Evenson, R. E.Rosegrant, Mark W.2016-04-192016-04-1920030-85199-549-7http://hdl.handle.net/10919/66139Metadata only recordThis concluding chapter reported two counterfactual economic impact scenarios, using the IFPRI IMPACT model, asking the following questions: 1. How would food prices, food production, food consumption and international food trade have differed in the year 2000 if the developing countries of the world were constrained to have no CGI after 1965, while developed countries realized the CGI that they historically achieved (1965 CGI)? 2. How would food prices, food production, food consumption and international food trade have differed in the year 2000 if the IARC system had not been built, but NARS CGI gains in both developed and developing countries would have been realized (No IARC CGI)? The calculations were based on global market equilibrium outcomes. Tables 23.3 through 23.7 show the two scenarios under prices, production consumption and trade as a percentage of 2000 calculations. Overall, the authors attribute food production expansion to CGI programs, which resulted in per capita food availability. Although CGI gains were not realized evenly nor were they large enough to bring about "convergence" in per capita income between developed and developing countries, they did constitute the beginning stages of the convergence process. The authors conclude that the "escape from poverty" focus indicates that any reduction in support to agricultural projects, specifically those that are designed to improve productivity, will seriously limit efforts to reduce poverty.text/plainen-USIn CopyrightRural developmentWorld marketsFood consumptionLivelihoodsMalnutritionPovertyCrop genetic improvement (cgi)Developing countriesFood productivityConsumptionTradePricesNational agricultural research systems (nars)International agricultural research centers (iarc)Farm/Enterprise Scale Field ScaleAbstractCopyright FAO 2003