government sees UNU-WIDER as having carved a niche for itself in the last twenty-five years in the field of development research and training. It sees recognition of this niche in the recent ranking of UNU-WIDER as the seventh best development think-tank in the world. It believes that UNU-WIDER should operate within those niche functions in which they have a comparative advantage. They do not advise a move into taught post-graduate courses, with one exception.
77.This exception arises from a 2009 evaluation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ support to development research. The evaluation report remarked on the “paradox that the presence of UNU-WIDER in Helsinki over more than two decades has not provided any impetus to the growth of development economics as an academic field in Finnish universities”.7 This criticism has prompted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to look for specific contributions from UNU-WIDER to the practice of development economics in Finland. In this connection, it welcomes the current UNU-WIDER plan to contribute a module on development economics to a new master’s degree in economics to be offered by a consortium of three Finnish universities. The Panel observed that this plan was in line with the recommendation of the 2001 External Review to “continue to invest in strengthening relations with the Finnish academic community” and supported the plan. The Government of Finland is generally supportive of UNU-WIDER but has expressed some concerns particularly in relation to improving links with the academic community in Finland.
78.The Finnish government also raised the question of the value added by UNU-WIDER. This is a different issue from the difference between the Institute’s gross output and final output. It is the question whether the research done under UNU-WIDER’s auspices would have been done even in the absence of UNU-WIDER. In other words, is UNU-WIDER merely putting its own badge on research that would have been done in any case?
7 “Evaluation: Support to Development Research”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, 2009, pages 87-8.
At the launch of this report, the authors explained that the “paradox” reflects the lack of finance and resources allocated by universities in Finland to development economics, rather than the lack of action by UNU-WIDER.
33
Relations with other special programme contributors
79.The situation of UNU-WIDER is different from a think-tank that can focus on cultivating relations with a single national donor agency. UNU-WIDER is a global think-tank and a too close an identification with one national donor agency may sometimes be a disincentive for other national donor agencies to contribute to its budget. A global think-tank needs a diversified donor base.
80.During the evaluation period, the donor base narrowed. Norway decided to cease making special programme contributions. They have explained their decision as a move to focus their contributions on a smaller number of UN agencies, plus the small size of their contribution to UNU-WIDER in their overall budget.8 Apart from Finland, the only contributors now are Sweden, Denmark and the UK. The present donor base of UNU-WIDER is very narrow, so it may be over-exposed to the agendas of particular donors.
81.It is important to be aware of what it is that contributors are likely to want to gain from their relationship with UNU-WIDER. One interviewee put it to us that aid agencies are not really interested in research, but that view is too cynical. They do want to know what the latest research is showing up, even if protestations that all their policies are evidence-based should not be taken at face value. They may even have an excessive confidence in particular research methods, such as randomised controlled trials for evaluating anti-poverty interventions.
82.As well as good research and its dissemination, contributors have important ancillary objectives. The most important of these is capacity building in developing countries. This requires collaboration with technically weaker institutions in developing countries. This requirement usually comes with a geographical focus, which is often sub-Saharan Africa.
83.Do these ancillary objectives carry, as another interviewee argued, a potential threat to academic freedom? It seems doubtful, if academic freedom means the right to publish the results of one’s research. However, if an ancillary objective such as capacity building becomes too salient, it can make the research process inefficient and may not even succeed in its aim to build local research capacity.
8 Development Today, a newsletter that covers the Nordic aid community, has two news items on this.
http://www,development-today.com/magazine/2011/dt_3/news/oslo_rejects_plea_for_support_from_nordic_un_centre
http://www.development-today.com/magazine/2011/dt_2/news/finland_stands_by_nordic_un_think_tank_norway_opted_out
34
84.The Panel observed that, although the sources of specific contributions should be diversified, the challenge was to do so without unduly distorting the objectives of UNU-WIDER in the process.
Evolving the UNU-WIDER brand
85.In its earliest years, UNU-WIDER became perceived as something of a sanctuary of economic heterodoxy, because its work was out of alignment with the research emphases and policy messages emanating from the international financial institutions (IFIs). When the Cold War ended, this identity changed as UNU-WIDER turned its research attention to the problems of countries making the transition away from socialist economic regimes and their need for new forms of governance and regulation. This theme was continued into the period with which this evaluation is concerned, being finally laid down only in 2009. It brought with it a more consensual approach to development economics, based on a sharper awareness of the legal and incentive frameworks which markets require to operate well.
86.As this change was happening, UNU-WIDER under Director Shorrocks decided to embark on a programme of large development conferences. He successfully demonstrated that UNU-WIDER had a global convening power, not only over academics but also over national and international policy-makers and NGOs in the development field. The conference programme allowed the organisation to break out of its somewhat clubby origins, becoming a much broader based organisation. UNU-WIDER continued to choose research themes that were different from those of the IFIs (including the themes of spatial inequality and the global distribution of assets), but it welcomed contributions from all points of the intellectual and ideological compass in constructing its conference programmes.
87.A related issue of organisational identity is that of the methodological emphasis of research. Originally, UNU-WIDER was set up as an institute of development economics, without much concern for the role of other non-economic disciplines in the study of socio-economic development. The end of the Cold War put to the test purely economic recipes for effecting transition and found them wanting. This was the moment when the study of development took an institutional turn, with a strong focus on good governance, including legal arrangements and regulatory regimes. At the same time, thanks to the work of Amartya Sen and others, the normative basis of the concept of development was broadened. Under the banner of “human development”, it came to include personal security, political liberty and the ending of social exclusion. These trends raised the question of the
35
adequacy of the economics discipline on its own to respond to the development policy problems of the day.
Getting to the research frontier
88.A perspective that was put to us, admittedly by a minority of our interviewees, was that UNU-WIDER’s research has fallen into a routine. Cushioned by its endowment income, the institute has become content with a routine of activity – the organising of conferences, the putting together of books and journal issues – that produces worthy and competent, but not path-breaking research.
89.In support of that perspective, the critical minority suggests that UNU-WIDER has not been in the forefront of some of the major advances in development economics in the last 25 years. It should surely be given credit for the major conceptual and empirical advances achieved by Director Shorrocks’s project on global wealth distribution. Yet it was not much involved in such major advances as building up the concept of “human development”, driving the accumulation and analysis of new household and firm survey data and broadening the instruments for measuring poverty. These are construed as opportunities that UNU-WIDER has missed and evidence of unrealised potential.
90.Two aspects of our evaluation make us uncomfortable with dismissing this critical perspective out of hand. One is that we found the 2002-10 research output to range between good and very good, but not to be excellent. The other is that when asked to name the research projects that, in their view, were UNU-WIDER’s greatest achievements, the replies were extremely varied. This suggests that, while everyone had their personal favourites, there was no agreement that there had been one big research achievement.
91.In the 1980s UNU-WIDER undertook important projects on macroeconomic policies and their relation with policies of structural adjustment and austerity in developing countries. For example, the Lance Taylor’s Varieties of Stabilization project focussed on national economic policies, but also considered the international context under which those policies evolved. This project undertook a series of country papers complemented by cross-country/issues papers that analysed the consequences on economic growth, real wages, inequality and social conditions in developing countries of policies oriented to control inflation, adjust exchange rate levels and correct external and fiscal imbalances. It identified alternative policies that could accomplish these macro corrections without generating large costs in terms of sacrifice of growth, cut in real wages, increases
36
in unemployment and worsening in income distribution. The results were implicitly presented as an alternative to the policies of the Washington Consensus promoted by the IMF and the World Bank at that time.
92.Until 2008 it was not considered as a priority by UNU-WIDER to analyse the macro imbalances and financial fragility that were being incubated in advanced economies in the run up to the crisis of 2008-09. Moreover, although UNU-WIDER was certainly not sanguine towards promoting neo-liberal policies in the developing countries and advanced economies, it refrained from conducting research on alternative development and macroeconomic policies.
93.UNU-WIDER did not question the view that posited that the world economy had entered, by the 1990s and 2000s a period of low inflation and reduced volatility in GDP growth rates. In addition, global growth prospects were considered, by the macro establishment and analysts in the financial sector to be bright, due to the new technological possibilities (like the internet and the information technology revolution), and ample availability of labour and savings coming from China and other fast growing surplus countries. Although Argentina, Mexico, East Asia, Russia and other countries were hit by financial crises in the 1990s, these crises were not thought likely to translate into crises in advanced economies with serious international propagation effects. In turn, the efficient financial market hypothesis gained popularity and led to the belief that self-regulation in financial markets along with low inflation supervised by independent central banks would ensure overall macro-financial stability.
