The Economic impact of public agricultural research and development in the United States

In this article, we examine the relationship between public investments in agricultural research and development and the productivity‐enhancing benefits they generate. Knowledge productivity functions are estimated for U.S. agriculture using data on multifactor productivity and public knowledge stocks. We examine the time‐series properties of the data and compare alternative econometric estimation procedures. The results are used to calculate economic performance measures such as internal rates of return and benefit‐cost ratios. The real rate of return to public investments in agricultural research and development in the United States is in the range of 8–10% per annum.     

Do Formula or Competitive Grant Funds Have Greater Impacts on State Agricultural Productivity?

This article examines the impact of public agricultural research and extension on agricultural total factor productivity at the state level. The objective is to establish whether federal formula or competitive grant funding of agricultural research has a greater impact on state agricultural productivity. A pooled cross-section time-series model of agricultural productivity is fitted to annual data for forty-eight contiguous states over 1970–1999. Our results show that public agricultural research and agricultural extension have statistically significant positive impacts on state agricultural productivity. In addition, Hatch formula funding has a larger impact on agricultural productivity than federal competitive grant funding, and a reallocation of Hatch formula funds to competitive grant funding would lower agricultural productivity. This seems unlikely to be a socially optimal policy. Furthermore, from a cost–benefit perspective, our study shows that the social marginal annualized real rate of return to public resources invested in agricultural research is 49–62%, and to public agricultural extension, the rate is even larger.     

Evaluating research and education performance in Indian agricultural development

India's agricultural research spending has long been regionally uneven. Regional research intensity ratios, which account for size differences, indicate research spending has consistently favored southern and western states over northern, central, and eastern ones. Farm production patterns have, however, changed in recent years and regional output growth is being driven by new commodity mixes. In this article, we ask which region had the highest factor productivity growth and rate of return to investments in public agricultural research and higher education. Our analysis relies on a 1980–2008 Indian agricultural production and policy data set together with a dual heteroscedastic production frontier to decompose total factor productivity (TFP) growth into formal technical progress and efficiency elements. The model's regional flexibility affords region‐to‐region comparison of multiple research return rates, TFP growth, and the elements influencing them. Regardless of return‐rate measure or allocation scenario evaluated, the North has enjoyed the highest return to research spending, and the Central and East the lowest. Factor productivity growth has however been strongest in the South, primarily on account of efficiency gains. Overall, though, the technical progress and productivity growth easily attributable to government‐supported research has accounted for about one‐quarter of the sector's TFP growth.     

Productivity in Indonesian agriculture: Impacts of domestic and international research

Total factor productivity growth contributed 38% of Indonesia's agricultural output growth from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s. This study uses time series data analysed with an error correction mechanism to examine the contribution that Indonesian publicly funded agricultural research made to this outcome, allowing for other possible determinants of productivity growth, including international agricultural research, extension, government price policy and weather. The results imply a 27% real annual rate of return from a marginal increase in Indonesian agricultural research expenditure. Indonesia's public agricultural research explains virtually all of its agricultural total factor productivity growth between 1975 and 2006.     

The benefits from public agricultural research in Uruguay

We use newly constructed data to model and measure agricultural productivity growth and the returns to public agricultural research conducted in Uruguay over the period 1961–2010. We pay attention specifically to the role of levy‐based funding under INIA, which was established in 1990. Our results indicate that the creation of INIA was associated with a revitalization of funding for agricultural R&D in Uruguay, which spurred sustained growth in agricultural productivity during the past two decades when productivity growth was stagnating in many other countries. The econometric results were somewhat sensitive to specification choices. The preferred model includes two other variables with common trends, a time‐trend variable and a proxy for private research impacts, as well as a variable representing the stock of public agricultural knowledge that entailed a lag distribution with a peak impact at year 24 of the 25‐year lag. It implies a marginal benefit‐cost ratio of 48.2, using a real discount rate of 5 per cent per annum and a modified internal rate of return of 24 per cent per annum. The benefit‐cost ratio varied significantly across models with different lag structures or that omitted the trend or the private research variable, but across the same models, the modified internal rate of return was very stable, ranging from 23 per cent per annum to 27 per cent per annum. These results suggest that the revitalized investment in research spending under INIA has been very profitable for Uruguay and that a greater rate of investment would have been justified.     

A model of the U.S. food system: What are the determinants of the state vulnerabilities to production shocks and supply chain disruptions?

