Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:42:06.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interregional Transfer of Agricultural Research Results: The Case of the Northeast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Joseph Havlicek Jr.  and
Fred C. White
Joseph Havlicek Jr.
Affiliation:
The Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland
Fred C. White
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics at the University of Georgia
Get access

Abstract

The contribution of research to agricultural production is measured by estimating a production function which includes variables to reflect conventional inputs as well as agricultural research. Conventional inputs considered are hired labor, feed and livestock, seed and fertilizer, and capital and depreciation. Investment in agricultural research and extension within the region and investment in agricultural research in other production regions of the U.S. are included in the production function. Marginal products and internal rates of return axe derived for the own region and outside-the-region investments in agricultural research.

The empirical results indicate that sane agricultural production regions have a greater capacity for exporting agricultural research results while some have a greater capacity for importing agricultural research results from other production regions. Of the ten agricultural production regions of the U.S., the Northeast had the lowest marginal product per dollar invested in agricultural research during the 1977–81 period and the lowest internal rate of return to investment in agricultural research. For the same time period the average annual spillovers from the Northeast were approximately 3.3 times as large as the average annual regional benefit and the spillovers from the Northeast were about 2.3 times as large as the spill-ins into the Northeast region. The ratio of federal to state expenditures on agricultural research in the Northeast was 1.03 and compared to a ratio of spillover's to regional benefits of 3.3 suggests that the Northeast does not fare well in terms of federal support of agricultural research benefiting other regions of the U.S.

Type
Invited Papers
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Fall 1983 , pp. 19 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Footnotes

The authors wish to thank Berrier Frye and Syu-Jyun Lyu for their assistance in assembling data and estimation.

Funding for this research was provided by CSPS, USDA through IR-6, “National and Regional Planning Evaluation, Analysis, and Coordination. “Scientific article number A-3534, contribution number 6608 of the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

Almon, Shirley, “The Distributed Lag Between Capital Appropriations and Expenditures,” Econometrica, 30 (January 1965), pp. 178–196.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. and Stubblebine, W. C. “Externality,” Econometrica, Vol. 29, November 1962, pp. 371–384.Google Scholar
Budget of the United States Government, Washington, D.C.: Annual Issues, 1929–1972.Google Scholar
Cline, Philip Lee, “Sources of Productivity Change in United States Agriculture,” Ph.D. thesis, Oklahoma State University, May 1975.Google Scholar
Davis, O. A. and Whinston, A. “Externalities, Welfare, and the Theory of Games,” Journal of Political Economy, June 1962, pp. 241–262, Vol. 70.Google Scholar
Evenson, Robert E., “The Contribution of Agricultural Research to Production,” Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 49, December 1967, pp. 1415–1425.Google Scholar
Evenson, Robert Ε., “Economic Aspects of the Organization of Agricultural Research,” Resource Allocation in Agricultural Research, Fishel, Walter L. (ed.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1971, pp. 163–182.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi, “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change,” Econometrica, Vol. 25, October 1957, pp. 501–522.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. “Research Expenditures, Education, and the Aggregate Agricultural Production Function,” American Economic Review, Vol. 54, December 1964, pp. 961–974Google Scholar
Latimer, R. L. and Paarlberg, D., “Geographic Distribution of Research Costs and Benefits,” Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 47, No. 2, May 1965, pp. 234–241.Google Scholar
Mishan, E. J. “Postwar Literature on Externalities: An Interpretive Essay,” Journal of Economic Literature, 9 (1): March 1971, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Richard A. and Musgrave, Peggy B. Public Finance in Theory and Practise, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
Peterson, Willis L. and Fitzharris, Joseph C. “Organization and Productivity of the Federal-State Research System in the United States,” Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research, Arndt, Thomas M., et al. (eds.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1977, pp. 60–85.Google Scholar
Peterson, Willis L. and Hayami, Yujiro. “Technical Change in Agriculture,” A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature, Volume I, Martin, Lee R. (ed.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1977, pp. 497–540.Google Scholar
Pigou, A. C. The Economics of Welfare, 4th Edition, Macmillan, London, 1932, part 2.Google Scholar
Oates, Wallace E. Fiscal Federalism, Baumol, William J. (ed.), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York, 1972.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: Annual Issues, 1950–73.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cooperative State Research Service, Funds for Research at State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Other State Institutions, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Annual Issues, 1965–1981.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics Service. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Production and Efficiency. Washington, D.C., February 1981 and previous issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service. Farm Income Statistics. Washington, D.C., July 1978 and previous issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service. Farm Real Estate Market Developments. Washington, D.C., July 1978 and previous issues.Google Scholar
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, 1930–1981.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative States Research Service, Inventory of Agricultural Research FY 1969–1980, Volume II.Google Scholar
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, 1949–1981.Google Scholar
Vincent, D. P. “Factor Substitution in Australian Agriculture,” Australian J. of Ag. Econ., Vol. 21, 1977, pp. 119–129.Google Scholar
White, Fred C. and Havlicek, Joseph Jr. “Interregional Spillover of Agricultural Research Results and Intergovernmental Finance: Some Preliminary Results,” Evaluation of Agricultural Research, Miscellaneous Publication 8–1981, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 1981, pp. 60–70.Google Scholar