IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae05/24652.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Choice of Technology in Russian Agriculture: An Application of the Induced Innovation Hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Hockmann, Heinrich
  • Kopsidis, Michael

Abstract

Even after more then ten years after the beginning of the transition process, Russian agriculture shows only limited sign of a recovery. Production has not reached the level of the pre-transition period and investment is still on a very low level. In this paper we use the "Theory of Induced Innovation" in order to access the development of production structures in Russia and to identify the major obstacles for restructuring. We argue that due to multiple market failure (capital, labour) and inappropriate institutional arrangements inherited from Soviet times hinder the development of Russian agriculture. Both reasons causes that agricultural enterprises have difficulties with regard to an adjustment of factor input and production corresponding to the real scarcities of production factors. Agricultural policies based on subsidizing factor use or minimum prices will be an inefficient approach to solve the problems. A promising approach instead would be encouraging market transactions and fostering the integration of agricultural enterprises in the regional and domestic factor and product markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Hockmann, Heinrich & Kopsidis, Michael, 2005. "The Choice of Technology in Russian Agriculture: An Application of the Induced Innovation Hypothesis," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24652, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae05:24652
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.24652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/24652/files/cp05ho01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Kopsidis, 2000. "Disintegration of Russian Grain Markets in Transition: Political and Economic Dimensions," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 47-60.
    2. Hayami, Yujiro & Kawagoe, Toshihiko, 1989. "Farm mechanization, scale economies and polarization : The Japanese experience," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 221-239, October.
    3. Binswanger, Hans P. & Deininger, Klaus & Feder, Gershon, 1995. "Power, distortions, revolt and reform in agricultural land relations," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.),Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 42, pages 2659-2772, Elsevier.
    4. Ulrich Koester, 2005. "A revival of large farms in Eastern Europe—how important are institutions?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(s1), pages 103-113, January.
    5. Koester, Ulrich, 2003. "A Revival of Large Farms in Eastern Europe- How Important are Institutions?," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa: Plenary Sessions 245926, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Seeth, Harm Tho & Chachnov, Sergei & Surinov, Alexander & Von Braun, Joachim, 1998. "Russian poverty: Muddling through economic transition with garden plots," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 1611-1624, September.
    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. Pavel Ciaian, 2007. "Land Reform and Productivity Gains with Multiple Market Imperfections," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2007_01, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    2. Bezlepkina, Irina V. & Huirne, Ruud B.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M. & Oskam, Arie J., 2005. "Analysing Variation in Russian Dairy Farms, 1990-2001," 94th Seminar, April 9-10, 2005, Ashford, UK 24444, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Deininger, Klaus, 1995. "Collective agricultural production: A solution for transition economies?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1317-1334, August.
    4. Gilligan, Daniel O., 1998. "Farm Size, Productivity, And Economic Efficiency: Accounting For Differences In Efficiency Of Farms By Size In Honduras," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20918, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Rabah Arezki & Klaus Deininger & Harris Selod, 2015. "What Drives the Global "Land Rush"?," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 29(2), pages 207-233.
    6. Jan Fałkowski & Maciej Jakubowski & Paweł Strawiński, 2014. "Returns from income strategies in rural Poland," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 22(1), pages 139-178, January.
    7. Wandel, Jürgen, 2009. "Agroholdings and clusters in Kazakhstan's agro-food sector [Agroholdings und Clusters in Kasachstan’s Agrar- und Ernährungssektor]," IAMO Discussion Papers 126, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    8. Tasso Adamopoulos & Diego Restuccia, 2014. "The Size Distribution of Farms and International Productivity Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(6), pages 1667-1697, June.
    9. Deininger, Klaus & Byerlee, Derek, 2012. "The Rise of Large Farms in Land Abundant Countries: Do They Have a Future?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 701-714.
    10. Grimm, M. & Klasen, S., 2007. "Geography vs. Institutions at the Village Level," ISS Working Papers - General Series 18745, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    11. Nathan Foley-Fisher & Eoin McLaughlin, 2015. "Capitalising on the Irish Land Question:Land Reform and State Banking in Ireland, 1891-1938," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2015-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    12. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing & Berhanu, Adenw & Samuel, Gebre-Selassie, 2005. "Mechanisms for Land Transfer in Ethiopia: implications for Efficiency, Equity and Non-Farm Development," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-98, May.
    13. Leonardo A. Lanzona, 2007. "The Determination of Contracts in Agricultural Economies," Development Economics Working Papers 22641, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    14. Gafaro, Margarita & Ibanez, Ana Maria & Zarruk, David, 2012. "Equidad y eficiencia rural en Colombia: una discusión de políticas para el acceso a la tierra," Documentos CEDE Series 146477, Universidad de Los Andes, Economics Department.
    15. repec:zbw:iamodp:91766 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Müller, Daniel & Leitão, Pedro J. & Sikor, Thomas, 2013. "Comparing the determinants of cropland abandonment in Albania and Romania using boosted regression trees," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 66-77.
    17. Falkinger, Josef & Grossmann, Volker, 2013. "Oligarchic land ownership, entrepreneurship, and economic development," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 206-215.
    18. Klaus Deininger & Daniel Ayalew Ali & Tekie Alemu, 2008. "Assessing the Functioning of Land Rental Markets in Ethiopia," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 67-100, October.
    19. Assuncao, Juliano J. & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2003. "Can unobserved heterogeneity in farmer ability explain the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 189-194, August.
    20. Bardhan, Pranab & Luca, Michael & Mookherjee, Dilip & Pino, Francisco, 2014. "Evolution of land distribution in West Bengal 1967–2004: Role of land reform and demographic changes," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 171-190.
    21. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing & Nagarajan, Hari K., 2008. "Efficiency and equity impacts of rural land rental restrictions: Evidence from India," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 892-918, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    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:ags:eaae05:24652. 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/eaaeeea.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.