Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 301–317 | Cite as

Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research revisited

  • E. C. PasourJr.
  • Marc A. Johnson
Article

Conclusions and implications

Two questions related to the financing of agricultural research merit further study. First, to the extent that selective access to agricultural research is possible, there is no presumption that research results should be distributed in a way which gives everyone equal access. Moreover, the returns for a large part of agricultural research can be appropriated by the developer through patents, copyrights, and other means. Thus, there is no presumption that publicly financed research services should be equally available to everyone since, ‘in general, equal access to government services is neither necessary nor efficient’ (Goldin, 1977: 54). More attention should be devoted to the method of financing agricultural research — i.e., by taxation versus market prices.

A second important question concerns how agricultural research services should be produced. In the case of a public good, it is necessary to provide the good collectively since, by definition, there is no way to make the service available selectively and, hence, private production is not feasible. There is evidence that a large part of agricultural research services are not public goods and, consequently, can be provided selectively by private producers. The advantage of private production is that goods and services are then subject to the ‘incorruptible judgment of that unbribable tribunal, the account of profit and loss’ (Mises, 1969: 35). Thus, the question of who should perform agricultural research — the private or the public sector — warrants more study.

If, as appears to be the case, agricultural research is largely a private good, one would expect entry of new research firms until the rate of return is comparable with returns from other investments of comparable risk. Consequently, the apparent high rates of return from agricultural research should be viewed as suspect if (as seems likely) there are no significant entry barriers. The methods used in estimating ex post rates of return from agricultural research can be questioned on a number of grounds. Regardless of the accuracy of ex post rate of return estimates, however, it is not appropriate to assume that decision makers should base ex ante expectations on ex post rates of return. Moreover, the outside observer has no way to measure the ex ante cost and returns which motivate decision makers as they weigh the opportunity cost of additional research funds in agriculture in terms of the sacrificed alternatives associated with potential increases for agricultural price supports, prisons, defense, roads, welfare, etc. Furthermore, the discount rate is likely quite high for public expenditures due to the short time horizons of political decision makers. In view of these considerations, the conclusion that there is ‘substantial underinvestment’ of publicly funded agricultural research remains in doubt.

