IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea02/19828.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Practical Challenges To Estimating The Benefits Of Agricultural R&D: The Case Of Plant Breeding Research

Author

Listed:
  • Heisey, Paul W.
  • Morris, Michael L.

Abstract

Interest in the economics of plant breeding first emerged during the late 1960s and early 1970s following the well-known green revolutions in wheat and rice. Since that time, few branches of agricultural research have been subjected to as much scrutiny as plant breeding. Impacts assessment studies consistently conclude that the economic benefits generated by successful plant breeding programs are large, positive, and widely distributed. Case studies repeatedly find that investment in crop genetic improvement generates attractive rates of return compared to alternative investment opportunities. Similarly, case studies consistently show that the welfare benefits resulting from the adoption of modern varieties (MVs) are broadly shared by producers and consumers in both favored and marginal environments. Swayed by the large body of empirical evidence that supports these findings, governments, lending agencies, philanthropic organizations, and private corporations have invested millions in plant breeding research. But how reliable are the results of studies that estimate the benefits of plant breeding research? Are the methods used to conduct such studies theoretically sound? And are the data sufficiently complete and accurate? This paper reviews methods used to estimate the benefits of plant breeding research and discusses methodological issues and practical challenges that often receive inadequate attention in applied impacts work. Our goal is not to question the validity of the broad conceptual frameworks used to estimate the benefits of plant breeding research (e.g., economic surplus approach, production function approach). Nor is it our intention to examine theoretical issues that complicate research evaluation in general. Rather, the objectives of the paper are to examine problems that may arise during empirical evaluation of plant breeding research, to discuss what can happen if those problems are ignored or overlooked, and to propose workable solutions. The problems that affect the empirical evaluation of plant breeding research can be grouped into three general categories: measuring the adoption of MVs; estimating the benefits associated with adoption of MVs; and assigning credit for plant breeding research. In principle, estimating the area planted to MVs should be relatively easy. In practice, it is often very difficult. Important issues in estimating the benefits associated with MV adoption include the relationship between experimental and farm level yields; the relative effects of improved germplasm and improved crop management practices; maintenance research; non-yield benefits; and constructing counterfactual scenarios. The existence of spillovers in plant breeding research increases the overall benefits generated by the global plant breeding system, but it also complicates the task of assigning credit among individual breeding programs. CIMMYT researchers, working in collaboration with colleagues from national agricultural research organizations, have conducted a series of studies designed to document and quantify the impacts of international maize and wheat breeding research. Drawing on lessons learned from the CIMMYT studies, each of these three sets of problems that can affect the empirical evaluation of plant breeding research are discussed in detail, and practical guidelines are presented to help those interested in conducting applied impacts studies avoid common pitfalls that if ignored may lead to incorrect empirical results.

Suggested Citation

  • Heisey, Paul W. & Morris, Michael L., 2002. "Practical Challenges To Estimating The Benefits Of Agricultural R&D: The Case Of Plant Breeding Research," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19828, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea02:19828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/19828
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Renkow, Mitch, 2000. "Poverty, productivity and production environment:: a review of the evidence," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 463-478, August.
    2. Quizon, Jaime & Binswanger, Hans, 1986. "Modeling the Impact of Agricultural Growth and Government Policy on Income Distribution in India," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 1(1), pages 103-148, September.
    3. Townsend, Robert & Thirtle, Colin, 2001. "Is livestock research unproductive?: Separating health maintenance from improvement research," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 177-189, September.
    4. Marshall, Graham R. & Brennan, John P., 2001. "Issues in benefit-cost analysis of agricultural research projects," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(2), June.
    5. Renkow, Mitch, 1994. "Technology, production environment, and household income: Assessing the regional impacts of technological change," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(3), May.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. Jose B. Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Rent creation and distribution from biotechnology innovations: The case of bt cotton and Herbicide-Tolerant soybeans in 1997," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 21-32.
    9. Jayasuriya, S. K. & Shand, R. T., 1986. "Technical change and labor absorption in Asian agriculture: Some emerging trends," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 415-428, March.
    10. Morris, Michael L. & Risopoulos, Jean & Beck, David, 1999. "Genetic Change in Farmer-Recycled Maize Seed: A Review of the Evidence," Economics Working Papers 7683, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    11. Evenson, Robert E., 2001. "Economic impacts of agricultural research and extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics,in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 573-628 Elsevier.
    12. Anonymous & Byerlee, Derek, 1999. "The Global Wheat Improvement System: Prospects for Enhancing Efficiency in the Presence of Spillovers," Miscellaneous Reports 233048, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    13. Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M. & Christian, Jason E. & Fan, Shenggen., 1996. "Hidden harvest," Food policy reports 6, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G. & Taylor, Michael J., 2001. "Agricultural science policy," Food policy statements 32, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Renkov, Mitch, 1994. "Technology, production environment, and household income: Assessing the regional impacts of technological change," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 219-231, May.
    16. Smale, Melinda, 1995. ""Maize is life": Malawi's delayed Green Revolution," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 819-831, May.
    17. Townsend, Robert & Thirtle, Colin, 2001. "Is livestock research unproductive? Separating health maintenance from improvement research," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 25(2-3), September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ags:aaea02:19828. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.