[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midasp/11821.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is Agricultural Research Still A Public Good?

Author

Listed:
  • Oehmke, James F.
  • Weatherspoon, Dave D.
  • Wolf, Christopher A.
  • Naseem, Anwar
  • Maredia, Mywish K.
  • Hightower, Amie L.
Abstract
The nature of public agricultural research changed in 1980 when the Bayh-Dole Act allowed universities to retain title to inventions that were created with Federal funds, and the court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty allowed patenting of living tissue and eventually other bio-engineered products. In 1997, over 2,300 new licenses and options were executed on academic life-sciences property. This raises the questions agricultural research still be a public good? This paper is a critical first step in understanding how increasingly private ownership of intellectual property affects the agribusiness environment and the evolving role of public agricultural research institutions. The innovative step in this paper is the development of a formal economic model which represents the role of applied biotech research in the agricultural life sciences. The model is built around neo-Schumpeterian ideas of endogenous innovation and growth. The most salient implications for the role of the public sector are(1)The private sector underinvests in applied R&D activity. (2) Concentration in the large-firm, life-science R&D industry increases over time. (3) The life-science revolution is reducing the number of markets, in the short run. This reduction in the number of niche markets diminishes the role of the public sector. (4) There is a role for the public sector in conducting R&D in niche markets. (5) In the long run, the life-science revolution may also create new niche markets. (6) There is a role for the public sector in the provision of basic research which increases the productivity of applied R&D.

Suggested Citation

  • Oehmke, James F. & Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Naseem, Anwar & Maredia, Mywish K. & Hightower, Amie L., 1999. "Is Agricultural Research Still A Public Good?," Staff Paper Series 11821, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:11821
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.11821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/11821/files/sp99-49.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.11821?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan, 1997. "Intellectual Property Rights and the Welfare Effects of Agricultural R&D," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1229-1242.
    2. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    3. Dinopoulos, Elias & Oehmke, James F. & Segerstrom, Paul S., 1993. "High-technology-industry trade and investment : The role of factor endowments," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 49-71, February.
    4. Mingxia Zhang, 1997. "The Effects of Imperfect Competition on the Size and Distribution of Research Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1252-1265.
    5. Shu-Yu Huang & Richard J. Sexton, 1996. "Measuring Returns to an Innovation in an Imperfectly Competitive Market: Application to Mechanical Harvesting of Processing Tomatoes in Taiwan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 558-571.
    6. Segerstrom, Paul S & Anant, T C A & Dinopoulos, Elias, 1990. "A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1077-1091, December.
    7. Julian M. Alston & Richard J. Sexton & Mingxia Zhang, 1999. "Imperfect competition, functional forms, and the size and distribution of research benefits," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 21(2), pages 155-172, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Oehmke, James F. & Raper, Kellie Curry, 2000. "An Era Of Confusion: The Land Grant Research Agenda And Biotechnology," Staff Paper Series 11559, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Bradford Barham & Jeremy Foltz & Kwansoo Kim, 2002. "Trends in University Ag-Biotech Patent Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 294-308.
    3. Michael J. Rizzo, 2005. "The public interest in higher education," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, pages 19-45.
    4. Oehmke, James F. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Naseem, Anwar & Maredia, Mywish K. & Raper, Kellie Curry & Hightower, Amie L., 1999. "Cyclical Concentration And Biotech R&D Activity: A Neo-Schumpeterian Model," Staff Paper Series 11792, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    5. Xia, Yin & Buccola, Steven T., 2001. "Are Basic Science And Biotechnology Complementary Activities?," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20575, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Esposti, Roberto, 2012. "Knowledge, Technology and Innovations for a Bio-based Economy: Lessons from the Past, Challenges for the Future," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(3), pages 1-34, December.
    7. Oehmke, James F. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Naseem, Anwar & Maredia, Mywish K. & Raper, Kellie Curry & Hightower, Amie L., 1999. "Cyclical Concentration And Consolidation In Biotech R&D: A Neo-Schumpeterian Model," Staff Paper Series 11812, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weatherspoon, Dave D. & Oehmke, James F. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Naseem, Anwar & Maredia, Mywish K. & Hightower, Amie L., 1999. "Global Implications From A North-North-South Trade Model: A Biotech Revolution," Staff Paper Series 11566, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Alston, Julian M. & Wyatt, T. J. & Pardey, Philip G. & Marra, Michele C. & Chan-Kang, Connie, 2000. "A meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural R & D: ex pede Herculem?," Research reports 113, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Xia, Yin & Buccola, Steven T., 2001. "Are Basic Science And Biotechnology Complementary Activities?," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20575, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Grossman, Gene M. & Helpman, Elhanan, 1995. "Technology and trade," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 25, pages 1279-1337, Elsevier.
    5. Long, N.V. & Wong, K.Y., 1996. "Endogenous Growth and International Trade: A Survey," Working Papers 96-07, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    6. Elias Dinopoulos & Constantinos Syropoulos & Theofanis Tsoulouhas, 2023. "Global Innovation Contests," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, February.
    7. Hareau, Guy Gaston & Mills, Bradford F. & Norton, George W. & Bosch, Darrell J., 2002. "The Economic Impact Of Genetically Modified Organisms In Small Developing Countries," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19891, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Stadler, Manfred, 1998. "Dual labor markets, unemployment and endogenous growth," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 126, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    9. Fulton, Murray E. & Keyowski, Lynette, 2000. "The Impact Of Technological Innovation On Producer Returns: The Case Of Genetically Modified Canola," Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 25998, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    10. Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J. & Sexton, Steven E., 2008. "Market Power in the Corn Sector: How Does It Affect the Impacts of the Ethanol Subsidy?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-26.
    11. Elias Dinopoulos & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2004. "Globalization, Factor Endowments and Scale-Invariant Growth," DEGIT Conference Papers c009_009, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    12. Kostandini, Genti & Mills, Bradford F. & Norton, George W., 2004. "Potential Impacts Of Pharmaceutical Uses Of Transgenic Tobacco: The Case Of Human Serum Albumin (Hsa)," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20289, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2016. "Unions, innovation and cross-country wage inequality," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 104-118.
    14. Gilberto Tadeu Lima, 2000. "Market concentration and technological innovation in a dynamic model of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 447-475.
    15. Çakır, Metin & Nolan, James, 2015. "Revisiting Concentration in Food and Agricultural Supply Chains: The Welfare Implications of Market Power in a Complementary Input Sector," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-17, May.
    16. Yi-Ling Cheng & Juin-Jen Chang, 2017. "The Quality of Intermediate Goods: Growth and Welfare Implications," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(302), pages 434-447, September.
    17. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Shorter Product Cycles Induce Patent Thickets?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-098, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Chu, Angus C. & Pan, Shiyuan, 2013. "The Escape-Infringement Effect Of Blocking Patents On Innovation And Economic Growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 955-969, June.
    19. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders and Product Cycles," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(2), pages 557-586.
    20. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    JEL classification:

    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:11821. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damsuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.