Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-2bcm2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T09:01:53.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marketing Efficiency and Equity: A Case Study of an Area's Cotton Ginning Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Stephen Fuller ,
Clyde Eastman  and
Joe Dewbre
Stephen Fuller
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business at New Mexico State University
Clyde Eastman
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business at New Mexico State University
Joe Dewbre
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business at New Mexico State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Applied economists are becoming increasingly aware of the need to document the social rates of return to investment in research and to analyze how the benefits and costs brought about by the adoption of a research product are distributed among affected groups. Relatively little empirical work has been done on these interrelated topics. Griliches made an early contribution to the subject of social rates of return in his essay dealing with the hybridization of corn.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , December 1973 , pp. 109 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Ayer, H. W. and Schuh, G. E., “Social Rates of Return and Other Aspects of Agricultural Research: The Case of Cotton Research in Sao Paulo, Brazil,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54: 557–569, Nov. 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Fuller, S. W., et. al., “A Study of Assembly, Storage and Processing Costs as Affected by Altering the Number of Operating Gins,” New Mexico Agri. Exp. Stat. Research Report No. 247, 1973.Google Scholar
[3]Griliches, Zvi, “Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations,” Journal of Political Economy, 66: 419–431, Oct. 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Peterson, W. L., “Return to Poultry Research in the United States,” Journal of Farm Economics, 49: 656–669, Aug. 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Robinson, E. A. G., The Structure of Competitive Industry, University of Chicago Press, 1958.Google Scholar
[6]Schmitz, A., and Seckler, D., “Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of the Tomato Harvester, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52: 509–577, Nov. 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Schultz, T. W., “A Policy to Redistribute Losses from Economic Progress,” Journal of Farm Economics, 43: 554–565, Aug. 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar