Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:29:54.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technological Change and the Productivity Slowdown in Field Crops: United States, 1939-78

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Colin G. Thirtle
Colin G. Thirtle*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Economic and Social Studies, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the past four decades, productivity in United States field crops has been transformed by the mechanical and fertilizer revolutions. Since input data are typically not available by crop, most investigations of productivity have been at the aggregate level. This paper develops a simultaneous equation, partial adjustment model of the demand for inputs, which generates estimates of the technical change parameters for wheat, corn, soybeans, and cotton. These estimates allow comparisons of the factor saving biases in technical change, leading to a novel test of the induced innovation hypothesis and the suggestion that the productivity slowdown may yet affect agriculture in the United States.

Keywords

separabilitybiased technical changeinduced innovationproductivity slowdown
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , December 1985 , pp. 33 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1985

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

Ahmad, S. “On the Theory of Induced Innovation.” Econ. J., 76(1966):344–357.Google Scholar
Binswanger, H. “The Measurement of Technical Change Biases with Many Factors of Production.” Amer. Econ. Rev., LXIV(1974):964–976.Google Scholar
Binswanger, H., Ruttan, Vernon W., and Ben-Zion, EuriInduced Innovation: Technology, Institutions and Development, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. “A Survey of the Theory of Process Innovations.” Economica, (1963):13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chicago Board of Trade: Statistical Annual, Selected Volumes.Google Scholar
David, P. “Labor Scarcity and the Problem of Technological Practice and Progress in Nineteenth-Century America.” Technical Choice, Innovation and Economic Growth, Ch. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Day, R. H. “The Economics of Technological Change and the Demise of the Share Cropper.” Amer. Econ. Rev., 57(1967):427–449.Google Scholar
de Janvry, A. “Inducement of Technological and Institutional Innovation: An Interpretative Framework.” Resource Allocation and Productivity, Arndt, Dalrymple and Ruttan, (eds.), Ch. 6, University of Minnesota Press, 1977.Google Scholar
de Janvry, A. “Social Structure and Biased Technical Change in Argentine Agriculture.” Induced Innovation, Binswanger, Ruttan, et al. Ch. 11, 1978.Google Scholar
Dhrymes, P. J.Introductory Econometrics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fettig, L. P. “Adjusting Farm Tractor Prices for Quality Changes.” J. Farm Econ., 45(1963):599–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Z. “Measuring Inputs in Agriculture: A Critical Survey.” J. Farm Econ., 42(1960):599–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Z. “The Sources of Measured Productivity Growth: United States Agriculture, 1940-60.” J. Pol. Econ., 71(1963):331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Z. “Research Expenditures, Education and the Aggregate Agricultural Production Function.” Amer. Econ. Rev., LIV(1964):961–974.Google Scholar
Hayami, Y. and Ruttan, V.. Agricultural Development: An International Perspective, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Heid, Walter G. Jr.. “U.S. Wheat Industry.” Agriculture Economic Report No. 432, ESCS, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, 1979.Google Scholar
Just, Richard E., Zilberman, David, and Hochman, Eithan. “Estimation of Multicrop Production >Functions.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 65(1983):770–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaneda, H. “Specification of Production Functions for Analyzing Technical Change and Factor Inputs in Agricultural Development.” J. Dev. Econ., II(1982):97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kislev, Y. “Overestimates of Returns to Scale in Agriculture - A Case of Synchronized Aggregation.” J. Farm Econ., 48(1966):867–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kislev, Y. and Peterson, W.. “Prices, Technology and Farm Size.” J. Pol. Econ., 90(1982):578–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, R. “The Structure of Production and the Derived Demand for Inputs in Canadian Agriculture.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 62(1980):38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Y-C, Cline, P., and Quance, L.. “Prospects for Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture.” Agricultural Economic Report No. 435, ESCS, USDA, Washington, D.C., 1979.Google Scholar
Mundlak, Y. “Empirical Production Function Free of Management Bias.” J. Farm Econ., 43(1961):44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadiri, I. M. and Rosen, S.. “A Disequilibrium Model of Demand for Factors of Production.” National Bureau of Economic Research, No. 99, General Series, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
Nerlove, M.Estimation and Identification of Cobb-Douglas Production Functions, Rand-McNally, Chicago, 1965.Google Scholar
New York Cotton Exchange. Cotton Yearbook, Annual Volumes.Google Scholar
Paarlberg, D. “The Scarcity Syndrome.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 64(1982):110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, J. and Ruttan, V.. “Biased Choice of Technology in Brazilian Agriculture.” Binswanger, H.et al., Induced Innovation.Technology, Institutions and Development, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Schroder, David, Headley, J. C., and Finley, R. M.. “The Contribution of Herbicides to Soybean Production in the Corn Belt Region, 1965-79” University of Missouri, Agr. Economics, Departmental Publication No. 33, 1981.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. “The Choice of Agricultural Techniques in Under-Developed Countries.” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 7(1959):279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, H.Principles of Econometrics, Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
Thirtle, C. G.Induced Innovation in United States Agriculture, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University; October, 1982.Google Scholar
Thirtle, C. G. “Increasing Land-Labor Ratios in U.S. Field Crops.” Bulletin No. 194, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manchester, 1984.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, Annual Issues.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency, 1977. Statistical Bulletin No. 612, 1978a.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. Fertilizer Situation, FS-9, ESCS, December 1978b, and earlier editions.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. Farm Real Estate Market Developments, CD-84, ESCS, 1979.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Prices: Annual Summary 1980, Crop Reporting Board, Economic and Statistics Service; June, 1980.Google Scholar
Walters, A.An Introduction to Econometrics, Second Edition, Macmillan, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, F. and Havlicek, J.. “Optimal Expenditures for Agricultural Research and Extension: Implications of Under-funding.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 64(1982):47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar