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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
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.
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.
Bauer, P. T. (1976). Dissent on development, revised ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.
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.
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.
Buchanan, J. M. (1959). Positive economics, welfare economics, and political economy. Journal of Law and Economics 2(October): 124–138.
Buchanan, J. M. (1968). The demand and supply of public goods. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Buchanan, J. M. (1969). Cost and choice: An inquiry in economic theory. Chicago: Markham.
Evans, M. K. (1969). Macroeconomic activity: Theory, forecasting and control. New York: Harper and Row.
Evenson, R. E. (1967). The contribution of agricultural research to production. Journal of Farm Economics 49(August): 656–669.
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.
Friedman, M. (1976). Price theory. Chicago: Aldine.
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.
Goldin, K. D. (1977). Equal access vs. selective access: A critique of public goods theory. Public Choice 29(Spring): 53–71.
Griliches, Z. (1955). Research costs and social returns: Hybrid corn and related innovations. Journal of Political Economy 66(October): 419–431.
Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technical change. Econometrica 25(October): 501–522.
Griliches, Z. (1964). Research expenditures, education and the aggregate agricultural production function. American Economic Review 54(December): 961–974.
Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. The Bell Journal of Economics 10(Spring): 92–116.
Hardin, G., and Baden, J. (1977). Managing the commons. San Francisco: Freeman.
Jarrett, F. G., and Lindner, R. K. (1977). Research benefits revisited. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 45(December): 167–178.
Latimer, R., and Paarlberg, D. (1965). Geographic distribution of research costs and benefits. Journal of Farm Economics 47(May): 234–241.
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.
Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
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.
Paarlberg, D. (1981). The land grant colleges and the structure issue. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63(February): 129–134.
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.
Peacock, A. (1980). On the anatomy of collective failure. Public Finance 35(1): 33–43.
Peterson W. L. (1967). Return to poultry research in the United States. Journal of Farm Economics 49(August): 656–669.
Peterson, W. L. (1976). A note on the social returns to private research and development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(May): 324–326.
Rose, R. N. (1980). Supply shifts and research benefits: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62(November): 834–837.
Ruttan, V. W. (1980). Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research. Public Choice 35(5): 529–547.
Ruttan, V. W. (1980). The private sector in agricultural research. Unpublished paper presented to annual meeting of the Agricultural Research Institute, St. Louis.
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.
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.
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.
Schultz, T. W. (1980). Markets, agriculture and inflation. L. J. Norton Lecture, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Scobie, G. M. (1976). Who benefits from agricultural research? Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 44(December): 197–202.
Tullock, G. (1966). The organization of inquiry. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1980). Farm real estate market developments. CD85. Washington, D.C.: ESCS.
Von Mises, L. (1969). Bureaucracy. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House.
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.
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.
Wolf, Jr., C. (1979). A theory of nonmarket failure: Framework for implementation analysis. Journal of Law and Economics 22(April): 107:139.
Journal series paper 6924 of North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh.
Professor and Associate Professor in the Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 5368, Raleigh, NC 27650. The authors are grateful for the reviews and contributions of Nathan M. Garren, Raymond B. Palmquist and Daniel A. Sumner.
About this article
Cite this article
Pasour, E.C., Johnson, M.A. Bureaucratic productivity: The case of agricultural research revisited. Public Choice 39, 301–317 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162123
- Decision Maker
- Public Good
- Agricultural Research
- Equal Access
- Private Good