Competitive Grants and the Funding of Agricultural Research in the United States

Abstract

Efforts to improve public agricultural research efficienc include calls to increase use of competitive grants. This paper empirically assesses different instruments the USDA uses to fund state-level research. Compared with other instruments, competitive grants focus more on basic research and are concentrated among fewer states. Model results suggest that top-ranked biology and agricultural science programs were strong determinants of states' shares of competitive grants. Other significan factors were agricultural sector size and number of agricultural scientists. USDA-funded state-level research focus did not change significantl because competitive grants comprised only 15% of these funds and other instruments counteracted their influence G lobally, changes in technologies, privatization of agricultural research and the political economy of public financ have led to funding constraints for public agricultural research. At the same time, research institutions face demands to broaden their research focus and increase efficienc . Changes in funding mechanisms have been proposed as one means of increasing efficienc . In the United States, in particular, some analysts have called for less emphasis on allocating Federal funds to states on a formula basis. Instead, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council have recommended greater use of competitive grants, allocated on the basis of peer review (National

U.S. Public Agricultural Research: Changes in Funding Sources and Shifts in Emphasis, 1980-2005

“…Pros and cons of various agricultural research funding mechanisms, including competitive grants and formula funds, have been discussed by Alston and Pardey (1996) and Day Rubenstein et al (2003). Huffman and Evenson (2006b) also discussed the relative merits of these two mechanisms, but, in contrast to the National Academy or the Rockefeller Foundation, they argued that transaction costs severely limit the effectiveness of competitive funding instruments.…”

“…One policy response to these ongoing discussions has been to increase competitive grants funding through CSREES. Analysis of competitive grants funding (Day Rubenstein et al, 2003;Huffman and Evenson, 2006b) has focused on CSREES-administered competitive grants. These grants were initiated in 1978, grew somewhat in funding in the mid-1980s, and received an additional boost after 1991 through National Research Initiative (NRI) funding.…”

Virtues and limits of competitive funds to finance research and innovation: the case of Mexican agriculture

“…This procedure led to a concentration of grants in the hands of a few well-respected researchers or institutions (Kramer, 2006;Laudel, 2006;García and Sanz-Menéndez, 2005;Rubenstein et al, 2000). Since the mid-1990s, grants are increasingly allocated by merit review, which, in addition to a peer review of the research quality, includes other factors such as relevance and expected impact (Kramer, 2006).…”

“…The main consideration in developing countries should not be the sustainability of the funding mechanism but building research and innovation capabilities Rubenstein et al (2000) who found that CF were the most concentrated of the mechanisms used to fund agricultural research in the US. It should be noted that the concentration of resources is not exclusive to CF but has been identified in peer-review mechanisms.…”

Student Numbers and Sustaining Courses and Fields in Ph.D. Programs

“…In looking at these major determinants, the individual departments have the greatest control over the two price determinants: available Yet the control over these determinants has likely declined over the past 20 years as the source of funding has changed (see Alston and Pardey;Just 1994, 1999;Just and Huffman;Norton et al;Perry;Rubenstein et al). Much of the funding discussion in the literature has focused on the difference between formula funds and competitive funds.…”