Supply Shift (supply + shift)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Levy-funded research choices by producers and society

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, Issue 1 2004
Julian M. Alston
Commodity levies are used increasingly to fund producer collective goods such as research and promotion. In the present paper we examine theoretical relationships between producer and national benefits from levy-funded research, and consider the implications for the appropriate rates of matching government grants, applied with a view to achieving a closer match between producer and national interests. In many cases the producer and national optima coincide. First, regardless of the form of the supply shift, when product demand is perfectly elastic, or all the product is exported, domestic benefits and costs of levy-funded research all go to producers and they have appropriate incentives. Second, if research causes a parallel supply shift, the producer share of research benefits is the same as their share of costs of a levy, and their incentives are compatible with national interests. In such cases, a matching grant would cause an over-investment in research from a national perspective. However, if demand is less than perfectly elastic, and research causes a pivotal supply shift, the producer share of benefits is smaller than their share of costs of the levy, and they will under-invest in research from a national point of view. A matching grant can be justified in such cases, however the magnitude of the optimal grant is sensitive to market conditions. [source]


Research returns redux: a meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, Issue 2 2000
Julian M. Alston
A total of 289 studies of returns to agricultural R&D were compiled and these provide 1821 estimates of rates of return. After removing statistical outliers and incomplete observations, across the remaining 1128 observations the estimated annual rates of return averaged 65 per cent overall , 80 per cent for research only, 80 per cent for extension only, and 47 per cent for research and extension combined. These averages reveal little meaningful information from a large body of literature, which provides rate-of-return estimates that are often not directly comparable. This study was aimed at trying to account for the differences. Several features of the methods used by research evaluators matter, in particular assumptions about lag lengths and the nature of the research-induced supply shift. [source]


An Economic Analysis of the Returns to Canadian Swine Research: 1974,97

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Issue 2 2001
Greg Thomas
This paper reports a new set of estimates of the returns to swine research in Canada. These estimates are obtained using Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Canadian Regional Agricultural Model (CRAM). Positive Mathematical Programming is incorporated into the model for use in this study. The CRAM allows the effects of supply shifts from technological change in the hog industry to interact with product and factor market conditions in the rest of Canadian agriculture. Extensive sensitivity analysis is conducted to examine the robustness of the return estimates under variations in some of the key assumptions employed in the analysis. The costs of public and private sector swine research are estimated. Public sector research costs are inclusive of the marginal excess burden of taxation. Overall, the estimated benefits from Canadian swine research are high relative to the estimated costs for the time period considered. Previous estimates of the returns to Canadian swine research were obtained by Huot et al. (1989) with a partial equilibrium model that did not allow for intra-sectoral resource use adjustments. The estimated returns obtained in the present study are generally higher than those obtained by Huot et al. For example, the estimates obtained from the direct application of the econometrically estimated supply function in this study gave an internal rate of return of about 124% and a benefit-cost ratio of 22.4 to 1. Huot et al reported comparable estimates of about 43% for the internal rate of return and 6,7 to 1 for the benefit-cost ratio. The differences in returns are not solely attributable to the use of a multi-market versus a single-market partial equilibrium approach. There are also differences in the estimates of the marginal excess burden of taxation between the two studies. L'analyse que void présente une nouvelle série d'estimations quant au rendement de la recherche porcine au Canada. Ces estimations dérivent du Modèle d'analyse régionale de l'agriculture du Canada (MARAC) du ministère canadien de l'Agriculture et de l'Agroalimentaire. Aux fins de la présente étude, on avait intégré au modèle une programmation mathématique positive. Le MARAC autorise l'interaction entre les retombées d'une modification de l'offre attribuable au virage technologique de l'industrie porcine et les conditions du marché des produits et des facteurs dans le reste de l'agriculture canadienne. Les auteurs ont effectué une analyse de sensibilité poussée en vue d'établir la robustesse de leurs estimations quand variaient quelques-unes des principales hypotheses de l'analyse. On a estimé le coût de la recherche sur les pores poursuivie par les secteurs public et privé. Dans le secteur public, le coût de la recherche incluait une charge fiscale légérement excessive. Dans l'ensemble, la recherche sur les porcs entreprise au Canada a rapporté beaucoup comparativement à ce qu'elle a coûté pendant la période à l'étude. Les estimations antérieures, établies par Huot et ses collaborateurs (1989), venaient d'un modèle àéquilibre partiel ne permettant aucun ajustement pour l'utilisation intra-sectorielle des ressources. Les revenus estimés ici sont généralement plus élevés que ceux de Huot et de ses collaborateurs. Ainsi, une application directe de l'offre estimée par des méthodes économétriques à l'analyse donne un taux de rendement interne d'environ 124 % et un indice de rentabilité de 22,4 pour 1. À titre de comparaison, Huot et ses collaborateurs rapportent des résultats d'environ 43 % pour le taux de rendement interne et de 6 à 7 pour 1 en ce qui concerne l'indice de rentabilité. Pareil écart ne résulte pas uniquement du choix d'un modèle àéquilibre partiel reposant sur plusieurs marchés au lieu d'un seul; on relève aussi des variations dans l'estimation du léger excès de la charge fiscale entre les deux études. [source]