Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:40:12.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discussion: Economic Research Trade-Offs Between Equity and Efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Luther Tweeten*
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University, and the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin

Extract

I applaud Quentin West for what he said in his paper and commend him for the directions he had outlined for the Economic Research Service. If there was a time when economists could ignore the equity dimension in their analysis, it is no more. The agricultural establishment, largely uncritical lovers of traditional agricultural research and education, and the young radicals, largely unloving critics exemplified by Hard Tomatoes -- Hard Times, hold very different images of who pays for and who benefits from publicly supported agricultural research and education. Differences will not be resolved without better information in the hands of both groups.

It would be hard to quarrel with the thrust of ERS analysis reported by West for Tobacco and other programs. So I will deal with his shortcomings of omission rather than commission. Specifically, I will quantify the distribution of costs and benefits from agricultural research and education.

Type
Discussion
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 See Tweeten, Luther, Foundations of Farm Policy, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1970, Ch. 5Google Scholar.

2 See Dave Holland, “The Distribution of Costs and Benefits of Public Schooling,” in the issue of Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1973.