IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v39y1982i2p301-317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research revisited

Author

Listed:
  • E. Pasour
  • Marc Johnson

Abstract

Two questions related to the financing of agricultural research merit further study. First, to the extent that selective access to agricultural research is possible, there is no presumption that research results should be distributed in a way which gives everyone equal access. Moreover, the returns for a large part of agricultural research can be appropriated by the developer through patents, copyrights, and other means. Thus, there is no presumption that publicly financed research services should be equally available to everyone since, ‘in general, equal access to government services is neither necessary nor efficient’ (Goldin, 1977: 54). More attention should be devoted to the method of financing agricultural research — i.e., by taxation versus market prices. A second important question concerns how agricultural research services should be produced. In the case of a public good, it is necessary to provide the good collectively since, by definition, there is no way to make the service available selectively and, hence, private production is not feasible. There is evidence that a large part of agricultural research services are not public goods and, consequently, can be provided selectively by private producers. The advantage of private production is that goods and services are then subject to the ‘incorruptible judgment of that unbribable tribunal, the account of profit and loss’ (Mises, 1969: 35). Thus, the question of who should perform agricultural research — the private or the public sector — warrants more study. If, as appears to be the case, agricultural research is largely a private good, one would expect entry of new research firms until the rate of return is comparable with returns from other investments of comparable risk. Consequently, the apparent high rates of return from agricultural research should be viewed as suspect if (as seems likely) there are no significant entry barriers. The methods used in estimating ex post rates of return from agricultural research can be questioned on a number of grounds. Regardless of the accuracy of ex post rate of return estimates, however, it is not appropriate to assume that decision makers should base ex ante expectations on ex post rates of return. Moreover, the outside observer has no way to measure the ex ante cost and returns which motivate decision makers as they weigh the opportunity cost of additional research funds in agriculture in terms of the sacrificed alternatives associated with potential increases for agricultural price supports, prisons, defense, roads, welfare, etc. Furthermore, the discount rate is likely quite high for public expenditures due to the short time horizons of political decision makers. In view of these considerations, the conclusion that there is ‘substantial underinvestment’ of publicly funded agricultural research remains in doubt. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1982

Suggested Citation

  • E. Pasour & Marc Johnson, 1982. "Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research revisited," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 301-317, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:39:y:1982:i:2:p:301-317
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00162123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00162123
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00162123?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolf, Charles, Jr, 1979. "A Theory of Nonmarket Failure: Framework for Implementation Analysis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(1), pages 107-139, April.
    2. Bauer, Larry L. & Hancock, Curtis R., 1975. "The Productivity of Agricultural Research and Extension Expenditures in the Southeast," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 117-122, December.
    3. Don Paarlberg, 1981. "The Land Grant Colleges and the Structure Issue," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(1), pages 129-134.
    4. Roger N. Rose, 1980. "Supply Shifts and Research Benefits: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(4), pages 834-837.
    5. Masakatsu Akino & Yujiro Hayami, 1975. "Efficiency and Equity in Public Research: Rice Breeding in Japan's Economic Development: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 57(4), pages 734-735.
    6. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Willis L. Peterson, 1967. "Return to Poultry Research in the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 49(3), pages 656-669.
    8. Norton, George W., 1981. "The Productivity and Allocation of Research: U.S. Agricultural Experiment Stations, Revisited," Evaluation of Agricultural Research, Proceedings of a Workshop, Minneapolis, MN, May 12-13, 1980, Miscellaneous Publication 8 49053, University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station.
    9. Bauer, Larry L. & Hancock, Curtis R., 1975. "The Productivity Of Agricultural Research And Extension Expenditures In The Southeast," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 7(2), pages 1-6, December.
    10. Robert Evenson, 1967. "The Contribution of Agricultural Research to Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 49(5), pages 1415-1425.
    11. White, Fred C. & Havlicek, Joseph, Jr., 1979. "Rates Of Return To Agricultural Research And Extension In The Southern Region," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 11(2), pages 1-5, December.
    12. Vernon Ruttan, 1980. "Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 529-547, January.
    13. Willis L. Peterson, 1976. "A Note on the Social Returns to Private Research and Development," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 58(2), pages 324-326.
    14. Peacock, Alan, 1980. "On the Anatomy of Collective Failure," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 35(1), pages 33-43.
    15. Bredahl, Maury E. & Peterson, Willis L., 1976. "The Productivity And Allocation Of Research: U.S. Agricultural Experiment Stations," Staff Papers 13698, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    16. R. Gerald Saylor, 1974. "Social Rates of Return and Other Aspects of Agricultural Research: The Case of Cotton Research in São Paulo, Brazil: Further Comments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 56(4), pages 840-841.
    17. Harry W. Ayer & G. Edward Schuh, 1972. "Social Rates of Return and Other Aspects of Agricultural Research: The Case of Cotton Research in São Paulo, Brazil," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 54(4_Part_1), pages 557-569.
    18. Kenneth Goldin, 1977. "Equal access vs. Selective access: A critique of public goods theory," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 53-71, March.
    19. Andrew Schmitz & David Seckler, 1970. "Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of the Tomato Harvester," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 52(4), pages 569-577.
    20. Scobie, Grant M., 1976. "Who Benefits From Agricultural Research?," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(04), pages 1-6, December.
    21. Wolfgang Bönig, 1974. "Social Rates of Return and Other Aspects of Agricultural Research: The Case of Cotton Research in São Paulo, Brazil: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 56(1), pages 177-177.
    22. R. Gerald Saylor, 1974. "Social Rates of Return and Other Aspects of Agricultural Research: The Case of Cotton Research in São Paulo, Brazil: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 56(1), pages 171-174.
    23. R. K. Lindner & F. G. Jarrett, 1978. "Supply Shifts and the Size of Research Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 60(1), pages 48-58.
    24. White, Fred C. & Havlicek, Joseph, 1979. "Rates of Return to Agricultural Research and Extension in the Southern Region," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 107-111, December.
    25. Robert Latimer & Don Paarlberg, 1965. "Geographic Distribution of Research Costs and Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 47(2), pages 234-241.
    26. Jarrett, Frank G. & Lindner, Robert K., 1977. "Research Benefits Revisited," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(04), pages 1-12, December.
    27. Masakatsu Akino & Yujiro Hayami, 1975. "Efficiency and Equity in Public Research: Rice Breeding in Japan's Economic Development," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 57(1), pages 1-10.
    28. E. C. Pasour & J. Bruce Bullock, 1975. "Implications of Uncertainty for the Measurement of Efficiency," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 57(2), pages 335-339.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alston, Julian M. & Wyatt, T. J. & Pardey, Philip G. & Marra, Michele C. & Chan-Kang, Connie, 2000. "A meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural R & D: ex pede Herculem?," Research reports 113, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Araji, A. A. & White, F. C., 1991. "The Economic Impact Of Technological Change On U.S. Agriculture," A.E. Research Series 305084, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    3. Gardner, Bruce L., 1997. "Returns to Policy-Related Social Science Research in Agriculture," Working Papers 197845, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    4. Thirtle, C. & Bottomley, P., 1988. "Explaining Total Factor Productivity Change: Returns to R & D in U.K. Agricultural Research," Manchester Working Papers in Agricultural Economics 232809, University of Manchester, School of Economics, Agricultural Economics Department.
