Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:06:19.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rates of Return to Agricultural Research and Extension in the Southern Region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Fred C. White  and
Joseph Havlicek Jr.
Fred C. White
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Joseph Havlicek Jr.
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The interregional transfer of agricultural research results has long been recognized by sociologists and economists [10, pp. 524–526]. The first major economic study in this area was reported in 1957 by Griliches [7]. However, many economists have failed to account for this type of transfer in estimating rates of return for agricultural research investment at the state level. A possible explanation for the failure to account for this transfer is that many analyses at the state level are modeled after national studies. Though researchers estimating a national rate of return may not feel a need to account for interregional transfers, these transfers clearly cannot be ignored at the state or regional levels. Latimer and Paarlberg [9] and Bauer and Hancock [2] estimated aggregate production functions for states and had difficulty finding a statistically significant relationship between research expenditures within the state and agricultural output. Bauer and Hancock finally estimated a lagged relationship that is in conflict with other conceptual and empirical models. Latimer and Paarlberg concluded that research is so pervasive that there are no measurable differences in levels of farm income attributable to differences in research inputs by states [9, p. 239]. More recently, Bredahl and Peterson [3] examined the differences in rates of return to cash crops, dairy, poultry, and livestock research among states. These estimates are appropriate if agricultural research results are limited by state boundaries. The interregional transfer of agricultural research results needs to be taken into account in estimating the returns to agricultural research at a regional level.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , December 1979 , pp. 107 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1979

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]Almon, Shirley. “The Distributed Lag Between Capital Appropriations and Expenditures,” Econometrica, Volume 30, January 1965, pp. 178–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Bauer, Larry L. and Hancock, Curtis R.. “The Productivity of Agricultural Research and Extension Expenditures in the Southeast,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 7, December 1975, pp. 117–118.Google Scholar
[3]Bredahl, M. and Peterson, W.. “The Productivity and Allocation of Research: U.S. Agricultural Experiment Station,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 58, Number 4, Part I, November 1976, pp. 684–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Budget of the United States Government, Washington, D.C., annual issues, 1929–1972.Google Scholar
[5]Cline, Philip Lee. “Sources of Productivity Change in United States Agriculture,” Ph.D. thesis, Oklahoma State University, May 1975.Google Scholar
[6]Evenson, R. E. “The Contribution of Agricultural Research to Production,” Journal of Farm Economics, Volume 49, December 1967, pp. 1415–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Griliches, Z. “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change,” Econometrica, Volume 25, October 1957, pp. 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Griliches, Z. “Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations,” Journal of Political Economy, Volume 66, October 1958, pp. 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Latimer, R. L. and Paarlberg, D.. “Geographic Distribution of Research Costs and Benefits,” Journal of Farm Economics, Volume 47, May 1965, pp. 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Peterson, Willis and Hayami, Yujiro. “Technical Change in Agriculture,” A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature, Volume 1, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977, pp. 497–540.Google Scholar
[11]U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service. Funds for Research at State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Other State Institutions, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, annual issues, 1965–1972.Google Scholar
[12]U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency, Washington, D.C., September 1976.Google Scholar
[13]U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Farm Income State Estimates, Washington, D.C., September 1974.Google Scholar
[14]U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Extension Service. Annual Report of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, annual issues, 1930–1956.Google Scholar
[15]U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of Accounts. Combined Statement of Receipts, Expenditures, and Balances of the United States Government, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, annual issues, 1929–1972.Google Scholar