IFPRI's researchers work on a range of disciplines and topics, including agricultural economics, political economy, rural poverty and transformation, social protection, women's empowerment, food environments, digital innovations and practices, and policy analysis and modeling.
In Africa, IFPRI maintains a regional office in Senegal and country programs in Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Sudan.
[13][14][15] Independent, peer-reviewed assessments of IFPRI's impact show that the Institute's research work has benefited 270 million people worldwide, and just a few of its efforts—including work on Mexico’s Progresa social protection program, the liberalization of rice markets in Viet Nam, and Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program, among others—have been estimated to lead to more than US$1 billion in economic returns and environmental benefits.
IFPRI collaborates with more than 300 partner organizations to increase the impact of the Institute’s research and build connections across topical areas and the policy community for sustainable, resilient, and equitable agriculture and food systems.
The Institute’s efforts focus on research and innovation to deliver integrated policies, investments, governance processes, and capacity building that support equitable and sustainable food systems transformation, as well as improved livelihoods and healthy diets.
To meet the needs of policymakers and researchers focused on food security and nutrition, this annual report presents an overview of a salient topic in the field and discusses relevant challenges and solutions in major world regions.
IFPRI publishes a blog series called Making a Difference, which showcases impact stories that represent a range of research, communications, and capacity-strengthening work.
Conservative estimates of IFPRI’s impact show that just a few of the Institute’s activities—in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Mexico, Tanzania, and Viet Nam—have led to economic and environmental benefits exceeding US$1 billion.
[31] Evaluations from the early 2000s and late 1990s praise the Institute’s quality and quantity of work, but critique its priorities in selecting research topics and its efforts to undertake capacity-strengthening and other outreach activities.