Advertisement

The Shifting Structure of Agricultural R&D: Worldwide Investment Patterns and Payoffs

  • Philip G. Pardey
  • Julian M. Alston
  • Connie Chan-Kang
  • Terrance M. Hurley
  • Robert S. Andrade
  • Steven P. Dehmer
  • Kyuseon Lee
  • Xudong Rao
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)

Abstract

The future path and pace of agricultural productivity growth areinextricably intertwined with investments in food and agricultural research and development (R&D). Looking back over half a century of evidence, we find that the lay of the global food and agricultural R&D land is changing, with indications that we are in the midst of an historic transition. The more notable trends are as follows: (1) for the first time in modern history (in purchasing power parity, PPP, terms), the middle-income countries now outspend the rich countries in terms of public-sector investments in food and agricultural R&D; (2) the shifting public shares reflect a continuing decline in the rate of growth of food and agricultural R&D spending by the rich countries, along with a generally sustained and substantial growth in spending by the middle-income countries (especially China, India, and Brazil); (3) in PPP terms, China now spends more than the United States on both public- and private-sector food and agricultural R&D; (4) the global share of food and agricultural R&D being conducted by the private sector has increased, especially in the high- and rapidly growing middle-income countries; and (5) the low-income countries are losing ground and account for an exceptionally small share of global spending. The mean and median values of the reported rates of return to food and agricultural R&D based on the IRR are high and remain so, with no signs of a diminution in the payoffs to more recent (compared with earlier) investments in R&D. But the available evidence on the returns to food and agricultural R&D is not fully representative of the institutional (i.e., public versus private), locational, or commodity orientation of the research and the agricultural sector itself.

References

  1. Alston, J.M., M.A. Andersen, J.S. James, and P.G. Pardey. 2011. The Economic Returns to U.S. Public Agricultural Research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93 (5): 1257–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alston, J.M., M.C. Marra, P.G. Pardey, and T.J. Wyatt. 2000. A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex Pede Herculem? Washington D.C.: IFPRI Research Report No 557.Google Scholar
  3. Alston, J.M., G.W. Norton, and P.G. Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Alston, J.M., and P.G. Pardey. 2016. Antipodean Agricultural and Resource Economics at 60: Agricultural Innovation. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 60 (4): 554–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen, M.A., and W. Song. 2013. The Economic impact of public agricultural research and development in the United States. Agricultural Economics 44 (3): 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angelo, C. 2016. Brazil’s Scientists Fight Funding Freeze: Proposed Law Could Restrict Research Spending for 20 Years. Nature 439: 480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barry, P., and P. Ellinger. 2011. Financial Management in Agriculture. Seventh ed. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Bailey, M.J. 1959. Formal Criteria for Investment Decisions. Journal of Political Economy 67 (5): 476–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dehmer, S.P., P.G. Pardey, and J.M. Beddow. 2017 (in process). Reshuffling the Global R&D Deck, 1980–2013. InSTePP Working Paper. St Paul: International Science and Technology Practice and Policy (InSTePP) center.Google Scholar
  10. Echeverría, R.G. 1990. Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research. In Methods for Diagnosing Research System Constraints and Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research, ed. R.G. Echeverria. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).Google Scholar
  11. Evenson, R.E. 2001. Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research and Extension. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Volume 1A. Agricultural Production, ed. B. Gardner and G. Rausser. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  12. Evenson, R.E., P.E. Waggoner, and V.W. Ruttan. September 1979. Economic Benefits from Research: An example from Agriculture. Science 205 (4411): 1101–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fabiosa, J. 2012. Globalization and Trends in World Food Consumption. In The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy, ed. J. Lusk, J. Roosen, and J.F. Shogren. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. FAO. 2015. FAOSTAT database. Food and Agricultural Commodities Production/Commodities by Regions, Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available at: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/rankings/commodities_by_regions/E. Accessed January 1, 2015.
  15. ———. 2016. FAOSTAT Country classifications. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/site/371/default.aspx. Accessed May 2016.
  16. Gardner, B.L. 1992. How the Data we Make Can Unmake Us: Annals of Factology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74 (5): 1066–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griliches, Z. 1958. Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations. Journal of Political Economy 66 (5): 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirshleifer, J. 1958. On the Theory of Optimal Investment Decision. Journal of Political Economy 66 (4): 329–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurley, T.M., X. Rao, and P.G. Pardey. 2014a. Re-examining the Reported Rates of Return to Food and Agricultural Research and Development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96: 1492–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2014b. AJAE Appendix for Reexamining the Reported Rates of Return to Food and Agricultural Research and Development. Supporting online material, May 3, 2014. Available at http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early2014/05/31/ajae.aau047/suppl/DC1
  21. ———. 2017. Re-examining the Reported Rates of Return to Food and Agricultural Research and Development—Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96 (5): 1492–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2007. Revised Field of Science and Technology (FOS) Classification in the Frascati Manual. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/38235147.pdf
  23. ——— (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2002. Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  24. Oehmke, J. 2017. Re-examining the Reported Rates of Return to Food and Agricultural Research and Development: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 99 (3): 818–826.Google Scholar
  25. Plastina, A.S., and L.E. Fulginiti. 2012. Rates of Return to Public Agricultural Research in 48 US States. Journal of Productivity Analysis 37: 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pardey, P.G., C. Chan-Kang, J.M. Beddow, and S.M. Dehmer. 2016. InSTePP International Innovation Accounts: Research and Development Spending, Version 3.5 (Food and Agricultural R&D Series)-Documentation. St. Paul, MN: International Science and Technology Practice and Policy (InSTePP). Available at http://www.instepp.umn.edu/products/documentation-instepp-international-innovation-accounts-research-and-development-spending
  27. Rao, X., T.M. Hurley, and P.G. Pardey. 2017a. Are Agricultural R&D Returns Declining and Development Dependent?” InSTePP and Department of Applied Economics Staff Paper. St. Paul: International Science and Technology Practice and Policy (InSTePP) center and the Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2017b. Recalibrating the Reported Returns to Agricultural R&D: What if We All Heeded Griliches? InSTePP and Department of Applied Economics Staff Paper. St. Paul: International Science and Technology Practice and Policy (InSTePP) center and the Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  29. Ruttan, V. 1982. Agricultural Research Policy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. United Nations Statistics Division. UN National Accounts Main Aggregates Database (United Nations, 2013., Accessed at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/introduction.asp).
  31. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2013. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. New York: United Nations. Data downloaded October 29, 2013 from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/
  32. Wang, S.L., E.V. Ball, L.E. Fulginiti and A.S. Plastina. Benefits of Public R&D in U.S. Agriculture: Spill-ins, Extension and Roads, Selected Paper from International Association of Agricultural Economists Triennial meeting, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil 18–24 August, 2012. Available at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/126368
  33. World Bank. World Development Indicators 2015 Washington D.C.: World Bank (available at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21634).
  34. Zvi Griliches. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. PhD Dissertation. Department of Economics, Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip G. Pardey
    • 1
  • Julian M. Alston
    • 2
  • Connie Chan-Kang
    • 1
  • Terrance M. Hurley
    • 1
  • Robert S. Andrade
    • 3
  • Steven P. Dehmer
    • 4
  • Kyuseon Lee
    • 1
  • Xudong Rao
    • 5
  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)CaliColombia
  4. 4.Health Partners InstituteMinneapolisUSA
  5. 5.Wageningen University and ResearchWageningenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations