IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa12p525.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparative Analysis Of Systems For Assessing Regional Impacts Of Innovations Applied To Coffee Production

Author

Listed:
  • FLAVIA BLISKA
  • CELSO VEGRO
  • THOMAZ FRONZAGLIA
  • JAMILSEN SANTOS

Abstract

The importance of education, research and extension institutions, can be evaluated from the socio-economic impacts of their investments, capacity building and training of human resources, services rendered to the community and innovations resulting from their research. The knowledge and technologies generated in these institutions need to be transferred to the respective supply chains and increasingly used, to contribute in its development and environmental preservation. The dimensions of the regional impacts of these technologies is relevant to the strengthening of research institutions and to evaluate and update the guidelines of their programs. There are few studies in this area and most of them are linked to the analysis of the role of universities in the growth of the regions where they are located by calculating multipliers for employment, output and income. The evaluation of the environmental, social and economic impacts is even less significant, and emerged from the concept of sustainable development. In Brazil, progress in this area are derived primarily from studies of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) and from the State University of Campinas (Unicamp), who developed the systems known respectively Ambitec and ESAC, which in this study on coffee production in Brazil, held by the Agronomic Institute (IAC), are compared mainly from their scope, complexity and cost of implementation. Both consist of the ex-post analysis of the impacts of a particular technology and are built based on criteria and indicators. The application of those two systems indicated that the ESAC system involves a more complex software, and quantitative aspects more sophisticated than the Ambitec, and its use requires more intensive training of staff than Ambitec. A major difficulty of the analysis of impact assessments is to isolate the individual effects of technologies, effects resulting from their interactions with technologies developed by other R & D institutions, or even imported. The ability of the researcher to apply the questionnaires may reduce this problem. But the system ESAC presents an important advantage over the Ambitec because it considers two very important aspects for the analysis of impacts: the impacts resulting from the interactions between different technologies and the time elapsed between the development of technology and its adoption by the productive sector. Keywords: Impacts of technologies; Sustainable development; Regional development.

Suggested Citation

  • Flavia Bliska & Celso Vegro & Thomaz Fronzaglia & Jamilsen Santos, 2012. "Comparative Analysis Of Systems For Assessing Regional Impacts Of Innovations Applied To Coffee Production," ERSA conference papers ersa12p525, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa12/e120821aFinal00527.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. André Tosi Furtado & Adriana Bin & Maria Beatriz Machado Bonacelli & Sônia Regina Paulino & Maria Augusta Miglino & Paula Felício Drummond de Castro, 2009. "Evaluation of the results and impacts of a social-oriented technology program in Brazil: the case of Prosab (a sanitation research program)," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 289-300, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Blakeslee, Leroy L., 1987. "Measuring the Requirements and Benefits of Productivity Maintenance Research," Evaluating Agricultural Research and Productivity, Proceedings of a Workshop, Atlanta, Georgia, January 29-30, 1987, Miscellaneous Publication 52 50021, University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station.
    2. Wang, Shanchao & Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2023. "R&D Lags in Economic Models," Staff Papers 330085, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    3. Townsend, Rob F. & van Zyl, Johan, 1998. "Estimation of the rate of return to wine grape research and technology development expenditures in South Africa," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 37(2), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Peter Warr, 2023. "Productivity in Indonesian agriculture: Impacts of domestic and international research," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 835-856, September.
    5. Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M. & Ruttan, Vernon W., 2010. "The Economics of Innovation and Technical Change in Agriculture," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 939-984, Elsevier.
    6. JEAN-PAUL CHAVAS & Michael Aliber & THOMAS L. COX, 1994. "A Nonparametric Analysis of the Source and Nature of Technical Change: the Case of U.S. Agriculture," Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Staff Papers 373, Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Department.
    7. Pardey, Philip G. & Craig, Barbara & Hallaway, Michelle L., 1989. "U.S. agricultural research deflators: 1890-1985," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 289-296, October.
    8. Capps, Oral, Jr. & Williams, Gary W., 2006. "The Economic Effectiveness of the Cotton Checkoff Program," Reports 90753, Texas A&M University, Agribusiness, Food, and Consumer Economics Research Center.
    9. Thomas COX & John MULLEN & Wensheng HU, 1996. "Nonparametric Measures Of The Impacts Of Public Research Expenditures On Australian Broadacre Agriculture: Preliminary Results," Staff Papers 399, University of Wisconsin Madison, AAE.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Leholm, Arlen G. & Supalla, Raymond J. & Vollmar, Glen, 1981. "A Methodology for Measuring Potential Benefits from Drought-Oriented Research in Nebraska," Evaluation of Agricultural Research, Proceedings of a Workshop, Minneapolis, MN, May 12-13, 1980, Miscellaneous Publication 8 49073, University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station.
    14. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2022. "Are Ideas Really Getting Harder to Find?," Staff Papers 320517, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    15. Lim, Hongil & Shumway, C. Richard & Love, H. Alan, 2000. "Research Contributions From The Soybean Checkoff Programs," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-19, July.
    16. da Silva, Gabriel L. S.P., 1983. "Effects of Research and Extension on Agricultural Growth and equity in Brazil," 1983 Occasional Paper Series No. 3 197290, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Andersen, Matthew A., 2019. "Knowledge productivity and the returns to agricultural research: a review," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    18. 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.
    19. Easter, K. William & Norton, George W., 1976. "Estimates Of Potential Returns From Added Research Budget For The Land Grant Universities," Staff Papers 13464, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    20. A. A. Araji, 1990. "The functions, focus, and productivity of the state agricultural experiment stations in the United States," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(6), pages 633-642.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    impacts of technologies; sustainable development; regional development.;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p525. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.