Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:05:17.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integration of Agriculture and Technological Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Fred C. White
Fred C. White*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Get access

Abstract

Market structure has implications for research policies. The public sector reduced its support for technological change for poultry relative to beef and pork after poultry became integrated. However, market integration causes private sector research to be below the optimal level from society's perspective. In order to get the appropriate response from the private sector, the public sector should not reduce its support for technological change after market integration. Instead, the public sector should increase its support for research such as basic science that complements private sector research.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , April 1995 , pp. 111 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Barkema, Alan and Cook, Michael L. “The Changing U.S. Pork Industry: A Dilemma for Public Policy.” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Vol. 78, No. 2(1994): 49–65.Google Scholar
Centner, Terence J. and White, Fred C. “Protecting Inventors’ Intellectual Property Rights in Biotechnology.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 14, No. 2(December 1989): 189–99.Google Scholar
Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics. The Industrialization of Agriculture: Policy, Research, and Education Needs. Greenbelt, Maryland, 1994.Google Scholar
Diewert, W.E. “The Comparative Statics of Industry Long-Run Equilibrium.” Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 14(1981): 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, Wallace E. and Evenson, Robert E. Science for Agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1993.Google Scholar
Just, Richard E., Hueth, Darrell L., and Schmitz, Andrew. Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1982.Google Scholar
Lindner, R.K. and Jarrett, F.G. “Supply Shifts and the Size of Research Benefits.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 60 (1978).48–58.Google Scholar
Mullen, John D., Wohlgenant, Michael K., and Farris, Donald E. “Input Substitution and the Distribution of Surplus Gains from Lower U.S. Beef Processing Costs.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 70 (1988): 245–254.Google Scholar
Pray, Carl E. and Neumeyer, C.F. “Trends and Composition of Private U.S. Food and Agriculture R & D.” Department of Agricultural Economics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 1989.Google Scholar
Rose, Roger N. “Supply Shifts and Research Benefits: Comment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 62 (1980): 834–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Shaw. “Farming—It's Declining in the U.S.” Choices, First Quarter (1992): 8–10.Google Scholar
USDA. A Time to Choose: Summary Report on the Structure of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1981.Google Scholar
USDA, CSRS. Inventory of Agricultural Research, Current Research Information System, Washington, D.C., 1994 and previous issues.Google Scholar
USDA, ERS. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: National Financial Summary. Washington, D.C., 1994.Google Scholar