Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:19:15.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Incentives and Resource Allocation in U.S. Public and Private Plant Breeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Keith O. Fuglie  and
Thomas S. Walker
Keith O. Fuglie
Affiliation:
International Potato Center in Bogor, Indonesia and Lima, Peru
Thomas S. Walker
Affiliation:
International Potato Center in Bogor, Indonesia and Lima, Peru
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Private investment in plant breeding has been increasing while public plant breeding has stagnated or declined. Moreover, research investment among crop commodities is uneven. Using a comprehensive survey of U.S. plant breeders from 1994, we use a simultaneous equations model to examine incentives and public-private tradeoffs in plant breeding research among 84 crop commodities. Allocation of private breeders among crops is strongly influenced by market size, hybrid seed technology, and ease of breeding improvement. In general, the allocation of public breeders does not appear to “crowd out” private breeders, but some competition may occur in applied breeding. Public breeding declines as private breeding increases on a commodity. Public breeding is also affected by market size, ease of breeding improvement, and political influence.

Keywords

agricultural research policyhybrid seedplant breeders' rightsthree stage least squarestobitQ160L330O310O320
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , December 2001 , pp. 459 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2001

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

Alston, Julian M., Pardey, Philip G., and Roseboom, Johannes. “Financing Agricultural Research: International Investment Patterns and Policy Perspective.” World Development 26,6(1998):1057-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Partha and Stiglitz, Joseph E. “Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity.” Economic Journal 90 (1980):266-93.Google Scholar
Douches, D.S., Maas, D., Jastrzebski, K., and Chase, R.W. “Assessment of Potato Breeding Progress in the USA over the Last Century.” Crop Science 36 (November-December 1996):1544-52.Google Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, Jose, and Traxler, Greg. “The Role of Federal, State, and Private Institutions in Seed Technology Generation,” in Public-Private Collaboration in Agricultural Research (Fuglie, K. and Schimmelpfennig, D., eds.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000, pp. 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Kenneth J. National Plant Breeding Study-I: Human and Financial Resources Devoted to Plant Breeding Research and Development in the United States in 1994. Special Report 98, Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State University, 1996.Google Scholar
Frey, Kenneth J. “A National Strategy for Plant Breeding in the United States,” in Public-Private Collaboration in Agricultural Research (Fuglie, K. and Schimmelpfennig, D., eds.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000, pp. 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuglie, Keith O. “Trends in Agricultural Research Expenditures in the United States,” in Public-Private Collaboration in Agricultural Research (Fuglie, K. and Schimmelpfennig, D., eds.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000, pp. 9-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuglie, Keith O., Ballenger, Nicole, Day, Kelly, Klotz, Casandra, Ollinger, Michael, Reilly, John, Vasavada, Utpal, and Yee, Jet. Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions, Agricultural Economic Report 735, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, May 1996.Google Scholar
Guttman, J.M. “Interest Groups and the Demand for Agricultural Research.” Journal of Political Economy 86 (August 1978):467-84.Google Scholar
Huffman, Wallace E., and Evenson, Robert E. Science for Agriculture. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Kloppenburg, Jack R. Jr. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Klotz, Cassandra, Fuglie, Keith O., and Pray, Carl E. “Private Sector Agricultural Research Expenditures in the United States, 1960-1992, “Staff Paper AGES-9525, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, October, 1995.Google Scholar
Knudson, Mary K., Lower, Richard L., and Jones, Richard. “State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Intellectual Property Rights,” in Public-Private Collaboration in Agricultural Research (Fuglie, K. and Schimmelpfennig, D., eds.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000, pp. 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudson, Mary K. “The Research Consortia Model for Agricultural Research,” in Public-Private Collaboration in Agricultural Research (Fuglie, K. and Schimmelpfennig, D., eds.). Ames: Iowa State University Press, 2000, pp. 175–198.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Values: Final Estimates 1992-97. Statistical Bulletin No. 963, U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 1999.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan and Evenson, Robert E. “The Political Economy of Agricultural Research and Extension; Grants, Votes, and Reapportionment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 (February 1983):1–14.Google Scholar
Ruttan, Vernon W. “Bureaucratic Productivity: The Case of Agricultural Research.” Public Choice 35(1980):529-47.Google Scholar
Scherer, F. M. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980.Google Scholar
Walker, Thomas S. “Patterns and Implications of Varietal Change in Potatoes.” Social Science Working Paper No. 1994-3, International Potato Center, Lima, Peru, 1994.Google Scholar