IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v86y2004i4p975-989.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Public Priorities for Experiment Station Research: Contingent Value and Public Preferences for Agricultural Research

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen K. Swallow
  • Marisa J. Mazzotta

Abstract

Laws concerning government accountability mandate that agencies weigh constituent interests in setting priorities. This study extends literature on the value of research by considering the public's stated preferences for scientist-effort allocated across an Agricultural Experiment Station's research portfolio. Over 75% of respondents expressed a willingness-to-pay exceeding $20 per household for allocations of at least 139 scientist-months. The mean household is willing to pay about $25 for a 25% increase in effort. Marginal analysis identifies topic areas where an additional scientist-month provides above- or below-average benefits. The distribution of effort across research topics significantly affects respondents' values. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen K. Swallow & Marisa J. Mazzotta, 2004. "Assessing Public Priorities for Experiment Station Research: Contingent Value and Public Preferences for Agricultural Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(4), pages 975-989.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:86:y:2004:i:4:p:975-989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00647.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dmitriy Volinskiy & Michele Veeman & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2011. "Allocation of public funds to R&D: a portfolio choice-styled decision model and a biotechnology case study," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 34(2), pages 121-139, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:ajagec:v:86:y:2004:i:4:p:975-989. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.