94.The financial crisis of 2008 did affect some developing countries in 2009. Growth in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Baltic countries, Hungary, Bulgaria and other countries turned negative. In contrast, China and India managed to keep growing at high rates in spite of the world recession. This suggested the possibility that the global economic growth could be propelled by some “southern growth engines” through increased demand for raw materials, commodities and higher commodity prices, allowing developing countries to return to growth in spite of stagnation in the USA and Europe. UNU-WIDER did undertake an interesting project in the 2000s called “the southern engines of growth “ that examined the role of China, India, South Africa and Brazil in leading global growth rates.
95.Within the framework of the current research theme of the triple crisis the challenge will be to identify research questions that will allow UNU-WIDER to
37
pull off a major research breakthrough, generating implications both for development economics and development policy.
Choosing a geographical focus
96.Does UNU-WIDER have the right geographical focus for its activities? This question should be unpacked into two distinct questions. One is about the geographical focus of research, while the other is about the geographical focus of research collaboration. The research question is about areas or regions where development problems have been under-researched or recently neglected by researchers. The development collaboration question is about the choice of appropriate research partners for the investigation of the selected research topics. While they are distinct in principle, in practice these two questions can become linked, because research done with collaborators located in region X is often directed to region X’s problems.
97.It has been strongly advocated to us that that a world institute of research on development economics should focus on research topics that are global in scope. It should not concentrate on the problems of any one region, in competition with the research institutes of that region. From that viewpoint, the choice of the “triple crisis” of food, finance and climate as the current focus of research is ideal, because it is not limited in its geographical reference.
98.However, geo-political upheavals can throw up problems that are regionally centred, but which have important repercussions for the rest of the world. In the 1990s the collapse of the former Soviet Union was such an event. It opened up a new research frontier and UNU-WIDER along with other development research institutes and think-tanks switched its research attention to the problems of the transition economies. It is possible that current upheavals in the MENA region will create another new research frontier to which UNU-WIDER will also be drawn.9 Meanwhile, China is another region where rapid change is rippling out to the rest of the world, affecting trade prospects, commodity prices and carbon emissions. It would surely be difficult to exclude China from a research programme on the “triple crisis”.
99.Global research issues do not neatly separate themselves from regional research issues with global implications, but UNU-WIDER needs to avoid selecting research issues that are of mainly regional interest. These should be the business of the UN regional economic commissions and the regional development banks.
9 There is a current project in the MENA region, the focus of which is climate change. UNU-WIDER is commissioning new research in the region in the light of recent events.
38
Making a greater impact
100. With the decline in the share of endowment income, UNU-WIDER has gradually become more dependent for its revenue on the special contributions of donors. Based on the current forecasts for the biennium 2011-12 more than 60 percent of income will be from special programme contributions. In the recent years, aid donors and others who fund development research have progressively raised the bar for development research organisations that wish to access development co-operation finance. At one time donors wanted only that the research they funded be executed and delivered on time. Then they added that it should be well disseminated by widespread publication. The new challenge is to provide an assurance that the disseminated research will ‘make an impact’.
101. This rather vague requirement does not exactly mean what it says, and demands further examination. The implication that some impact from research is better than no impact is not necessarily correct. Flawed research can make a major negative impact, as demonstrated in the UK by the 1998 medical research paper that (falsely) claimed to find a causal link from the MMR vaccine to autism in babies. Its impact was that many parents refused the MMR vaccination and consequently the incidence of mumps, measles and rubella in children rose significantly. This reinforces our view that the primary responsibility of a research institute is to produce excellent research. Only then can a desirable, rather than an undesirable, impact be produced when it influences policy.
102. It is necessary to be clear about what type of desirable impact can be achieved realistically, and who should be responsible for producing it .Diversity of types of impact suggests that evaluation should be done at different levels, or with a different focus. In addition to critical academic acclaim, impact may be one of three kinds:
Excellent research may either change existing public policies for the better or, if public policies do not need to be improved, solidify public support for them. Our term for this type of impact is ‘policy influence’.
Less dramatically, sound new thinking may be expected to re-shape or re-frame debates about public policy, finally putting old controversies to rest and opening up new policy approaches. Our term for this type of impact is ‘paradigm change’.
Excellent research and sound new thinking may establish a reputation for an institution that will validate its long term presence in the public arena as a
39
continuing source of expertise. Our term for this type of impact is ‘expert presence’.
103. Research that influences public policies is most likely to derive from research projects or programmes. So the focus of evaluation should be on the research team. Sound new thinking is usually, but not necessarily, the product of an outstanding individual, often with the assistance of a group of disciples or followers who play a subsidiary role. In this case the focus of evaluation should be on the outstanding individual. The establishment of a long-term reputation for expertise derives from success in recruitment and motivation at the level of the institution. For evaluating an institution, the degree of expert presence is the appropriate criterion of evaluation.
104. The conditions for policy influence have become more favourable in recent years. The policy making process has become more porous. It is no longer closely confined inside national governments, but is more open to other agents, including international organisations. This poses the question of how university research institutes and think tanks can successfully contribute ideas, proposals and pressures for change into the policy arena.
105. For an institution, reaching a collective consensus on what kind of impact is desirable may not be easy. Some researchers may be unwilling to join in a common line of policy advocacy, and some may argue that normative dissonance encourages a lively research institute. This means that a research institute can hardly act as a campaigning group in the policy arena, even though it must always view government policy from a critical perspective.
106. A way of exercising policy influence through research projects is to involve policy makers right from the very start of the research. In this scenario of institute-donor agency co-operation, the choice of topic is a joint one; it is relevant to the policy makers as well as having the potential to generate excellent academic research. The research design is also a joint endeavour, ensuring that the questions the policymaker wants to be answered are framed in a way that the researchers can answer them. Also, joint design makes it more likely that the research products that will be helpful to the policy maker (evidence in the form of charts, indices or other measurements) are actually produced in the course of the research. Finally, a document is produced that explains concisely the findings of the research and explains their significance for policy.
40
107. However, UNU-WIDER may not wish to go down that road. Close joint working with a single donor may undermine UNU-WIDER’s hard-won reputation for independent, non-partisan research.
6. Addressing the Challenges
An improved UNU/UNU-WIDER relationship
108. The relation that binds the UNU Centre and its fourteen RTCs ought to be a federal one, not a unitary one. Because of the heterogeneity of the RTCs and their distance from each other and the Centre, a unitary structure, such as might apply to a national university, is simply impractical. In a federal relation, which is designed precisely to cope with the problems of heterogeneity and distance, a balance is struck between the claims of central direction and the claims of local initiative.
109. Underlying both types of relation is a reality that is dynamic and does not stand still. So the claims of centre and locality, of top-down control and bottom-up creativity, will require periodic readjustment. It is an appropriate time for the UNU Centre to negotiate a new concordat governing its relations with UNU-WIDER.
110. The Panel was not convinced that it is necessary to insist that taught degrees are introduced by every RTC of the UNU, including UNU-WIDER. Even if it is now judged appropriate for the UNU to model itself on national universities, some outstanding national universities have component institutes that do not provide teaching. For example, Princeton University includes an Institute of Advanced Study that does no teaching. In the University of Oxford, All Souls’ College does no teaching. There are other examples. The Panel believes that UNU-WIDER could be allowed to concentrate on its obvious comparative advantage which is research. Indeed it would be a positive benefit to the UNU to have one of its sub-units globally recognised for its high quality research.
111. Nevertheless, there are areas where closer integration of UNU-WIDER and UNU Centre would bring benefits. Integrated activities will help to break down isolation and contribute to UNU-wide morale. There are several examples including an integrated website and professional training for research staff in new research methodologies and in new dissemination skills.
41
Better planning and sequencing of diversification
112. The Panel believes that, in the event that a UNU post-graduate degree were to be launched at UNU-WIDER, it would need to be approached with great circumspection and more thorough planning and sequencing than has been evident to date.
113. The following seem to be the major planning considerations that appear to have not been addressed.
The effect of teaching expansion on the recruitment of academic staff should be carefully considered. Alternative forms of contract should be developed to give longer term continuity in the development of the course.
As a matter of due diligence, the UNU ought to take legal advice on whether a launch of post-graduate courses by UNU-WIDER would be ultra vires, and, if so, what amendments to the Statute are needed to avoid this outcome.
The economic viability of a new UNU degree course should be estimated, including projections of the number of prospective students, given the proposed fee, and the cost per student of tuition and student support services.
A financing plan then has to be developed to provide bursaries for students unable to pay the full fee.
As well as the recurrent financing plan, resources are needed for the up-front investment in curriculum design and the preparation of teaching material.
Most critically, additional finance is required to prevent the move into teaching taking resources out of the research, training and outreach activities that should be protected. (The Internal Review has suggested that the frequency of conferences may have to be reduced, but the Panel does not recommend this option.)
Links with the Finnish government
114. UNU-WIDER must continue to actively cultivate good relations with the Finnish government. It must listen to its concerns and address them as far as possible.