    5. Carl E. Pray & Catherine Neumeyer, 1990. "Trends and composition of private food and agricultural R & D expenditures in the United States," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 191-207.
    6. Alston, Julian M. & Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Wyatt, T.J., 2000. "Research returns redux: a meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), pages 1-31.
    7. Roseboom, Johannes, 2002. "A New Perspective On Underinvestment In Agricultural R&D," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19648, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Araji, A.A. & White, Fred C., 1991. "The Economic Impact Of Technological Change On U.S. Agriculture," A.E. Research Series 140530, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    9. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2001. "Attribution and other problems in assessing the returns to agricultural R&D," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 141-152, September.
    10. Nagy, Joseph G., 1983. "Estimating the Yield Advantage of High Yielding Wheat Varieties: The Use of On-Farm Yield Constraints Data," Bulletins 8428, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    11. Fuglie, Keith & Ballenger, Nicole & Rubenstein, Kelly Day & Klotz, Cassandra & Ollinger, Michael & Reilly, John & Vasavada, Utpal & Yee, Jet, 1996. "Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions," Agricultural Economic Reports 262031, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Fox, Glenn, 1985. "Social Rates Of Return To Public Investment In Agricultural Research And The Underinvestment Hypothesis: An Agnostic View," Staff Papers 14054, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Norton, George W. & Davis, Jeffrey S., 1979. "Review Of Methods Used To Evaluate Returns To Agricultural Research," Staff Papers 13520, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Rajeswari S., 1995. "Agricultural research effort: Conceptual clarity and measurement," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 617-635, April.
    3. Michael Harris & Alan Lloyd, 1991. "The Returns to Agricultural Research and the Underinvestment Hypothesis ‐ A Survey," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 24(3), pages 16-27, July.
    4. Kim, Yun-Shik & Sumner, Daniel A., 2005. "Measuring Research Benefits With Import Ban Restrictions, Quality Changes, Non-Market Influences On Adoption And Food Security Incentives," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19148, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Pedro Andres Garzon Delvaux & Heinrich Hockmann & Peter Voigt & Pavel Ciaian & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2018. "The impact of private R&D on the performance of food-processing firms: Evidence from Europe, Japan and North America," JRC Research Reports JRC104144, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    6. Nagy, Joseph G., 1983. "Estimating the Yield Advantage of High Yielding Wheat Varieties: The Use of On-Farm Yield Constraints Data," Bulletins 8428, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    7. Zachariah, Oswald E. R. & Fox, Glenn & Brinkman, George L., 1988. "The Returns to Broiler Research in Canada: 1968 to 1984," Department of Agricultural Economics and Business 258611, University of Guelph.
    8. Ephraim M. Nkonya & Joe L. Parcell, 1999. "Redistribution of social benefits from advances in extension and research in the Tanzanian maize industry," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(3), pages 231-239, December.
    9. Vere, David T. & Sinden, Jack A. & Campbell, M.H., 1980. "Social Benefits of Serrated Tussock Control in New South Wales," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(03), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Smith, Anna Rickett & Dorfman, Jeffrey H., 2002. "An Economic Evaluation Of Cotton And Peanut Research In Southeastern United States," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19900, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Frisvold, George B. & Sullivan, John & Raneses, Anton, 2003. "Genetic improvements in major US crops: the size and distribution of benefits," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 109-119, March.
    12. Edwards, Geoff W. & Freebairn, John W., 1982. "The Social Benefits from an Increase in Productivity in a Part of an Industry," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(02), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Rausser, Gordon C. & de Janvry, Alain & Schmitz, Andrew & Zilberman, David D., 1980. "Principal issues in the evaluation of public research in agriculture," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt74v9m7dh, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    14. Vernon Ruttan, 1980. "Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 529-547, January.
    15. Williams, Gary W. & Shumway, C. Richard & Love, H. Alan, 2002. "Returns to Soybean Producers from Investments in Promotion and Research," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Alejandro Plastina & Lilyan Fulginiti, 2012. "Rates of return to public agricultural research in 48 US states," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 95-113, April.
    17. Thirtle, Colin, 1986. "The Production Function Approach to the Relationship Between Productivity Growth and R & D," Manchester Working Papers in Agricultural Economics 232791, University of Manchester, School of Economics, Agricultural Economics Department.
    18. Bradford F. Mills, 1998. "Ex Ante Research Evaluation and Regional Trade Flows: Maize in Kenya," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 393-408, September.
    19. J. Brian Hardaker & Jock R. Anderson & John L. Dillon, 1984. "Perspectives On Assessing The Impacts Of Improved Agricultural Technologies In Developing Countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 28(2-3), pages 87-108, 08-12.
    20. Huot, Marie-France & Fox, Glenn & Brinkman, George, 1988. "The Returns to Canadian Federal Swine Research - 1968 to 1984," Department of Agricultural Economics and Business 258612, University of Guelph.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:39:y:1982:i:2:p:301-317. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.