Research Funding and Farm Productivity Implications for U.S. Farm Policy Julian M. Alston University of California, Davis Philip G. Pardey University of Minnesota Agricultural Issues Center Outline U.S. Agricultural R&D in a Global Context Agriculture vs Total R&D Spending U.S. vs World Agricultural R&D Trends in U.S. Public Agricultural R&D Overall Funding Trends Sources of Funds Orientation of Funds Congruence of R&D and Value of Production U.S. Productivity Trends and Spatial Patterns Slowdown Causes, Consequences, and Implications Farm Bill and Beyond Australian RDC Model Farm Bill Proposals Public Agricultural R&D Expenditures 30 25 20 $16.0 billion $24.9 billion 1 2 Latin America & Caribbean Asia & Pacific (excluding China) 15 1 1 China 10 14% 7% 15% 16% Other Developing Developed Countries 5 5 4 0 1981 1
Public Agricultural R&D Expenditures 10 30 25 8 20 6 15 4 10 2 5 1 1 $23.1 billion 14% 1 2 7% 2 1 $16.0 15% billion 1 1 16% 14% 16% 7% 15% 5 4 4 5 Latin America & Caribbean Asia & Pacific (excluding China) China Other Developing Developed Countries 0 1981 Estimated Total Ag R&D Investments, Expenditures Public Private Total Public Share of Total (millions international $) percent Latin America and Caribbean (31) 2,479 132 2,611 94.9 Asia & Pacific (26) 5,192 914 6,106 85.0 China 3,150 338 3,489 90.3 Subtotal, Developing Countries (118) 14,715 1,180 15,895 92.6 United States 3,828 4,601 8,428 45.4 Subtotal, Developed Countries (28) 10,149 12,577 22,726 44.7 Total (167) 24,864 13,756 38,620 64.4 Agricultural Research Intensities, Public and Private Components Research Intensity = Research Spending / Value of Output Total Public Private Developing Countries Developed Countries 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 percentage 2
U.S. Public Sector Agricultural R&D, 1890-2004 3,500 3,000 millions of US$ 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 SAES 500 USDA Intramural 0 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 USDA Roles in Public Agricultural R&D 8 7 CSREES Share 6 5 4 3 2 USDA Share 1 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 U.S. Public Agricultural R&D, 2004 Intramural USDA Research State Agricultural Experiment Stations 30 percent federal sources 47 percent state government 22 percent from other sources Industry Royalty revenue Other self-generated income Extension 21 percent federal sources 79 percent within-state sources 3
Commodity Orientation of U.S. Public Agricultural R&D, 1975-2004 1975 $2.7 billion ( $) 2004 $4.0 billion ( $) 24% 2 4 4 1 1 2 2 Livestock Specialty crops Other crops Other Total crop Field crops Soybeans Congruence Between Research Spending and Crop Value Corn Wheat Public R&D Spending Share of Output Value Research Intensity Rice Specialty crop Vegetables Fruits & nuts Ornamentals SAES Intramural 0 500 1,000 1,500 2 4 6 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 millions 2004 $ percent percent USDA Share of Federal Agricultural R&D Funding 9 75% 9 6 45% 3 85% 15% 8 1970 1975 1985 75% 7 65% 1970 1975 1985 1995 1995 4
Share of Public R&D Directed to Enhancing Farm Productivity 7 6 7 5 4 3 2 1 65% 1975 6 55% 1975 1985 1985 1995 1995 Productivity Patterns and Policy Implications U.S. Productivity Trends and Spatial Patterns Slowdown Causes, Consequences, and Implications Farm Bill and Beyond Australian RDC Model Farm Bill Proposals U.S. Agricultural Productivity, 1949-2002 300 Index (1949 = 100) 250 200 150 100 Multi-Factor Productivity Output Index Input Index 50 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 5
State-Specific Growth in Inputs and Outputs, 1950-2002 Each diamond represents one state Values are averages of year-to-year statespecific rates of growth in outputs and inputs U.S. - State-Specific Growth in Inputs and Outputs, 1950-2002 45-degree line through the origin indicates combination with no growth in productivity - State-Specific Growth in Inputs and Outputs, 1950-2002 45-degree line through U.S. indicates growth in productivity equal to U.S. average - 6
Spatial Patterns of Input and Northeastern States VT NH RI MA ME CT NJ NY - Spatial Patterns of Input and Corn Belt & Lake States MN IA MI WI OH IL IN MO - Spatial Patterns of Input and Pacific States CA WA OR - 7
Spatial Patterns of Input and Southern States AL FL KY GA LA AR MS - Temporal Patterns of Input and Output Growth, Pre- and Post- Pre- in teal Post- in orange - Annual Productivity Growth Averages Across States State Data Period U.S. Average # of Obs. p-val* percent 1950-89 2.01 2.01 1920 0.09 1950-59 2.05 2.23 480 0.15 1960-69 1.67 1.90 480 0.43 1970-79 2.51 2.03 480 0.28-89 1.81 1.89 480 0.70-02 1.11 0.70 624 0.00 1950-02 1.79 1.69 2,544 na *p -val. from a t -test comparing mean to full sample mean of 1.69% 8
Causes of Slower U.S. Productivity Growth Reduced support for farm productivity R&D? Slower growth in total agricultural R&D investments Shrinking share for farm productivity Other possibilities? Shifting structure of U.S. general public R&D? Changing private sector roles? Changing regulatory environment? Reduced spillins from other countries and CGIAR? Degradation of natural resource base? Diminishing returns to new technology? Bad weather? Consequences of Slower U.S. Productivity Growth Reduced competitiveness compared with China? Latin America? Australia? Increased pressure on natural resource base Lower farm returns Higher food prices Reduced technology spillovers to poor LDCs Implications of Slower U.S. Productivity Growth May depend on causes Regardless of cause, cure requires Public investment in productivity-oriented research Institutional improvements to encourage private investment Mechanisms to Direct research funds where payoff is high Minimize transaction costs 9
The Australian Model R&D Corporations (RDCs) Similar to U.S. marketing orders Mandatory upon majority decision Financed by commodity taxes (like check-offs) Industry taxes matched by federal government Dollar-per-dollar, up to ½% of value of production Funds allocated by RDC board Producer, government, scientist, and other reps Variety of mechanisms Competitive grants Short- and long-term contracts Advantages of the Australian Model Enhanced total funding for agricultural R&D Comparatively high ARIs Benefits distributed in proportion to costs Fair and efficient Incentive compatible Mutual commitment, politically sustainable Public funds freed up for public goods R&D Synergy with move away from price supports Farmers focus on efficiency and quality Farm Bill Prospects Administration s Farm Bill proposal Some changes in funding approaches Increased R&D funding for Biofuels; Specialty crops Will R&D funds be allocated Effectively? Efficiently? Will R&D priorities emphasize newer agendas? at the expense of farm productivity research? Could an RDC model enhance new initiatives? and renew investments in farm productivity research? 10
R&D Data and Information Sources www.cgiar.org Search for ASTI (Agricultural Science & Technology Indicators www.instepp.umn.edu www.harvestchoice.org 11