IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Agricultural Research: Benefits and Beneficiaries of Alternative Funding Mechanisms

Listed author(s):
  • Huffman, Wallace
  • Just, Richard E.

This article analyzes alternative funding mechanisms for agricultural research and the benefits and beneficiaries of these approaches. Although other mechanisms exist, the discussion focuses on public formula and competitive grants programs, private-sector contracts and grants, and revenue from sale of intellectual property rights (IPRs) or new products embodying innovations. Over the past two decades, agricultural research has been criticized for the noncompetitive nature of research fund allocations. Considerable evidence exists that the system has performed well for society. We conclude that the private sector should be permitted to carry out research that it finds profitable to undertake with minimal competition from the public sector. The public research institutions should focus on general and pretechnology science programs that complement private research-and-development (R&D) activities and conduct applied research in areas in which innovations are socially beneficial but not privately profitable. The mechanism for channeling public funds to researchers (e.g., formula, competitive grants, or earmarks) can be expected to affect the types of benefits/impacts of agricultural research conducted and the efficiency of the research activity. Issues remain about the emphasis on process versus substance in the R&D funding debate. However, available evidence does not suggest the elimination of traditional funding mechanisms for public agricultural research.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" 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 search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Paper provided by Iowa State University, Department of Economics in its series Staff General Research Papers Archive with number 1557.

in new window

Date of creation: 01 Apr 1999
Publication status: Published in Review of Agricultural Economics, Spring 1999, vol. 19, pp. 2-18
Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:1557
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Iowa State University, Dept. of Economics, 260 Heady Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1070

Phone: +1 515.294.6741
Fax: +1 515.294.0221
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:isu:genres:1557. 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: (Curtis Balmer)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.