Keywords

Decision Maker Public Good Agricultural Research Equal Access Private Good 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akino, M., and Hayami, Y. (1975). Efficiency and equity in public research: Rice breeding in Japan's economic development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(February): 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. Ayer, H. W., and Schuh, G. E. (1972). Social rates of return and other aspects of agricultural research: The case of cotton research in São Paulo, Brazil. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54(November): 557–569.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, L. L., and Hancock, C. R. (1975). The productivity of agricultural research and extension expenditures in the southeast. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 7(December): 117–122.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, P. T. (1976). Dissent on development, revised ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  5. Bonig, W. (1974). Social rates of return and other aspects of agricultural research: The case of cotton research in São Paulo, Brazil: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(February): 177.Google Scholar
  6. Bredahl, M., and Peterson, W. (1976). The productivity and allocation of research: U.S. agricultural experiment stations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(November): 684–692.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M. (1959). Positive economics, welfare economics, and political economy. Journal of Law and Economics 2(October): 124–138.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. M. (1968). The demand and supply of public goods. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J. M. (1969). Cost and choice: An inquiry in economic theory. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
  10. Evans, M. K. (1969). Macroeconomic activity: Theory, forecasting and control. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  11. Evenson, R. E. (1967). The contribution of agricultural research to production. Journal of Farm Economics 49(August): 656–669.Google Scholar
  12. Evenson, R. E. (1977). Comparative evidence on returns to investment in national and international agricultural research. In T. M. Arndt, D. G. Dalrymple and V. W. Ruttan (Eds.), Resource allocation and productivity in national and international agricultural research, pp. 237–264. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, M. (1976). Price theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  14. Garren, N. M., and White, F. C. (1981). Quantification of externalities resulting from agricultural research. Unpublished paper presented at the 18th Southern Regional Science Association Meeting, Apr. 14–16, 1981, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  15. Goldin, K. D. (1977). Equal access vs. selective access: A critique of public goods theory. Public Choice 29(Spring): 53–71.Google Scholar
  16. Griliches, Z. (1955). Research costs and social returns: Hybrid corn and related innovations. Journal of Political Economy 66(October): 419–431.Google Scholar
  17. Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technical change. Econometrica 25(October): 501–522.Google Scholar
  18. Griliches, Z. (1964). Research expenditures, education and the aggregate agricultural production function. American Economic Review 54(December): 961–974.Google Scholar
  19. Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. The Bell Journal of Economics 10(Spring): 92–116.Google Scholar
  20. Hardin, G., and Baden, J. (1977). Managing the commons. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  21. Jarrett, F. G., and Lindner, R. K. (1977). Research benefits revisited. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 45(December): 167–178.Google Scholar
  22. Latimer, R., and Paarlberg, D. (1965). Geographic distribution of research costs and benefits. Journal of Farm Economics 47(May): 234–241.Google Scholar
  23. Lindner, R. K., and Jarrett, F. G. (1978). Supply shifts and the size of research benefits. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60(February): 48–58.Google Scholar
  24. Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  26. Norton, G. W. (1981). The productivity and allocation of research: U.S. agricultural experiment stations, Revisited. North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 3(January): 1–12.Google Scholar
  27. Paarlberg, D. (1981). The land grant colleges and the structure issue. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63(February): 129–134.Google Scholar
  28. Pasour, E. C., Jr., and Bullock, J. B. (1975). Implications of uncertainty for the measurement of efficiency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(May): 335–339.Google Scholar
  29. Peacock, A. (1980). On the anatomy of collective failure. Public Finance 35(1): 33–43.Google Scholar
  30. Peterson W. L. (1967). Return to poultry research in the United States. Journal of Farm Economics 49(August): 656–669.Google Scholar
  31. Peterson, W. L. (1976). A note on the social returns to private research and development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(May): 324–326.Google Scholar
  32. Rose, R. N. (1980). Supply shifts and research benefits: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62(November): 834–837.Google Scholar
  33. Ruttan, V. W. (1980). Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research. Public Choice 35(5): 529–547.Google Scholar
  34. Ruttan, V. W. (1980). The private sector in agricultural research. Unpublished paper presented to annual meeting of the Agricultural Research Institute, St. Louis.Google Scholar
  35. Saylor, R. G. (1974). Social rates of return and other aspects of agricultural research: The case of cotton research in São Paulo, Brazil: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(February): 171–174.Google Scholar
  36. Schmitz, A., and Seckler, D. (1970). Mechanized agriculture and social welfare: The case of the tomato harvester. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52(November): 569–577.Google Scholar
  37. Schultz, T. W. (1977). Uneven prospects for gains from agricultural research related to economic policy. In T. M. Arndt, D. G. Dalrymple and V. W. Ruttan (Eds.), Resource allocation and productivity in national and international agricultural research, pp. 578–589. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schultz, T. W. (1980). Markets, agriculture and inflation. L. J. Norton Lecture, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  39. Scobie, G. M. (1976). Who benefits from agricultural research? Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 44(December): 197–202.Google Scholar
  40. Tullock, G. (1966). The organization of inquiry. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  41. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1980). Farm real estate market developments. CD85. Washington, D.C.: ESCS.Google Scholar
  42. Von Mises, L. (1969). Bureaucracy. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House.Google Scholar
  43. White, F. C., and Havlicek, Jr., J. (1979). Rates of return to agricultural research and extension in the southern region. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 11(December): 107–112.Google Scholar
  44. White, F. C., and Havlicek, Jr., J. (1980). Interregional spillover of agricultural research results and intergovernmental finance. Unpublished paper presented at the Symposium on Methodology for Evaluation of Agricultural Research, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  45. Wolf, Jr., C. (1979). A theory of nonmarket failure: Framework for implementation analysis. Journal of Law and Economics 22(April): 107:139.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. C. PasourJr.
  • Marc A. Johnson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations