IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bjafio/v19y2021i1p15-24n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distributional Weights in Benefit-Cost Analysis: Examples from Rwanda and Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Moss Charles B.

    (Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA)

  • Schmitz Andrew

    (University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA)

Abstract

The question of how to allocate scarce agricultural research and development dollars is significant for developing countries. Historically, benefit/cost analysis has been the standard for comparing the relative benefits of alternative investments. We examine the potential of shifting the implicit equal weights approach to benefit/cost analysis, as well as how a systematic variation in welfare weights may affect different groups important to policy makers. For example, in the case of Rwandan coffee, a shift in the welfare weights that would favor small coffee producers in Rwanda over foreign consumers of Rwandan coffee would increase the support for investments in small producer coffee projects. Generally, changes in welfare weights alter the ordering for selecting investments across alternative projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Moss Charles B. & Schmitz Andrew, 2021. "Distributional Weights in Benefit-Cost Analysis: Examples from Rwanda and Uganda," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 15-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bjafio:v:19:y:2021:i:1:p:15-24:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/jafio-2021-0003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2021-0003
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jafio-2021-0003?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. Harberger, Arnold C, 1978. "On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 86(2), pages 87-120, April.
    2. Richard E, Just & Darrell L. Heuth & Andrew Schmitz, 2004. "The Welfare Economics of Public Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3342.
    3. Adler, Matthew D & Posner, Eric A, 2000. "Implementing Cost-Benefit Analysis When Preferences Are Distorted," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 1105-1147, June.
    4. Ryan Cardwell & Chad Lawley & Di Xiang, 2015. "Milked and Feathered: The Regressive Welfare Effects of Canada's Supply Management Regime," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 41(1), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Huffman, Wallace E. & Evenson, Robert E., 1993. "Science for Agriculture: A Long Term Perspective," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10997, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Pritish Behuria, 2020. "The domestic political economy of upgrading in global value chains: how politics shapes pathways for upgrading in Rwanda’s coffee sector," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 348-376, March.
    7. Coate, Stephen, 2000. "An Efficiency Approach to the Evaluation of Policy Changes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 437-455, April.
    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. Udo Ebert, 2007. "Redistributional Preference in Environmental Policy," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 63(4), pages 548-562, December.
    2. Scott Farrow, 2011. "Incorporating Equity in Regulatory and Benefit‐Cost Analysis Using Risk‐Based Preferences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 902-907, June.
    3. Robin Boadway, 2017. "Second-Best Theory: Ageing well at Sixty," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 249-270, May.
    4. Moss, Charles B. & Schmitz, Andrew, 2016. "Distributional effects of agricultural productivity in benefit cost analysis: alternative weighting of benefits and costs," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246905, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    5. Hausman, Catherine & Stolper, Samuel, 2021. "Inequality, information failures, and air pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Huffman, Wallace, 2004. "Marketizing U.S. Production in the Post-War Era: Implications for Estimating CPI Bias and Real Income from a Complete-Household-Demand System," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11987, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Perry Warjiyo & Wallace E. Huffman, 1997. "Dynamic input demand functions and resource adjustment for US agriculture: state evidence," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 223-237, December.
    9. repec:ags:ucdegw:232849 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Maurice Doyon & Stéphane Bergeron & Lota Tamini, 2017. "Policy relevance of applied economist: Examining sensitivity and inferences," CIRANO Working Papers 2017s-12, CIRANO.
    11. Shumway, C. Richard & Davis, George C., 2001. "Does consistent aggregation really matter?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(2), pages 1-34.
    12. Udo Ebert, 1986. "Equity and distribution in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 67-78, December.
    13. Toole, Andrew A. & King, John L., 2011. "Industry-science connections in agriculture: Do public science collaborations and knowledge flows contribute to firm-level agricultural research productivity?," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-064, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Heckman, James, 2001. "Accounting for Heterogeneity, Diversity and General Equilibrium in Evaluating Social Programmes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(475), pages 654-699, November.
    15. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    16. Martin, Will, 2021. "Tools for measuring the full impacts of agricultural interventions," IFPRI-MCC technical papers 2, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Huffman, Wallace E., 2001. "Human capital: Education and agriculture," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 333-381, Elsevier.
    18. Just, Richard E. & Schmitz, Andrew & Zerbe, Richard O., 2012. "Scitovsky Reversals and Practical Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 1-12, May.
    19. Stavroula Malla & K. K. Klein & Taryn Presseau, 2020. "Have health claims affected demand for fats and meats in Canada?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 271-287, September.
    20. Maria Börjesson & Jonas Eliasson, 2019. "Should values of time be differentiated?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 357-375, May.
    21. Kverndokk, Snorre & Rose, Adam, 2008. "Equity and Justice in Global Warming Policy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 135-176, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    benefit/cost analysis; investment in agricultural research and development; welfare weights;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    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:bpj:bjafio:v:19:y:2021:i:1:p:15-24:n:1. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.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.