Research, Productivity, and Output Growth in U.S. Agriculture

Fuglie, Keith O.; Clancy, Matthew; Heisey, Paul W.; MacDonald, James M.

doi:10.1017/aae.2017.13

Cited by 39 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Oehmke () and Fuglie et al. () argue the mirr assumes a suboptimal reinvestment response and is sensitive to project horizon. Oehmke contends the suboptimality consists in reinvesting at a rate lower than borrowing cost, since present‐value loan cost would have been reduced by paying back the loan.…”

Section: Characterizing India's Agricultural Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating research and education performance in Indian agricultural development

Rada

Schimmelpfennig

2018

Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

India's agricultural research spending has long been regionally uneven. Regional research intensity ratios, which account for size differences, indicate research spending has consistently favored southern and western states over northern, central, and eastern ones. Farm production patterns have, however, changed in recent years and regional output growth is being driven by new commodity mixes. In this article, we ask which region had the highest factor productivity growth and rate of return to investments in public agricultural research and higher education. Our analysis relies on a 1980-2008 Indian agricultural production and policy data set together with a dual heteroscedastic production frontier to decompose total factor productivity (TFP) growth into formal technical progress and efficiency elements. The model's regional flexibility affords region-to-region comparison of multiple research return rates, TFP growth, and the elements influencing them. Regardless of return-rate measure or allocation scenario evaluated, the North has enjoyed the highest return to research spending, and the Central and East the lowest. Factor productivity growth has however been strongest in the South, primarily on account of efficiency gains. Overall, though, the technical progress and productivity growth easily attributable to government-supported research has accounted for about one-quarter of the sector's TFP growth.JEL classifications: O13, Q16, Q18

show abstract

Section: Characterizing India's Agricultural Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating research and education performance in Indian agricultural development

Rada

Schimmelpfennig

2018

Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of this enhanced variability is explained by specific exogenous events, such as the 1973 energy crisis and the US government's 1983 Payment-In-Kind (PIK) program. On the other hand, some of the variability has been casually associated with extreme weather events such as severe droughts and floods in key agricultural areas (26). For example, TFP rates declined sharply in 1993, when persistent heavy rain and thunderstorms caused drastic flooding in the Midwest.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining climate effects on US total agricultural productivity

Liang

Chambers

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

170

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sensitivity of agricultural productivity to climate has not been sufficiently quantified. The total factor productivity (TFP) of the US agricultural economy has grown continuously for over half a century, with most of the growth typically attributed to technical change. Many studies have examined the effects of local climate on partial productivity measures such as crop yields and economic returns, but these measures cannot account for national-level impacts. Quantifying the relationships between TFP and climate is critical to understanding whether current US agricultural productivity growth will continue into the future. We analyze correlations between regional climate variations and national TFP changes, identify key climate indices, and build a multivariate regression model predicting the growth of agricultural TFP based on a physical understanding of its historical relationship with climate. We show that temperature and precipitation in distinct agricultural regions and seasons explain ∼70% of variations in TFP growth during 1981-2010. To date, the aggregate effects of these regional climate trends on TFP have been outweighed by improvements in technology. Should these relationships continue, however, the projected climate changes could cause TFP to drop by an average 2.84 to 4.34% per year under medium to high emissions scenarios. As a result, TFP could fall to pre-1980 levels by 2050 even when accounting for present rates of innovation. Our analysis provides an empirical foundation for integrated assessment by linking regional climate effects to national economic outcomes, offering a more objective resource for policy making.total factor productivity | agricultural economy | economic growth | climate impacts | crop yield A long-standing challenge of climate impact assessment has been to determine how climate has influenced the agricultural economy, and how its effects may change in the future. Climate affects agriculture regionally, depending not only on local weather factors but also on specific crops, livestock, and related goods and services, as well as agricultural systems, infrastructures, and interventions. Aggregating these disparate and potentially contradictory regional impacts into larger-scale economic outcomes is particularly difficult because the ultimate consequences are influenced by market fluctuations and policy incentives. As a result, understanding of how climate has influenced the agricultural economy is limited, making projection of the future under climate change extremely uncertain.This uncertainty is reflected in the lack of consensus regarding the overall impacts of climate change on US agriculture (1, 2). In general, studies follow two approaches, both focusing on partial productivity measures or local economic indicators. One approach seeks to determine the impact of weather shocks on common partial productivity measures such as crop yield (3-7). These studies tend to show that weather variability substantially influences local crop production. The other approach aims to iden...

show abstract

“…E-mail address: ludwik_wicki@sggw.pl; dr habil., WULS professor 515 agriculture (Alston et al, 2010;Gardner, 2002;Huffman and Evenson, 1993;Ruttan, 2002;Wang et al, 2015a). It has also been indicated that increase in agricultural productivity in the USA after year 1950 was significantly correlated with increase in TFP (total factor productivity) , while no significant correlation was found between the level of production inputs and the size of agricultural production (Fuglie et al, 2017). For developing countries, there is a significant gap in achievement of land productivity and work in agriculture, which is several decades long.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of productivity growth in agricultural production development in the central and eastern Europe countries after 1991

Wicki¹

2018

Economic Science for Rural Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The land resources available for agriculture are limited. The global population is growing constantly, and so is demand for food. Increase in agricultural production can be achieved either through intensification of production or through technological progress. In the recent decades, increase in global agricultural production has been achieved mainly thanks to increase in effectiveness of production factors. The objective of this study is to compare changes in agricultural production in the selected new Member States of the EU after year 1991 and to determine the significance of TFP in production increase. The analysed period encompassed years 1991-2014; source data published by USDA were used. It was found that after the systemic transformation, a significant decrease in agricultural production-even to 40 %-was recorded. This was due to reduction of the area of farming land, limiting of use of production factors and their reduced productivity. In the following years, agricultural production in the countries examined increased notwithstanding further limitation of inputs. This was due to gradual increase in factor productivity. In the examined period, increase in TFP almost entirely balanced off the decrease in production inputs and limitation of production area. In 2014, compared to 1991, inputs in some countries decreased even by 50 %, while production was reduced by no more than 30 %. The strongest increase in factor productivity was achieved in Latvia (38 %), Poland (26 %) and Estonia (24 %); nevertheless, in all of the countries analysed except for Poland, increase in production was due only to increase in TFP. In Poland, this process was accompanied also by intensification of production. Increase in production factor productivity is the key variable that generates increase in agricultural production, also under the conditions of limitation of farming land and extensification of agricultural production.

show abstract

Research, Productivity, and Output Growth in U.S. Agriculture

Cited by 39 publications

References 72 publications

Evaluating research and education performance in Indian agricultural development

Evaluating research and education performance in Indian agricultural development

Determining climate effects on US total agricultural productivity

The role of productivity growth in agricultural production development in the central and eastern Europe countries after 1991

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About