IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v16y2000i1p68-81.html

Is agricultural research still a public good?

Author

Listed:
  • James F. Oehmke

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1069)

  • Dave D. Weatherspoon

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1069)

  • Christopher A. Wolf

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1069)

  • Anwar Naseem

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1069)

  • Mywish Maredia

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1069)

  • Amie Hightower

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1069)

Abstract

Biotechnology is redefining the nature of agricultural research and intellectual property. In response, public agricultural research institutions are increasingly protecting their intellectual property and commercializing research results. This raises the question: Is agricultural research still a public good? This paper is a critical first step in understanding how increasingly private ownership of intellectual property affects the agribusiness environment and the evolving role of public agricultural research institutions. The innovative step is the development of a neo-Schumpeterian model which examines whether commercialization of public research maximizes social welfare. The model contains two types of research firms: large firms such as the major life-science companies; and small university-related firms (SMURFs). Results show that both large firms and SMURFs underinvest in research relative to the social optimum, that research investment can exhibit cyclical behavior, and that there is a continued, albeit diminished, role for public agricultural research as the life-science revolution progresses. [JEL Classifications: Q13, O34, L10] © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • James F. Oehmke & Dave D. Weatherspoon & Christopher A. Wolf & Anwar Naseem & Mywish Maredia & Amie Hightower, 2000. "Is agricultural research still a public good?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 68-81.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:16:y:2000:i:1:p:68-81
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6297(200024)16:1<68::AID-AGR6>3.0.CO;2-I
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan, 1997. "Intellectual Property Rights and the Welfare Effects of Agricultural R&D," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1229-1242.
    2. Mingxia Zhang, 1997. "The Effects of Imperfect Competition on the Size and Distribution of Research Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1252-1265.
    3. Shu-Yu Huang & Richard J. Sexton, 1996. "Measuring Returns to an Innovation in an Imperfectly Competitive Market: Application to Mechanical Harvesting of Processing Tomatoes in Taiwan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 558-571.
    4. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    5. Segerstrom, Paul S & Anant, T C A & Dinopoulos, Elias, 1990. "A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1077-1091, December.
    6. Dinopoulos, Elias & Oehmke, James F. & Segerstrom, Paul S., 1993. "High-technology-industry trade and investment : The role of factor endowments," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 49-71, February.
    7. Julian M. Alston & Richard J. Sexton & Mingxia Zhang, 1999. "Imperfect competition, functional forms, and the size and distribution of research benefits," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(2), pages 155-172, October.
    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. Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Oehmke, James F. & Raper, Kellie Curry, 2000. "An Era Of Confusion: The Land Grant Research Agenda And Biotechnology," Staff Paper Series 11559, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Bradford Barham & Jeremy Foltz & Kwansoo Kim, 2002. "Trends in University Ag-Biotech Patent Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 294-308.
    3. Michael J. Rizzo, 2005. "The public interest in higher education," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, pages 19-45.
    4. Oehmke, James F. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Naseem, Anwar & Maredia, Mywish K. & Raper, Kellie Curry & Hightower, Amie L., 1999. "Cyclical Concentration And Biotech R&D Activity: A Neo-Schumpeterian Model," Staff Paper Series 11792, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    5. Xia, Yin & Buccola, Steven T., 2001. "Are Basic Science And Biotechnology Complementary Activities?," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20575, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Esposti, Roberto, . "Knowledge, Technology and Innovations for a Bio-based Economy: Lessons from the Past, Challenges for the Future," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(3), pages 1-34.
    7. Oehmke, James F. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Naseem, Anwar & Maredia, Mywish K. & Raper, Kellie Curry & Hightower, Amie L., 1999. "Cyclical Concentration And Consolidation In Biotech R&D: A Neo-Schumpeterian Model," Staff Paper Series 11812, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource 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. Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Oehmke, James F. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Naseem, Anwar & Maredia, Mywish K. & Hightower, Amie L., 1999. "Global Implications From A North-North-South Trade Model: A Biotech Revolution," Staff Paper Series 11566, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Alston, Julian M. & Chan-Kang, Connie & Marra, Michele C. & Pardey, Philip G. & Wyatt, T. J., 2000. "A meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural R & D: ex pede Herculem?," Research reports 113, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Xia, Yin & Buccola, Steven T., 2001. "Are Basic Science And Biotechnology Complementary Activities?," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20575, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Hareau, Guy Gaston & Mills, Bradford F. & Norton, George W. & Bosch, Darrell J., 2002. "The Economic Impact Of Genetically Modified Organisms In Small Developing Countries," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19891, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Stadler, Manfred, 1998. "Dual labor markets, unemployment and endogenous growth," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 126, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    6. Fulton, Murray E. & Keyowski, Lynette, 2000. "The Impact Of Technological Innovation On Producer Returns: The Case Of Genetically Modified Canola," Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 25998, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    7. Long, N.V. & Wong, K.Y., 1996. "Endogenous Growth and International Trade: A Survey," Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington 96-07, Department of Economics at the University of Washington.
    8. Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J. & Sexton, Steven E., 2008. "Market Power in the Corn Sector: How Does It Affect the Impacts of the Ethanol Subsidy?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-26.
    9. Elias Dinopoulos & Constantinos Syropoulos & Theofanis Tsoulouhas, 2023. "Global Innovation Contests," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, February.
    10. Elias Dinopoulos & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2004. "Globalization, Factor Endowments and Scale-Invariant Growth," DEGIT Conference Papers c009_009, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    11. Kostandini, Genti & Mills, Bradford F. & Norton, George W., 2004. "Potential Impacts Of Pharmaceutical Uses Of Transgenic Tobacco: The Case Of Human Serum Albumin (Hsa)," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20289, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2016. "Unions, innovation and cross-country wage inequality," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 104-118.
    13. Gilberto Tadeu Lima, 2000. "Market concentration and technological innovation in a dynamic model of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 447-475.
    14. Yi-Ling Cheng & Juin-Jen Chang, 2017. "The Quality of Intermediate Goods: Growth and Welfare Implications," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(302), pages 434-447, September.
    15. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Shorter Product Cycles Induce Patent Thickets?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-098, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Haruyama, Tetsugen & Zhao, Laixun, 2017. "Trade and firm heterogeneity in a Schumpeterian model of growth," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 540-563.
    17. Pozzolo, Alberto Franco, 2004. "Endogenous Growth in Open Economies - A Survey of Major Results," Economics & Statistics Discussion Papers esdp04020, University of Molise, Department of Economics.
    18. Soete, Luc & Weel, Bas ter, 1999. "Schumpeter and the Knowledge-Based Economy: On Technology and Competition Policy," Research Memorandum 004, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Kerk Phillips & Jeffrey M. Wrase, 1999. "Schumpeterian growth and endogenous business cycles," Working Papers 99-20, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    20. Alberto Franco Pozzolo, 2004. "Research and Development, Regional Spillovers and the Location of Economic Activities," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 72(4), pages 463-482, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General

    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:wly:agribz:v:16:y:2000:i:1:p:68-81. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.