115. In face of the government’s anxiety about being left as UNU-WIDER’s sole donor, senior managers will need to keep up their efforts to widen the circle of donors.
116. Other necessary steps are more concrete, such as UNU-WIDER’s work in propagating development economics in Finnish universities. The previous
42
External Review recommended that resources continue to be invested in strengthening links with the Finnish academic community. UNU-WIDER’s proposal to contribute a module to the Master’s course in development economics at Helsinki Centre for Economic Research will strengthen links with the Finnish academic community, and the Panel agrees that this commitment should be fulfilled to the extent that is feasible.
117. With reference to concerns about UNU-WIDER’s value added, the Panel observed that this question has no definite scientific answer, essentially because this question requires a judgement about a counter-factual situation. The Panel believes that it is not reasonable to assume either (a) that none of the research would have been done without UNU-WIDER, implying 100 percent value added or (b) that all of the research would have been done without UNU-WIDER, implying zero value added. The answer must lie somewhere in between these two extremes. As one of our interviewees put it, “UNU-WIDER has managed to exploit its competitive advantage and stay ahead of the course in many areas.” Clearly the research of the internal staff is all value added, but the research produced by the research network might be either animated, or merely harvested, by the internal staff. Animation is an important input into the production of research. Proposing a well-chosen topic, bringing researchers together for discussion and mutual criticism, commenting and guiding revision of first drafts, setting deadlines and editing for publication all bring into being research that would not otherwise get done. The Panel judges that probably more than half of the research produced by the research network was realised as a direct result of this animation process. Therefore, a large percentage of the publications we have evaluated represent genuine value added.
Meeting the needs of specific programme contributors
118. The stakeholder interviews with the other donors confirmed that several donors would like to build closer relations with UNU-WIDER. The desire for closer engagement is evidence of UNU-WIDER’s established reputation and good diplomatic skills.
119. The situation of the UK Department for International Development is interesting. On the one hand, its budget of transfers is projected to increase in order to reach the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. On the other hand, it will have its administration budget squeezed in the search for efficiency savings. The likely consequence is that fewer officials will administer larger transfer programmes. If this happens, it will create both a danger and an opportunity for UNU-WIDER. The danger is that
43
the existing small programme will lapse, on the grounds that it is inefficient to administer, exactly as happened with the Norwegian specific programme contribution. The opportunity is that a bid for a larger contribution, based around expanded research and capacity building activities, might be welcomed. The Panel suggests that senior management explore actively the possibility of increased DFID funding.
A neutral space with a core economic focus
120. Most of the external stakeholders interviewed by the Panel expressed the view that UNU-WIDER should continue to maintain its identity as a neutral space or open forum for the development community. The reasons advanced included that to do so was in keeping with its status as an agency of the UN. Additionally, a position of neutrality was seen as finessing the problem of defining what constitutes ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heterodoxy’ in development economics. These are imprecise and changing terms, which may not be very meaningful for shaping an institutional identity.
121. Our interviewees agreed that neutrality did not preclude the choice of distinctive research topics, or ones not favoured by the IFIs. One former visiting scholar made a plea for this option in the following terms. “I would only urge that a greater effort be made to differentiate UNU-WIDER wholly from the World Bank's orientation, and this may even call for some deliberate 'product differentiation', entailing a self-conscious emphasis on a more liberal, radical, and equality-preferring approach to the world's development problems.”
122. The Panel endorses the general agreement amongst stakeholders that UNU-WIDER research not only needs to maintain its high quality and innovativeness but also needs to explore its potential to raise the bar.
123. The Internal Review has raised the possibility of reducing the scope of the development conference programme in the future. The high-level personal inter-actions that the conferences facilitate are as important an output of UNU-WIDER, as its tangible products of books and articles and its electronic products of working papers and newsletters. The Panel considers that to go from two Development Conferences a year to one (as envisaged by the Internal Review) would be a backward step.
124. The Panel believes that the need to blend development economics with insights from non-economic disciplines is being dealt with correctly by UNU-WIDER’s senior management. UNU-WIDER has always been willing to sponsor work on
44
topics that would not have yielded to traditional economic analysis – in past examples, humanitarian emergencies, group behaviour, migration and civil conflict. This has encouraged the economics profession to explore new analytic approaches, some derived from the “new institutional economics” and the revived interest in political economy in a more rigorous analytic mode. The stakeholders whom the Panel interviewed saw this openness to a wider range of social questions and analytic approaches as a considerable strength of the research programme. The Panel suggests that, while development economics should remain the central driver of the Institute’s research, cross-disciplinary inclusiveness should continue to be the hallmark of the chosen research programme. This should also be reflected in UNU-WIDER’s recruitment practices. It further suggests that, in designing future research programmes, UNU- WIDER should try to co-ordinate more closely with the research of UNRISD, which concentrates on social issues.
Looking for ways to innovate in research
125. The financial crisis of 2008-09 and its impact on developing countries and the global economy strongly suggests the need for UNU-WIDER to commission fresh research on some of the macroeconomic dimensions of national and international development. Issues of exchange rate management, sustainable fiscal and current account deficits, connections between macro, growth, poverty and inequality are all very important and relevant topics. The current conjuncture of advanced economies struggling to emerge from problems of high debt, sluggish growth, fiscal deficits and financial fragility while the developing world follows a growth path that pushes up the demand for raw materials, commodity prices and local real exchange rates deserves closer analysis. The management of global macro imbalances and of exchange rate realignments along with a better understanding of new configurations of growth patterns, economic size and savings generation capacities of developing countries are critical topics.
126. More specifically, issues of research interest would be:
a) Management of global and national macroeconomic imbalances and assessment of the savings potential (of public and private sectors) and investment demand in developing countries.
b) Transfer of savings surplus from some large developing countries to finance deficit-countries in the group of advanced economies.
45
c) Political economy implications of global policy-making of the new configurations of economic power in the south.
d) Exchange rate management and prospects for “currency wars”.
e) The scope for counter-cyclical fiscal policy.
f) The role of financial markets for the intermediation of savings to investment opportunities, risk diversification and impacts on macro stability.
g) Scope and limits for export- led growth strategies in developing countries in the context of slow growing advanced economies (USA, Europe and Japan).
h) Scope for south-south trade.
i) Role of multinationals of the south and southern foreign investment in the transfer of capital and technologies within the developing world.
j) New patterns of convergence and divergence in the world economy associated with higher growth in the developing world and emerging economies than in the advanced economies.
k) The opportunities for international migration, particularly south-south migration.
127. In turn, the implications of the global financial crisis and its aftermath on developing thinking and development policy are a major subject waiting for consideration. The financial crisis of 2008-2009 not only cast serious doubts on the pre-crisis public policy approaches based on self-regulation of financial markets, the effectiveness of counter-cyclical fiscal policy and the preference for monetary policy as a tool for demand management. The crisis also has encouraged criticism of the direction followed by economics as a discipline in the last two decades or so. Economics placed, indeed, an unwarranted faith in economic rationality and the efficiency of markets.10
128. UNU-WIDER’s current theme of the triple crises of finance, food and climate change provides an umbrella for work that could contribute new directions conceptually, methodologically and in terms of policy relevance.
a) Current shifts in economic power, growth potential, savings capacity and investment opportunities towards large economies of the “south” are turning the developing world into a very different one from the 1940s and 1950s world that
10 A recent example of the quest for new approaches in economics has been the launching of INET, (the Institute for New Economic Thinking). This initiative is intended to explore new paradigms in economics. We acknowledge that INET has received 40 million USD from the Soros Foundation which is considerably larger than the budget of UNU-WIDER.
46
gave birth to the field of development economics. What are the implications for the study of ‘development economics’?
b) Voice and representation of “the new powers of the south” in the institutions of the world economy. What are the implications for future changes in global economic governance?
c) Need for a more progressive income distribution toward wage earners and lower middle class that can help sustain a higher level of aggregate demand. This is important for boosting economic recovery and supporting new patterns of growth oriented to the internal market.
d) Consequences of terms of trade booms led by rapid growth in China and Asia that currently benefit Latin America and Africa.
e) Environmental impact, food availability and natural resource constraints of the high growth pattern in large economies of the south.
f) Constraints imposed by climate change on fast growth based on high energy-consumption, natural resources and consumerism.
Global research collaboration and alternative models for expansion
129. It is far from obvious, given the above research questions that UNU-WIDER should intensify its research focus on sub-Saharan Africa. Even in terms of the poverty and inequality agenda, it is not clear that is a more important research ground than parts of central, south and south-east Asia. However, sub-Saharan Africa may well be an appropriate ground for UNU-WIDER to develop further its research collaboration.
130. In view of the interest of several donors of specific contributions in assisting capacity building, the Panel believes that there is a case for trying to negotiate research collaboration with institutions in the South, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. However, this need not necessarily imply a greater focus on SSA research topics.
131. Several of our interviewees mentioned the need to keep a critical mass of core researchers based in Helsinki; one mentioned expansion to 12-13 researchers. A substantial core staff in Helsinki has the added advantage of the synergy created by face-to-face interaction. At the same time, several former UNU-WIDER employees and associates mentioned the difficulty of recruiting and retaining high quality research staff, based in Helsinki. They cited disadvantages of location,
47
since Helsinki is not yet seen as a global city; of language, since English is not the main language of communication; and of finding employment for spouses.
132. Hence, while the Panel considered that UNU-WIDER should continue its efforts to recruit staff based in Helsinki, it also recommends consideration of three alternative models to complement those efforts, discussed below. These models could, in addition, enhance UNU-WIDER’s research networks and potential policy impact.
Model 1: Recruit full time faculty members, physically based in their own countries/institutions
133. UNU-WIDER could consider hiring core faculty members who would be physically located in their own countries but also full time UNU-WIDER research staff. This will mean less intensive face-to-face interaction, but this disadvantage could partly be overcome if such staff visited Helsinki periodically. This model would help widen the potential base for recruiting senior faculty by attracting a UNU-WIDER range of talent among distinguished scholars who might prefer not to move to Finland. This arrangement could be used to expand UNU-WIDER’s research network in the regions where such faculty are based. This is one of the models followed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (or IFPRI), based in Washington DC). Basing some of IFPRI’s staff members with families in other cities has been especially helpful in retaining female staff with young children whose husbands cannot find jobs in the same location.11
Model 2: Collaborations with existing research institutions in developing and developed countries
134. Under this model, UNU-WIDER would establish a collaborative arrangement with an institution outside Finland, for example, a partnership between UNU-WIDER and a “twin” institution. This could involve faculty exchange between UNU-WIDER (Helsinki) and the twin, or it could involve basing some core UNU-WIDER faculty in the twin institution. One example of “twinning” is the arrangement that UNU-Tokyo already has with an institute in Ghana with a staff exchange programme. However, if “twinning” were to involve placing UNU staff within a pre-existing developing country institution, there could be potential hurdles in terms of differential pay scales. Institutions with given pay scales are not always free to hire regular faculty who may be working for UNU at higher
11 The Panel acknowledges that the resources of IFPRI are more than ten times of UNU-WIDER and that their financial position gives them a considerable advantage over UNU-WIDER when it comes to responding to special needs.
48
scales. This problem appears not to have been addressed yet, although it is recognized by the UNU as a potential issue.
Model 3: Establish satellite branches of UNU-WIDER in other countries
135. This would have features of both Models 1 and 2. It would be a more ambitious shift than Model 2 in that it would involve not just core faculty members based outside Helsinki, but UNU-WIDER satellites as free-standing institutions in other countries. These would be fully-fledged branches with local UNU-WIDER staff. It is somewhat similar to Model 2 above, but with the advantage that there would not be any problems of pay scale differences between a local institution staff and UNU-WIDER staff. An example of this model is the branch institution that IFPRI has set up in India.
136. The above models need not all be mutually exclusive. Models 1 and 2 could co-exist with one another. However, Model 3 could potentially be a substitute for Models 1 and 2.
A strong expert presence
137. In the end, desirable impact is not a matter of high visibility and massive exposure. The latter are relatively easy to achieve, by making exaggerated and strident claims for one’s research and indulging in partisanship and personality conflicts. Research in this style12 grabs public attention and usually achieves high academic citation ratings, but is soon forgotten. It does not consolidate an institution’s expert presence – it undermines it.
138. The Panel recommends UNU- should seek to increase its impact and consider a range of suggestions with the aim of consolidating its expert presence.
a) As far as possible continue the shift from book chapters to journal articles and from edited books to special journal issues, since journals are more accessible, more read by the development economics community and easier to evaluate for quality. Journal special issues may also be publishable as edited volumes.
b) When a journal is being selected to receive an offer of a UNU-WIDER Special Issue, pay attention to the journal’s Impact Factor.
c) Avoid the temptation to reduce scope of the conference programme, which had been so successful in raising the profile of UNU-WIDER, in order to free resources for other activities.