We adapt a Ricardian general equilibrium model to the setting of U.S. domestic agri-food trade to assess states’ vulnerability to adverse production shocks and supply chain disruptions. To this end, we analyze how domestic crop supply chains depend on fundamental state-level comparative advantages—which reflect underlying differences in states’ cost-adjusted productivity levels—and thereby illustrate the capacity of states to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of such disruptions to the U.S. agricultural sector. Based on the theoretical framework and our estimates of the model's structural parameters obtained using data on U.S. production, consumption, and domestic trade in crops, we undertake simulations to characterize the welfare implications of counterfactual scenarios depicting disruptions to (1) states’ agricultural productive capacity, and (2) interstate supply linkages. Our results emphasize that the distributional impacts of domestic supply chain disruptions hinge on individual states’ agricultural productive capacities, and that the ability of states to mitigate the impacts of adverse production shocks through trade relies on the degree to which states are able to substitute local production shortfalls by sourcing crops from other states.     

The economic impacts of technology and climate change: New evidence from U.S. corn yields

Over the past century, U.S. farmers have been offered a steady stream of new agricultural technologies, and more recently, experienced climate change. Because these two events have been occurring simultaneously, identifying their separate effects is difficult, and misimputation is easy. This article explicitly examines the economics of technical change and the interaction between weather and technology as revealed in a half century of panel data on U.S. Midwest rainfed state‐average corn yields. Observed yields reflect two components: yield potential and damage to the potential caused by weather and pests. Yield potential is modeled as a stochastic production frontier where nitrogen fertilization, public corn research, and introduction and adoption of biotech corn seeds impact yield potential and excess heat impacts nitrogen productivity. The yield‐damage/damage‐control function permits biotech corn plants to abate adverse effects of weather and pest events. Results include the following: nitrogen use, public corn research, and biotech seed‐corn adoption increase yield potential; soil moisture stress reduces yield potential, and excess heat severely reduces nitrogen productivity. Biotech corn plants abate yield damage caused by soil moisture stress but not excess heat.     

Efficiency effects of agricultural economics research in the United States

Allocations of research funds across programs are often made for efficiency reasons. Social science research is shown to have small, lagged but significant effects on U.S. agricultural efficiency when public agricultural R&D and extension are simultaneously taken into account. Farm management and marketing research variables are used to explain variations in estimates of allocative and technical efficiency using a Bayesian approach that incorporates stylized facts concerning lagged research impacts in a way that is less restrictive than popular polynomial distributed lags. Results are reported in terms of means and standard deviations of estimated probability distributions of parameters and long‐run total multipliers. Extension is estimated to have a greater impact on both allocative and technical efficiency than either R&D or social science research.     

Research and productivity in Thai agriculture

This paper examines the impact that publicly funded agricultural research has on productivity in crop production within Thailand. It tests empirically the two hypotheses that, first, publicly funded research and development (R&D) in crop production is a significant determinant of total factor productivity (TFP) in the crop sector and, second, that its social rate of return is high. The statistical analysis applies error correction methods to national level time series data for Thailand, covering the period 1970–2006. Emphasis is given to public research in crop production, where most publicly funded agricultural R&D has occurred. The role of international research spillovers and other possible determinants of TFP are also taken into account. The results demonstrate that public investment in research has a positive and significant impact on TFP. International research spillovers have also contributed to TFP. The results support the finding of earlier studies that returns on public research investment have been high. This result holds even after controlling for possible sources of upward biases present in most such studies, due to the omission of alternative determinants of measured TFP. The findings raise a concern over declining public expenditure on crop research, in Thailand and many other developing countries.     

Publicly-funded UK agricultural R&D and 'social' total factor productivity

Most studies concerned with measuring the rate of return to publicly‐funded agricultural R&D investment have found high returns, suggesting under‐investment, and calls for increased expenditure have been common. However, the evaluation of returns tends to measure the effect of research expenditure against growth in total factor productivity (TFP), based on market inputs and outputs. When compared against growing public unease over the environmental effects of pursuing agricultural productivity growth, TFP indices become a misleading measure of growth. This paper integrates some non‐market components into the TFP index. The costs of two specific externalities of agricultural production, namely fertiliser and pesticide pollution, are integrated in a TFP index constructed for the period 1948–1995. This adjusted, or ‘social’, TFP index is measured against UK public R&D expenditures. The rates of return to agricultural R&D are reduced by using the ‘social’ as opposed to the traditional TFP index. Whilst both remain at justifiable levels, previous studies appear to have over‐estimated the effect of agricultural R&D expenditures. Furthermore, with changes in policy towards more socially acceptable but non‐productivity enhancing outcomes, such as animal welfare, rural diversification and organic farming, the future framework for analysing returns to agricultural R&D should not be so dependent on productivity growth as an indicator of research effectiveness.     

