Hostname: page-component-546b4f848f-w58md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-01T10:24:34.674Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

The Allocation of LISA Research and Extension Funding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

David G. Abler
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, Armsby Building, University Park, PA 16802–5600
Wesley N. Musser
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, Symons Hall, College Park, MD 20742–5535
Get access


This article considers the political, economic, and environmental factors associated with the allocation of federal LISA (Low Input/Sustainable Agriculture) funds among states. A tobit model is estimated with LISA allocations as the dependent variable. Results indicate that pressure groups are important. LISA funding depends positively on membership in environmental organizations, the number of farms, and the size of the rural-nonfarm population, while it depends negatively on the size of the urban population. States with host LISA institutions receive significantly more funding, as do states with Senators in leadership positions on key congressional agricultural committees.

Copyright © 1995 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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.)


American Farm Bureau Federation. Farm Bureau News, December 5, 1988.Google Scholar
Becker, G.S.A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 98 (1983): 371400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, W.P. Private Interests, Public Policy, and American Agriculture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988.Google Scholar
Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Chubin, D.E., and Hackett, E.J. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 19881989. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1989–1990.Google Scholar
Daberkow, S.G., and Reichelderfer, K.H.Low-Input Agriculture: Trends, Goals, and Prospects for Input Use.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (1989): 1159–66.Google Scholar
Doering, O.Looking Back While Going Forward: An Essential for Policy Economists.” Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 43 (1991): 36.Google Scholar
Gardner, B.L. The Economics of Agricultural Policies. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987.Google Scholar
Guttman, J.M.Interest Groups and the Demand for Agricultural Research.” Journal of Political Economy 86 (1978): 467–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, W.E., and Evenson, R.E. Science for Agriculture: A Long Term Perspective. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Huffman, W.E., and Miranowski, J.A.An Economic Analysis of Expenditures on Agricultural Experiment Station Research.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63 (1981): 104–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, R.E., and Huffman, W.E.Contributions of Public and Private Science and Technology to U.S. Agricultural Productivity.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74 (1992): 1101–8.Google Scholar
Korves, R.C.New Forces Shaping Ag Research.” Farm Bureau News, December 10, 1990, p. 2.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, P.Low-Input/Sustainable Research and Education—Challenges to the Agricultural Economics Profession.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (1988): 1167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.Google ScholarPubMed
Nielson, E.G., and Lee, L.K. The Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals: A National Perspective. USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. 576, 1987.Google Scholar
Peltzman, S.Toward a More General Theory of Regulation.” Journal of Law and Economics 19 (1976): 211–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, S., and Evenson, R.The Political Economy of Agricultural Research and Extension: Grants, Votes, and Reapportionment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 (1985): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.J., and Blundell, R.W.An Exogeneity Test for a Simultaneous Equation Tobit Model with an Application to Labor Supply.” Econometrica 54 (1986): 679–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenson, R.G.Locational Aspects of Interest in Alternative Agriculture.” Department of Geography, Western Illinois University, Unpublished Paper, 1990.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Current Research Information System. Inventory of Agricultural Research, Fiscal Years 1988–1989.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Program. USA 88–89: Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Projects Funded in 1988 and 1989, 1990.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1987 Census of Agriculture.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, various years.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. Sustainable Agriculture Program Management, Accomplishments and Opportunities. GAO/RCED-92-233, 1992.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. A New Technological Era for American Agriculture. OTA-F-474, 1992.Google Scholar
White, F.C., and Araji, A.A.An Analysis of Experiment Station Funding Decisions.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 15 (1990): 282–90.Google Scholar
White, H.Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Mis-Specified Models.” Econometrica 50 (1982): 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar