By Julian M. Alston, Matthew A. Andersen, Jennifer S. James, Philip G. Pardey
This publication files the evolving course of U.S. agriculture within the twentieth Century and the function of public R&D in that evolution. The paintings starts off with an in depth quantitative overview of the moving styles of construction one of the states and over the years and of the general public associations and investments in agricultural R&D. Then, in line with newly developed units of panel facts, a few of which span the whole twentieth Century and extra, the authors current new econometric facts linking state-specific agricultural productiveness measures to federal and kingdom govt investments in agricultural examine and extension. the consequences express that the time lags among R&D spending and its results on productiveness are longer than in general discovered or assumed within the earlier released paintings. additionally, the spillover results of R&D between states are vital, such that the nationwide web merits from a state’s agricultural examine investments are a lot more than own-state web merits. the most findings are constant throughout quite a lot of average version necessities. In sum, the advantages from previous public investments in agricultural learn were worthy repeatedly greater than the prices, an important proportion of the advantages accrue as spillovers, and the learn lags are very lengthy. An speeded up funding in public agricultural R&D is warranted by means of the excessive returns to the kingdom, and should be essential to revitalize U.S. agricultural productiveness development although the advantages will not be obvious for a few years.
Julian M. Alston is Professor within the division of Agricultural and source Economics and Director of the Robert Mondavi Institute middle for Wine Economics on the collage of California, Davis and affiliate Director for technology and expertise on the collage of California Agricultural matters Center
Matthew A. Andersen is Assistant Professor within the division of Agricultural and utilized Economics on the collage of Wyoming
Jennifer S. James is affiliate Professor within the division of Agribusiness at California Polytechnic nation collage, San Luis Obispo
Philip G. Pardey is Professor within the division of utilized Economics and Director of the foreign technological know-how and expertise perform and coverage (InSTePP) heart on the collage of Minnesota
Read or Download Persistence Pays: U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending PDF
Similar economic policy & development books
Relentless and ominous, the drumbeat echoes around the land: Social protection is at the verge of financial ruin. The caution has been repeated so usually that it has turn into a gloomy article of religion for the thousands of usa citizens who pay Social protection taxes and anticipate to gather merits sometime. however it is flatly unfaithful.
Additional info for Persistence Pays: U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending
41) for other examples. S. S. 00 1865 1880 1895 1910 1925 1940 1955 1970 1985 2000 Sources: Number of farms (1910–1999) and Land in farms (1911–1999) are from Olmstead and Rhode (2006, series Da 4 and Da 5, respectively). S. Bureau of the Census (1975, series K-4 and K-5); 1910, 1900, and 1890 values for land in farms are from series K-5 of the same resource. Notes: For farm numbers, intercensal values were estimated using a linear interpolation wherever no value was provided. 1 acres per farm in 1938 (Figure 2-5, Inset).
S. farms in 1850 averaged 5 The statistical notion of a farm has changed over time. For example, the 1890 Census of Agriculture definition used both acreage and sales criteria (at least 3 acres or annual agricultural sales of at least $500) while the censuses beginning in 1974 required only that agricultural product sales be at least $1,000. See Olmstead and Rhode (2006, pp. 41) for other examples. S. S. 00 1865 1880 1895 1910 1925 1940 1955 1970 1985 2000 Sources: Number of farms (1910–1999) and Land in farms (1911–1999) are from Olmstead and Rhode (2006, series Da 4 and Da 5, respectively).
Panel b. While measures such as Gross Domestic Product represent the value of what is produced, national income measures denote the net incomes resulting from that production (net of the consumption of fixed capital). In theory, these measures should be equivalent, but in practice, however, they vary to some degree. See Gutierrez et al. (2007) and BEA (2008a). 12 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2-2 Shares of the Value of Agricultural Production Among States Panel a. 1924–1926 average Panel b. 1948–1950 average Panel c.