IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/agreko/9487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Privatising agricultural R&D, an example from the South African sugar industry

Author

Listed:
  • Nieuwoudt, T.W.
  • Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb

Abstract

Given demands on public funding, the question arises whether agricultural research should be the responsibility of the public or private sectors, or whether the state should play a facilitating role. These issues are studied using the management and success of R&D in the South African Sugar Industry as an example. The usual answer is that research should be publicly funded if it is a public good and privately funded if a private good. It is shown that even if aspects of research have clear public good characteristics, then it is still possible to internalise externalities. Sugar cane farmers pay a levy of about 1.0% of the value of the crop to finance their R&D package, which includes research, training and extension. The sugar growers decide on the amount of the levy themselves. A possible reason why sugar farmers agree to this levy is that a bottom-up multidisciplinary research programme is followed in which they have a direct say. Scientists from different disciplines work together on a single crop. The South African government should consider the Dutch example where the role of government has shifted from administrator of institutions to stimulator (sponsor) of research. Government should thus still play a critical role in R&D funding in South Africa and there is concern that State funding has declined. Private incentives for research may be weaker in the case of generic research with broad applications across commodities. However, in the latter case it will be expected that different commodity organisations will embark on joint projects as has happened in the past.

Suggested Citation

  • Nieuwoudt, T.W. & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb, 2004. "Privatising agricultural R&D, an example from the South African sugar industry," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 43(2), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:9487
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.9487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/9487/files/43020228.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.9487?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. L. Nieuwoudt & N. Vink, 1989. "The Effects of Increased Earnings from Traditional Agriculture in Southern Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 57(3), pages 168-177, September.
    2. Tabor, Steven R. & Janssen, Willem & Bruneau, Hilarion, 1998. "Financing Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook," ISNAR Archive 310739, CGIAR > International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Rausser, Gordon C. & de Janvry, Alain & Schmitz, Andrew & Zilberman, David D., 1980. "Principal issues in the evaluation of public research in agriculture," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt74v9m7dh, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    4. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G. & Roseboom, Johannes, 1998. "Financing agricultural research: International investment patterns and policy perspectives," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1057-1071, June.
    5. Demsetz, Harold, 1969. "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Materia, V.C. & Pascucci, S. & Kolympiris, C., 2015. "Understanding the selection processes of public research projects in agriculture: The role of scientific merit," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 87-99.
    2. Echeverría, Ruben G. & Elliott, Howard, 2000. "Competitive Funds for Agricultural Research: Are They Achieving What We Want?," 2000 Conference, August 13-18, 2000, Berlin, Germany 197220, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Tan Ngoc Vu & Duc Hong Vo & Michael McAleer, 2019. "Rent seeking for export licenses: Application to the Vietnam rice market," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2019-13, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    4. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Pasour, E.C., Jr., 1980. "A Critique Of Federal Agricultural Programs," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-9, July.
    6. Heng, Dora, 2015. "Incentives, Institutions and Investment in Private Agricultural Reasearch in Asia," SS-AAEA Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 2015, pages 1-25.
    7. Eric C. Edwards & Martin Fiszbein & Gary D. Libecap, 2022. "Property Rights to Land and Agricultural Organization: An Argentina–United States Comparison," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(S1), pages 1-33.
    8. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    9. Richard Langlois, 2013. "The Institutional Revolution: A review essay," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 26(4), pages 383-395, December.
    10. Roberto ESPOSTI & Pierpaolo PIERANI, 2001. "Building the Knowledge Stock: Lags, Depreciation and Uncertainty in Agricultural R&D," Working Papers 145, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    11. James Roumasset, 2010. "Wither the Economics of Agricultural Development?," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, June.
    12. Susanne Fengler & Stephan Russ‐Mohl, 2008. "The Crumbling Hidden Wall: towards an Economic Theory of Journalism," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 520-542, November.
    13. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2009. "Framework for Analisis and Improvement of Agrarian Dynamics," MPRA Paper 19349, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Ludwig van den Hauwe, 2005. "Public Choice, Constitutional Political Economy and Law and Economics," Method and Hist of Econ Thought 0508001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 09 Aug 2005.
    15. R. L. Jones & K. R. Page, 1981. "Market Failure and Superannuation — A Comment," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 57(1), pages 86-88, March.
    16. Petrick, Martin, 2004. "Governing Structural Change And Externalities In Agriculture: Toward A Normative Institutional Economics Of Rural Development," IAMO Discussion Papers 14878, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    17. Michelle R. Garfinkel & Stergios Skaperdas & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2009. "International Trade and Transnational Insecurity: How Comparative Advantage and Power are Jointly Determined," Working Papers 080921, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    18. Engelhardt Sebastian von & Freytag Andreas & Köllmann Volker, 2013. "Wettbewerbspolitischer Handlungsbedarf bei der Verknüpfung von zweiseitigen Märkten im Internet: Der Fall Google," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 62(3), pages 311-332, December.
    19. Robert Tartarin, 1987. "Efficacité et propriété," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 38(6), pages 1129-1156.
    20. Kaufmann, Lutz & Roessing, Soenke, 2005. "Managing conflict of interests between headquarters and their subsidiaries regarding technology transfer to emerging markets--a framework," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 235-253, August.

    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:agreko:9487. 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/aeasaea.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.