Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-18T14:37:41.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are American Farmers Better Off as a Result of Technology Gains?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

David L. Debertin
David L. Debertin*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky, 400 Ag Eng Bldg, Lexington KY 40546-0276, e-mail, ddeberti@ca.uky.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Commercial farmers remain a primary political force in support of publicly-supported research and educational programs to create productivity gains in crop and livestock production. Have the technical productivity gains brought about by both public and private sector research and educational efforts improved the well being of American farmers? A great number of agricultural scientists believe that they have. Studies have attempted to provide estimates of the internal rate of return and benefit/cost ratios for agricultural research and education. The vast majority of these studies estimate a quite favorable internal rate of return and a high productivity for public-sector agricultural research (Huffman and Just, p. 828). But these studies have focused on rates of return to agricultural research and education for society as a whole, without attempting to determine if these gains accrued to farmers, consumers, or perhaps the agribusiness firms who purchase raw farm commodities from farmers or sell them inputs.

Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , August 2001 , pp. 327 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2001

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

Antie, John M. and Wagenet, Robert J.Why Scientists Should Talk to Economists: The Role of Economics in Enhancing the value of Publicly Funded Agricultural Research. American Agricultural Economics Association and USDA ERS, Ames IA, AAEA Business Office, March, 1995.Google Scholar
Ball, Eldon. Personal Communication, September 2000.Google Scholar
Ball, Eldon, Bureau, Jean-Christophe, Nehring, Richard and Somwaru, Agapi. “Agricultural Productivity Revisited.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 79:4(1997) 1045–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, Bruce R. “Some Almost Ideal Remedies for Healing Land Grant Universities.” Am J. Agr. Econ 73:5(1991) pp. 1307–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braha, Habtu and Tweeten, Luther. Evaluating Past and Prospective Future Payoffs from Public Investments to Increase Agricultural Productivity. Technical bulletin T-163, Agricultural Experiment station, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 1986.Google Scholar
Carstensen, Peter C. “Competition. Concentration and Agriculture.” (Chapter IV, Section 1) in Stumo, Michael C. ed. A Food and Agriculture Policy for the 21” Century. Organization for Competitive Markets, 2000. Available at http://www.competitivemarkets.com/library/academ-ic/21stcentury/index.htmGoogle Scholar
Chennareddy, Venkareddy and Jones, Bob F. “Labor” Chapter 8 in Johnson, Glenn L. and Quance, C. Leroy ed. The Overproduction Trap in US Agriculture.: A Study of Resource Allocation from World War I to the Late 1960s, Baltimore, MD. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Council of Economic Advisors. 2000 Economic Report of the President. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC, 2000. (Statistical tables available at http://w3.access.gpo.gov/us-budget/fy2001/erp.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Bruce L. “Economic Growth and Low Incomes in Agriculture.” AAEA Presidential Address, Tampa FL, July, 2000 published in Am Journ Agr. Econ.S2(5) Dec, 2000 1059–1075.Google Scholar
Harl, Neil E., Levins, Richard, Ray, Daryli E., and Rithcie, Mark. “Supply/Demand Considerations (Section 2) in Stumo, Michael, C. ed. A Food and Agriculture Policy for the 21st Century. Organization for Competitive Markets, 2000. Available at http://www.competitivemarkets.com/library/academic/21stcentury/index.htmGoogle Scholar
Huffman, Wallace E. and Just, Richard E. “Setting Efficient Incentives for Agricultural Research: Lessons from Principal-Agent Theory Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 79(4), November, 2000, 828–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna, Jyoti, Huffman, Walace E. and Sandler, Todd. “Agricultural Research Expenditures in the United States: A Public Goods Perspective.” Rev. E. Stat. 76:2(May, 1994),. pp 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sexton, Richard J. “Industrialization and Consolidation in the US Food Sector: Implications for Competition and Welfare. AAEA Waugh Lecture, Tampa, FL, July, 2000, published in Am Journ Agr. Econ.82(5) Dec, 2000 1087–1104.Google Scholar
Schuh, G.E. “Revitalizing Land Grant Universities: It's Time to Regain Relevance.” Choices 1(1986) pp. 6–10.Google Scholar
Thurow, Lester C. “Choies for the US.” Choices 1:1, Premier Edition, 1986. pp 16–21.Google Scholar
Tweeten, Luther. Policies for Farmers to retain More of the Gains from Technological Change (draft) 2000.Google Scholar