Post-War Productivity Patterns in U.S. Agriculture: Influences of Aggregation Procedures in a State-Level Analysis

Annual data for forty-eight states are used to account for changes in the composition of input and output aggregates over space and time, and thereby to obtain new evidence on changes in inputs, outputs, and productivity in U.S. agriculture. The measures change significantly when we use state-specific rather than national prices and when we allow for changes in the composition of the aggregates, especially of labor and capital inputs. We compare our estimates and those reported by Ball et al. ( American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(1999):164–79). The national estimates are similar but substantial differences are found in state-level productivity growth.     

Public agricultural R&D over the past half century: an emerging new world order

Recent trends in farm productivity and food prices raise concerns about whether the era of global agricultural abundance is over. Agricultural R&D is a crucial determinant of agricultural productivity and production, and therefore food prices and poverty. In this article, we present entirely new evidence on investments in public agricultural R&D worldwide as an indicator of the prospects for agricultural productivity growth over the coming decades. The agricultural R&D world is changing, and in ways that will definitely affect future global patterns of poverty, hunger, and other outcomes. The overall picture is one in which the middle‐income countries are growing in relative importance as producers of agricultural innovations through investments in R&D, and have consequently better prospects as producers of agricultural products.     

Decomposition of gender differentials in agricultural productivity in Ethiopia

A number of studies document gender differentials in agricultural productivity. However, they are limited to region and crop‐specific estimates of the mean gender gap. This article improves on previous work in three ways. First, data representative at the national level and for a wide variety of crops is exploited. Second, decomposition methods—traditionally used in the analysis of wage gender gaps—are employed. Third, heterogeneous effects by women's marital status and along the productivity distribution are analyzed. Drawing on data from the 2011–2012 Ethiopian Rural Socioeconomic Survey, we find an overall 23.4 percentage point productivity differential in favor of men, of which 13.5 percentage points (57%) remain unexplained after accounting for gender differences in land manager characteristics, land attributes, and access to resources. The magnitude of the unexplained fraction is large relative to prior estimates in the literature. A more detailed analysis suggests that differences in the returns to extension services, land certification, land extension, and product diversification may contribute to the unexplained fraction. Moreover, the productivity gap is mostly driven by non‐married female managers—particularly divorced women—; married female managers do not display a disadvantage. Finally, overall and unexplained gender differentials are more pronounced at mid‐levels of productivity.     

农业科技创新对农业绿色全要素生产率的空间效应分析

文章通过数据包络模型测算2013-2018年我国31个省的农业绿色全要素生产率,剖析其时空分布演进特征,在测算结果基础上构建空间杜宾模型,探讨农业科技创新对农业绿色全要素生产率的空间溢出效应。研究发现:2013-2018年全国农业绿色全要素生产率空间分异与集聚特征明显;本省农业科技创新显著促进了农业绿色全要素生产率的提升,而其辐射作用阻碍了周边省的农业绿色全要素生产率的提高。研究结果对于深化完善农业科技创新机制、提升农业科技教育水平、创新农业科技推广模式具有现实意义。     

Women farmers’ participation in the agricultural research process: implications for agricultural sustainability in Ethiopia

Empowering women farmers to participate in agricultural research is a key strategy for sustainable agricultural development. Women empowerment has the potential to improve their roles in agricultural production while enhancing nutrition and food security. Although new agricultural development policies are focusing on improving women engagement in agriculture, there is limited literature on women empowerment in relation to agricultural research. This study used mixed methods to analyse women farmers’ participation in four stages of the agricultural research process – design, testing, dissemination, monitoring and evaluation. Two hundred and thirty individual interviews with women farmers and 16 focus group discussions with men and women farmers were conducted in four Woredas (districts) of Ethiopia. Quantitative data were analysed using binary and multivariate probit models. Qualitative data were analysed using line-by-line coding. The results showed that several empowerment indicator variables significantly (p?≤?.001) influenced women’s participation in different stages of agricultural research. Specifically, input in production decisions, autonomy in plot management, membership to farmer groups, and ability to speak in public enhanced women’s participation in different stages, in addition to access to information and extension services, education and land size. Cultural norms hindered women’s empowerment and engagement in research. To foster sustainable agriculture development, it’s important to integrate holistic and proactive gender perspectives into research strategies to increase women’s participation in farmer research groups, access information and knowledge, have voice and challenge constraining cultural norms and traditions.     

