Research returns redux: a meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D
A total of 294 studies of returns to agricultural R&D (including extension) were compiled and these studies provide 1,858 separate estimates of rates of return. This includes some extreme values, which are implausible. When the highest and lowest 2.5 percent of the rates of return were set aside, the estimated annual rates of return averaged 73 percent overall–88 percent for research only, 45 percent for research and extension, and 79 percent for extension only. But these averages reveal little meaningful information from a large and diverse body of literature, which provides rate-of-return estimates that are often not directly comparable. The purpose of this study was to go behind the averages, and try to account for the sources of differences, in a meta-analysis of the studies of returns to agricultural R&D. The results conform with the theory and prior beliefs in many ways. Several features of the methods used by research evaluators matter, in particular assumptions about lag lengths and the nature of the research-induced supply shift.
|Date of creation:||1998|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1201 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-3915|
Web page: http://www.ifpri.org/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- P. G. Lakshminarayan & P W. Gassman & A. Bouzaher & R. C. Izaurralde, 1996. "A Metamodeling Approach to Evaluate Agricultural Policy Impact on Soil Degradation in Western Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 44(3), pages 277-294, November.
- Julian M. Alston & Philip G. Pardey & Jennifer S. James & Matthew A. Anderson, 2009. "The Economics of Agricultural R&D," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 537-566, September.
- Charles L. Ballard & Don Fullerton, 1992.
"Distortionary Taxes and the Provision of Public Goods,"
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 117-131, Summer.
- Charles L. Ballard & Don Fullerton, 1990. "Distortionary Taxes and the Provision of Public Goods," NBER Working Papers 3506, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
- Alston, Julian M. & Craig, Barbara J. & Pardey, Philip G., 1998. "Dynamics in the creation and depreciation of knowledge, and the returns to research:," EPTD discussion papers 35, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- Fullerton, Don, 1991. "Reconciling Recent Estimates of the Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 302-308, March.
- E. Pasour & Marc Johnson, 1982. "Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research revisited," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 301-317, January. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:eptddp:38. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.