Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:33:12.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating Effects of Agricultural Research and Extension Expenditures on Productivity: A Translog Production Function Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Syu-Jyun Larry Lyu ,
Fred C. White  and
Yao-Chi Lu
Syu-Jyun Larry Lyu
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia
Fred C. White
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia
Yao-Chi Lu
Affiliation:
Food and Renewable Resources, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress
Get access

Abstract

The effects of agricultural research and extension expenditures on productivity in the United States are estimated during the period 1949-81 using data for ten production regions. The large time-series cross-sectional data base allows the translog production function to be estimated directly. Results from the translog and Cobb-Douglas production functions are compared. The results indicate that use of the Cobb-Douglas production function would overestimate the internal rate of return of agricultural research and extension expenditures in the United States and eight production regions. The total marginal product and internal rate of return for the United States are $8.11 and 66 percent, respectively.

Keywords

agricultural researchagricultural extensionproductivitytranslog production function
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , December 1984 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1984

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.)

References

Berndt, E. R., and Christensen, L. R. “The Translog Function and the Substitution of Equipment Structures, and Labor in United States Manufacturing 1929-1968.” J of Econometrics, 1(1973):81–113.Google Scholar
Blackorby, C, Primont, D., and Russell, R. R. “On Testing Separability Restrictions with Flexible Functional Forms.” J. of Econometrics, 5(1977):195–209.Google Scholar
Bredahl, M. and Peterson, W.. “The Productivity and Allocation of Research: United States Agricultural Experiment Stations.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 58(1976):684–692.Google Scholar
Budget of the United States Government. Washington, D.C., Annual Issues, 1936-1972.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. R., Jorgenson, D. W., and Lau, L. J. “Conjugate Duality and the Transcendental Logarithmic Production Function (Abstract).” Econometrica 39(1971):255–256.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. R., Jorgenson, D. W., and Lau, L.J.. “Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers.” The Rev. of Econ. and Stat. 5(1973):28–45.Google Scholar
Cline, Philip Lee. “Sources of Productivity Change in United States Agriculture.” Ph.D. Dissertation; Oklahoma State University; May, 1975.Google Scholar
Evenson, Robert E. “The Contributions of Agricultural Research and Extension to Agricultural Productivity.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1968.Google Scholar
Fuss, M., McFadden, D., and Mundlak, Y.. “A Survey of Functional Forms in the Economic Analysis of Production.” Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, Vol. 1, eds. Fuss, M. and McFadden, D., North-Holland Publishing Co., 1978.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. “Research Expenditures, Education, and the Aggregate Agricultural Production Function.” Amer. Econ. Rev., 54(1964):96l–974.Google Scholar
Guilkey, D. K. and Lovell, C. A. K.. “On the Flexibility of the Translog Approximation.” International Econ. Rev., 21 (1980):137–147.Google Scholar
Lu, Yao-Chi, Cline, Philip, and Quance, Leroy. Prospects for Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 435, ESCS, United States Dept. of Agriculture, September 1979.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. L. “Further Results on C.E.S. Production Functions.” The Rev. of Econ. Studies, 30(1963):73–83.Google Scholar
Norton, G. W., and Davis, J. S. “Evaluating Returns to Agricultural Research: A Review.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 63(1981):685–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Willis, and Hayami, Yujiro. “Technical Change in Agriculture.” A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature, Vol. 1, Martin, (Ed.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Ray, Subhash C. “A Translog Cost Function Analysis of United States Agriculture, 1939-77.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 64(1982):490–498.Google Scholar
Ruttan, V. W. “Bureaucratic Productivity: The Case of Agricultural Research.” Public Choice, 35(1980):529–547. Also reprinted by Economic Development Center, Department of Economics and Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, UMEDC 823.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Annual Issues, 1950-1982.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.: United States Government Printing Office, Annual Issues, 1965-1981.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service. Inventory of Agricultural Research. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, Annual Issues, 1972-1981.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector. Washington, D.C., February 1981 and previous issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Farm Income Statistics. Washington, D.C., July 1978 and previous issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Farm Real Estate Market Developments. Washington, D.C., July 1981 and previous issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Extension Service. Annual Report of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, Annual Issues, 1930-1956.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics. Survey of Current Business. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, Annual Issues.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.: United States Government Printing Office, Annual Issues.Google Scholar
Vincent, D. P. “Factor Substitution in Australian Agriculture.” Australian J. Ag. Econ., 21(1977):119–129.Google Scholar
Wales, T. J. “On the Flexibility of Flexible Functional Forms: An Empirical Approach.” J. of Econometrics, 5(1977):183–193.Google Scholar
White, F. C., and Havlicek, J. Jr.. “Optimal Expenditures for Agricultural Research and Extension: Implications of Underfunding.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 64(1982):47–55.Google Scholar