Distribution of Research Gains in Multistage Production Systems: Comment

Alston, Julian M.; Scobie, Grant M.

doi:10.2307/1240890

Cited by 57 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Simply reporting cost estimates can also be misleading because costs, to some extent and in many cases, can be partially or totally passed through a marketing channel by the initial bearer (Freebairn et al 1982;Alston and Scobie 1983). The more relevant issue here is how the welfare of producers and consumers is affected by a cost increase (Lusk and Anderson 2004).…”

Section: Forestry Bmpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a typical cost study by Lickwar et al (1992), for instance, they asked the question explicitly at the end: Who bears the cost of these land and water protection measureslandowners, loggers, or timber buyers? Simply reporting cost estimates can be misleading, because costs can be partially or totally passed through a marketing channel by the initial bearer in some cases (Freebairn et al 1982;Alston and Scobie 1983). Therefore, the real concern behind these cost studies is the welfare distribution among major stakeholders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Welfare effects of forestry best management practices in the United States

Sun¹

2006

Can. J. For. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State forestry best management practice (BMP) programs have been widely developed and implemented to prevent nonpoint source water pollution in the past three decades. The unanswered question is how forestry BMPs have affected the welfare positions of consumers, mills, loggers, and forest landowners. A Muth-type equilibrium displacement model was constructed to examine welfare changes of these stakeholders. The model considered a two-stage vertical production system with variable proportion production technology and imperfect market structure. Industrial mills experienced little welfare loss from forestry BMP regulation. Consumers had the largest absolute welfare loss, and loggers had the largest relative welfare loss in the base scenario. The supply elasticity of harvesting services had the greatest impact on the relative incidence of welfare losses between landowners and loggers, and in the long run their welfare losses were comparable. These results may help to improve future state forestry BMP guidelines and design incentive systems for increasing implementation rates.Résumé : Les programmes de saines pratiques forestières (SPF) mis de l'avant au cours des trois dernières décennies par les États américains ont été largement conçus et appliqués afin de prévenir la pollution aquatique de sources diffuses. L'effet de ces programmes sur le bien-être des consommateurs, des entreprises de transformation du bois, des opé-rateurs forestiers et des propriétaires de forêts demeure toutefois une question sans réponse. Un modèle de déplacement des équilibres de type Muth a été construit afin d'examiner les changements de bien-être induits chez ces parties prenantes. Le modèle s'exprime sous forme d'un système vertical de production en deux étapes utilisant des proportions variables de technologie de production dans une structure de marché imparfait. Sous l'empire d'une réglementation SPF, les usines auraient connu peu de perte de bien-être. Les consommateurs se seraient vu imposer la plus grosse perte de bien-être en termes absolus alors que les opérateurs forestiers auraient subi la plus importante perte relative par rapport au scénario de référence. L'élasticité de l'offre de services de récolte aurait eu le plus d'impact sur l'incidence relative des pertes de bien-être entre les propriétaires et les exploitants forestiers et, à long terme, leurs pertes respectives seraient comparables. Ces résultats peuvent aider à améliorer les directives encadrant de futurs programmes SPF et la conception de systèmes incitatifs pour en accroître le taux de mise en oeuvre.[Traduit par la Rédaction] Sun 1683

show abstract

Section: Forestry Bmpsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare effects of forestry best management practices in the United States

Sun¹

2006

Can. J. For. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Freebairn et al (1982) conclude that if farm inputs and processing inputs are used in strictly fixed proportions in the processing sector, the distribution of returns among industry groups is the same, regardless of where along the chain funds are invested in R&D or promotion. However, Alston and Scobie (1983) show that when input substitution is possible, each sector receives a larger share of total benefits from investment in its own sector. In this case, farmers receive a larger share of returns from farm research than from post-farm research and promotion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In this case, farmers receive a larger share of returns from farm research than from post-farm research and promotion. Furthermore, Alston and Scobie (1983) show that farmers can even lose welfare from post-farm research if the input substitution elasticity is bigger in size than the demand elasticity for the retail product. Using a model involving two post-farm sectors, namely processing and marketing/distribution, Holloway (1989) showed further that the benefits to farmers also depend on the post-farm stage to which the research is directed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who gains from Australian generic wine promotion and R&D?

Zhao

Anderson

Wittwer

2003

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper estimates the distributions of aggregate returns from different types of research and promotion investments by the Australian grape and wine industry among grapegrowers, winemakers, domestic and foreign consumers, and the tax office. The results show that most of the gains from cost-reducing R&D in grape and wine production go to producers and that producers get a far larger share of the benefit from export promotion than that from domestic promotion. Foreign consumers of Australian wine also enjoy a significant share of the benefits from Australian R&D. Sensitivity analysis shows that the key results hold for a wide range of parameter values.

show abstract

“…More recent contributions to the literature also demonstrate that, the payoffs and distribution of payoffs from research and development (R&D) along the food value chain depend critically on the economic nature of the value chain (Freebairn et al 1982(Freebairn et al , 1983Alston and Scobie 1983;Edwards and Freebairn 1984;Holloway 1989;Alston et al 1995;Wohlgenant 1997). 1 The distribution of payoffs can shift up and down the chain depending on many economic variables.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payoffs from research and development along the Australian food value chain: a general equilibrium analysis

Borrell

Jiang

Pearce

et al. 2014

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The payoffs and distribution of payoffs from research and development (R&D) along the food value chain depend on many interacting economic factors. To quantify these, we have developed a general equilibrium model of the Australian economy with detailed farming, processing and marketing information. We use the model to assess potential payoffs and distributions from various R&D scenarios that lead to demand expansion and productivity improvement. We find that productivity improvement caused by R&D is unambiguously beneficial to the whole economy while the benefits of export or domestic market demand expansion mainly accrue to the primary producers and processing industry, when the economy is at full employment. Also, productivity improvement from R&D on-farm may benefit processors while improvements postfarm may benefit farmers.

show abstract

Distribution of Research Gains in Multistage Production Systems: Comment

Cited by 57 publications

References 2 publications

Welfare effects of forestry best management practices in the United States

Welfare effects of forestry best management practices in the United States

Who gains from Australian generic wine promotion and R&D?

Payoffs from research and development along the Australian food value chain: a general equilibrium analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About