IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/auagre/335276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Reconciling the Multiple Objectives of Agricultural RD&E

Author

Listed:
  • Mullen, John
  • de Myer, Julien
  • Griffith, Garry
  • Lemerle, Caroline
  • Malcolm, Bill

Abstract

International agricultural research institutions are now expected to deliver on a range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in addition to their traditional goal of developing technologies that increase the incomes of farm families and alleviate poverty. There has been concern that pursuit of these other objectives may have a high opportunity cost in terms of a slower rate of poverty alleviation. Here we argue that many of the SDGs can be thought of as capital stocks which are jointly related in production and consumption. There are opportunities for research institutions to exploit this jointness. Well-designed projects to deliver new technology lead to the alleviation of poverty (if the technology is widely adopted) but also have the potential to enhance a range of capacities in scientists and farm families and in environmental health. The risk of projects that do not have a technology focus is that the incentives for farm families to change behaviour may be weak and hence gains in SDGs may be small. One implication is that assessing the economic impact of new technologies remains important. While changes in SDGs should be at least qualitatively described, a finding of robust economic impact based on evidence of adoption, gives confidence of gains in other jointly supplied SDGs.

Suggested Citation

  • Mullen, John & de Myer, Julien & Griffith, Garry & Lemerle, Caroline & Malcolm, Bill, 2023. "On Reconciling the Multiple Objectives of Agricultural RD&E," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 31(3), May.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:auagre:335276
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.335276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/335276/files/AAR-Vol-31-Paper-3-Mullen-et-al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.335276?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. Kuehne, Geoff & Llewellyn, Rick & Pannell, David J. & Wilkinson, Roger & Dolling, Perry & Ouzman, Jackie & Ewing, Mike, 2017. "Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 115-125.
    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. Vecchio, Yari & De Rosa, Marcello & Adinolfi, Felice & Bartoli, Luca & Masi, Margherita, 2020. "Adoption of precision farming tools: A context-related analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    3. Brown, Brendan & Paudel, Gokul P. & Krupnik, Timothy J., 2021. "Visualising adoption processes through a stepwise framework: A case study of mechanisation on the Nepal Terai," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    4. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Gerullis, Maria K. & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    5. Mohamed Ghali & Maha Ben Jaballah & Nejla Ben Arfa & Annie Sigwalt, 2022. "Analysis of factors that influence adoption of agroecological practices in viticulture," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 179-209, September.
    6. Dario Schulz & Jan Börner, 2023. "Innovation context and technology traits explain heterogeneity across studies of agricultural technology adoption: A meta‐analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 570-590, June.
    7. Amare, Dagninet & Darr, Dietrich, 2024. "Holistic analysis of factors influencing the adoption of agroforestry to foster forest sector based climate solutions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    8. Mugula, Joseph J & Ahmad, Athman Kyaruzi & Msinde, John & Kadigi, Michael, 2023. "Determinants of Adoption of Bundled Sustainable Agriculture Practices among Small-Scale Maize Farmers in Mvomero and Kilosa Districts, Tanzania," African Journal of Economic Review, African Journal of Economic Review, vol. 11(4), September.
    9. Aravindakshan, Sreejith & Krupnik, Timothy J. & Amjath-Babu, T.S. & Speelman, Stijn & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Tittonell, Pablo & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2021. "Quantifying farmers' preferences for cropping systems intensification: A choice experiment approach applied in coastal Bangladesh's risk prone farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    10. Moglia, Magnus & Alexander, Kim S. & Thephavanh, Manithaythip & Thammavong, Phomma & Sodahak, Viengkham & Khounsy, Bountom & Vorlasan, Sysavanh & Larson, Silva & Connell, John & Case, Peter, 2018. "A Bayesian network model to explore practice change by smallholder rice farmers in Lao PDR," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 84-94.
    11. Kim S. Alexander & Garry Greenhalgh & Magnus Moglia & Manithaythip Thephavanh & Phonevilay Sinavong & Silva Larson & Tom Jovanovic & Peter Case, 2020. "What is technology adoption? Exploring the agricultural research value chain for smallholder farmers in Lao PDR," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 17-32, March.
    12. Martha Swamila & Damas Philip & Adam Meshack Akyoo & Stefan Sieber & Mateete Bekunda & Anthony Anderson Kimaro, 2020. "Gliricidia Agroforestry Technology Adoption Potential in Selected Dryland Areas of Dodoma Region, Tanzania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    13. Christos Tzanidakis & Ouranios Tzamaloukas & Panagiotis Simitzis & Panagiotis Panagakis, 2023. "Precision Livestock Farming Applications (PLF) for Grazing Animals," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, January.
    14. Feuerbacher, Arndt & Laub, Moritz & Högy, Petra & Lippert, Christian & Pataczek, Lisa & Schindele, Stephan & Wieck, Christine & Zikeli, Sabine, 2021. "An analytical framework to estimate the economics and adoption potential of dual land-use systems: The case of agrivoltaics," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    15. Alfons Weersink & Murray Fulton, 2020. "Limits to Profit Maximization as a Guide to Behavior Change," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 67-79, March.
    16. Ran Sun & James Nolan & Suren Kulshreshtha, 2022. "Agent-based modeling of policy induced agri-environmental technology adoption," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(8), pages 1-26, August.
    17. David J. Pannell & Roger Claassen, 2020. "The Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 31-41, March.
    18. Ludemann, Cameron, 2022. "Estimated Annual Value of a Forage Cultivar Selection Decision Tool for New Zealand Sheep and Beef Farmers," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 19(1), April.
    19. Ballet, Jérôme & Bazin, Damien Jérôme Albert & Komena, Boniface K., 2020. "Unequal capabilities and natural resource management: The case of Côte d’Ivoire," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    20. Dominic White & Niven Winchester, 2023. "Logs or permits? Forestry land use decisions in an emissions trading scheme," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(4), pages 558-575, October.

    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:auagre:335276. 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: http://www.agrifood.info/review/ .

    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.