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. 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.
    2. Demsetz, Harold, 1969. "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Tabor, Steven R. & Janssen, Willem & Bruneau, Hilarion, 1998. "Financing Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook," ISNAR Archive 310739, CGIAR > International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. Stefan Voigt, 2017. "Tullock on the common law: a loose-cannon iconoclast in action?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 35-47, March.
    5. Wissner, Matthias, 2014. "Regulation of district-heating systems," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 63-73.
    6. Mbatha, C. Nhlanhla & Antrobus, G.G., 2008. "Institutions and economic research: a case of location externalities on agricultural resource allocation in the Kat River basin, South Africa," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 47(4), pages 1-19, December.
    7. Allen, William A. & Wood, Geoffrey, 2006. "Defining and achieving financial stability," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 152-172, June.
    8. March, Raymond J., 2017. "Skin in the game: comparing the private and public regulation of isotretinoin," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 649-672, September.
    9. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter & Johann Wackerbauer, 2013. "Koordination von Innovations-, Energie- und Umweltpolitik," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 61.
    10. Roumasset, James, 2004. "Rural Institutions, Agricultural Development, and Pro-Poor Economic Growth," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-20, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Thirtle, Colin, 1986. "A Summary of Arguments for and Against the Public Provision of Agricultural R & D," Manchester Working Papers in Agricultural Economics 232789, University of Manchester, School of Economics, Agricultural Economics Department.
    13. 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.
    14. López Edward J. & Clark J.R., 2013. "The Problem with the Holdout Problem," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 151-167, September.
    15. Eirik G. Furubotn, 2014. "Entrepreneurial Judgment, Decision Procedure and the Inevitable Emergence of the Non-optimizing Firm in a Capitalist Economy," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(4), pages 548-570, November.
    16. Philippe Batifoulier & Denis Abecassis & Nicolas da Silva & Victor Duchesne & Léonard Moulin, 2016. "L’utilité sociale de la dépense publique," Working Papers hal-01421197, HAL.
    17. 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.
    18. Colin Aislabie, 1972. "The Economic Efficiency of Information Producing Activities," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 48(4), pages 575-583, December.
    19. Deepak Lal, 1993. "Does Openness Matter? How to Appraise the Evidence," UCLA Economics Working Papers 690, UCLA Department of Economics.
    20. Petrick, Martin, 2008. "Theoretical and methodological topics in the institutional economics of European agriculture. With applications to farm organisation and rural credit arrangements," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 45, number 92318.

    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.