12 For example, Dambisa Moyo’s recent book Dead Aid.
49
d) Currently the main outlet for information about research is through e-mails to people on the e-mail list. The Economic Research Network (ERN) which is part of the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) http://www.ssrn.com/ern/index.html has over 100,000 subscribers and it sends out emails about working papers, published papers and forthcoming papers from several universities, organizations, journals and also individual authors. Several organizations, including the research departments of the World Bank and the IMF subscribe to the ERN. The Panel suggests that the circulation of UNU-WIDER’s working papers through SSRN will increase its visibility to the development economics profession. Please see: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1489392
e) One e-mail recipient commented that ‘beyond the very fruitful face-to-face exchange of ideas at conferences, electronic media (tele-conferences, video panels) could also be used to keep track of the projects and improve communication among project participants’. In its use of new IT applications for outreach, UNU-WIDER is less advanced than some other development research institutes and think-tanks, such as ODI London. The appropriateness of new IT applications for spreading understanding of UNU-WIDER’s research should be investigated as part of a re-vamped communications strategy, as envisaged by the Internal Review.
f) In addition to short policy briefs, producing a 30 to 50 page booklet, jointly written by a senior researcher and a senior policy maker, is a successful way of explaining the policy significance of a research programme. Such a product (see footnote 8) enables the donor agency that has commissioned the work, as well as the researchers themselves, to retain ownership of it and become its champions, carrying its messages to related agencies in the policy world.
g) In accumulating policy influence and expert presence, it can be useful to create a particular point of focus that the organisation can regularly re-visit. Putting a novel indicator into the public domain can be a risky venture, but, if done skillfully, it can capture the imagination of the policy community and the public, and provide a regular spot in the limelight for the organisation that sponsors it. UNU-WIDER should consider whether the theme of the “triple crisis” lends itself to publicity by means of branded indicator.
h) All the former PhD interns who responded to the survey indicated an interest in being part of a UNU-WIDER alumni organisation. Some of them were not on the mailing list because they had changed addresses. As part of the evaluation
50
process, the Panel created an up-to-date database of all the former interns. The internal review highlighted the need to have more Africans participating in UNU-WIDER projects. Several African former interns, who are employed in Universities or Think Tanks in their home countries, could be potential recruits. UNU-WIDER should look into the feasibility of setting up its own alumni organisation.
7. Final General Observations(i) The 10 years between evaluations is too long in the case of research, because
there is too much material to be covered. It may be helpful for the organisation’s research to be monitored more frequently using low cost methods like surveys and journal ranking. This will provide more rapid feedback on the direction of the research to senior management.
(ii) The Panel recommends greater efforts to achieve gender balance in the choice of project directors, researchers and PhD interns. This reinforces the recommendations of the Internal Review in this matter. The panel also recommends that when selecting project directors and contributors to research projects UNU-WIDER should pay greater attention to the inclusion of scholars based in developing countries, and to ensuring regional diversity across developing countries.
(iii) In making our recommendations, the Panel is mindful that UNU-WIDER can undertake additional tasks only to the extent that it can access corresponding additions to its financial resources.
(iv) As the Panel was compiling its report, coincidentally, Dr James McCann of the University of Pennsylvania was organising a poll to rank the world’s 6,480 think-tanks. The poll result, based on responses from 120 countries, placed UNU-WIDER as the seventh best development think-tank in the world. This is a measure of the recognition that UNU-WIDER had achieved in its first twenty-five years. We trust that our recommendations will encourage UNU-WIDER’s endeavours to rise to even greater heights.
51
AcknowledgementsThe Panel wishes to thank Professor Tony Addison for being its main point of contact with UNU-WIDER during the course of this Evaluation and Review. The Internal Review that he conducted was placed at our disposal in the early stages of our work and proved a useful source of information for our deliberations. Apart from that, he has been calmly supportive of our efforts on all occasions and an excellent host on our visit to Helsinki. We also thank the Director of UNU-WIDER, Professor Finn Tarp, for his support and hospitality.The administrative staff of UNU-WIDER deserve special words of praise for their efficient organisation of our meetings and travel.The Panel acknowledges its debt to Rosaleen McDonnell, who has been a first class rapporteur. As well as keeping the minutes of our last three meetings, she has willingly put in long hours compiling and formatting our Report.We are grateful to Komla Dzigbede for the research assistance provided to Elizabeth Asiedu on the four surveys that were undertaken. They provided a sound statistical basis for the evaluation.Finally, we owe a big debt of gratitude to the many distinguished members of the development community who gave freely of their time to discuss the performance and prospects of UNU-WIDER with members of the Panel. These meetings proved to us that UNU-WIDER has won a wide circle of genuine friends and champions over the years, which is a most important invisible resource for the future of the Institute.
52