What agricultural and food policies do U.S. consumers prefer? A best–worst scaling approach

Consumer welfare effects from policy changes are traditionally calculated using estimates of consumer preferences for the underlying goods and services affected. This conventional approach is indirect, does not consider preferences people may have for the policies themselves, and makes it difficult to easily compare relative preferability of a large set of policy options. In this paper, we use the best–worst scaling approach to determine consumers’ preferences for 13 policies. A nationwide survey of 1,056 U.S. consumers indicates the highest levels of support for investments in agricultural research and requirements of food and agricultural literacy standards in public education. Fat, calorie, and soda taxes are the least popular; fewer than one-third of respondents are in favor of these three policies.     

The political economy of public research investment and commodity policies in agriculture: an empirical study

The paper tests a political economy theory of simultaneous government decision‐making on income redistribution through commodity policies and on public research investment in agriculture. We use data from 37 countries on agricultural protection and public agricultural research expenditures (PARI). The empirical results are consistent with the political economy hypotheses. The analysis suggest that structural changes in the economy have important effects on the political incentives for governments not only to subsidize or tax farmers, but also to invest in public agricultural research. Furthermore, the analysis supports the hypotheses that the impact of such structural changes on government decision‐making on PARI is non‐linear and conditional on other factors. Regarding the impact of political institutions, the results suggest that more democracy neither leads to more distortionary transfers (agricultural protection), nor to lower investment in public goods (PARI). ©2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.     

University Life Science Programs and Agricultural Biotechnology

We examine sources of productivity in bioscience research and graduate training in U.S. universities. For this purpose, we first identify the scientific publications cited on agricultural biotechnology patents, and then trace the citations back to the universities producing the cited research. Insight is thus gained into the university investments that demonstrably influence useful technology. Life-science budget allocations substantially affect both graduate education and technology-relevant science. Graduate training shows decreasing returns to budget scale, while productive research shows decreasing returns in the short run but increasing returns in the long run. Training is a weak substitute for research, while research is a moderate complement to training.     

Variability in agricultural productivity and rural household consumption inequality: Evidence from Nigeria and Uganda

This paper uses multiple rounds of panel data to assess the distributional implications of the variability in agricultural productivity in Nigeria and Uganda. It uses both a conventional decomposition and a regression‐based inequality decomposition approach to estimate the impact of climate‐induced variability in agricultural productivity. To mitigate the endogeneity associated with unobserved time‐invariant and time‐variant household fixed effects, we use rainfall shocks as a proxy for estimating the exogenous variability in agricultural productivity that affects consumption. Results suggest that a 10% increase in the variability of agricultural productivity tends to decrease household consumption by 38 and 52% on average for Nigeria and Uganda, respectively. Controlling for other factors, variability in agricultural productivity contributed to between 25% and 43% of consumption inequality between 2010 and 2015 for Nigeria; and 16% and 31% of consumption inequality between 2009 and 2011 for Uganda. We also show that variability in agricultural productivity increases changes in consumption inequality over time.     

Recalibrating the reported returns to agricultural R&D: what if we all heeded Griliches?*

Zvi Griliches’ seminal analysis of hybrid corn spawned a large literature seeking to quantify and demonstrate the value of agricultural research and development (R&D) investments. The most important metric for quantifying the rate of return to R&D emerging from this literature is the internal rate of return (IRR), even though Griliches was sceptical of its usefulness as a metric in this context. An alternative metric, also reported by Griliches but not as commonly used in the subsequent returns‐to‐research literature, is the benefit–cost ratio (BCR). We assess how the implications of the returns to agricultural R&D literature may have differed if the BCR had become the standard rather than the IRR. We reveal that the IRR and BCR produce substantially different rankings of agricultural R&D projects, differences that persist even under various commodity and geographical aggregations of the BCR and IRR estimates. The median across 2,627 reported IRRs is 37.5 per cent per year. Using data gleaned from 492 research evaluation studies, we developed and deployed a methodology to impute 2,126 BCRs (median of 5.4) and modified internal rates of returns (MIRRs, median of 16.4 per cent per year) assuming a uniform 10 per cent per year discount rate and a 30 year research timeline.