IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/apecpp/v46y2024i1p76-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The distribution of competitive research grants from the National Institute for Food and Agriculture: A comparison of 1862 land grant universities, 1890 land grant universities, and other institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Norbert L. W. Wilson
  • Lurleen M. Walters
  • Tara Wade
  • Kenesha Reynolds

Abstract

This article evaluates the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) competitive grant funding awarded to predominately White 1862 land grant institutions (LGUs), historically Black 1890 LGUs, and non‐land grant institutions. We present the historical distribution of funding for agricultural research. Much of the inquiry centers on the differential funding of the 1862 LGUs, 1890 LGUs, and non‐land grant institutions. We discuss the implications for academic and community stakeholders. Results show that, on average, 1890 LGUs and non‐land grant institutions receive less competitive grant funding than 1862 LGUs for the same award programs. We show that the disparity falls from 2010 to 2019.

Suggested Citation

  • Norbert L. W. Wilson & Lurleen M. Walters & Tara Wade & Kenesha Reynolds, 2024. "The distribution of competitive research grants from the National Institute for Food and Agriculture: A comparison of 1862 land grant universities, 1890 land grant universities, and other institutions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(1), pages 76-94, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:apecpp:v:46:y:2024:i:1:p:76-94
    DOI: 10.1002/aepp.13413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13413
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/aepp.13413?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. Donna K Ginther & Jodi Basner & Unni Jensen & Joshua Schnell & Raynard Kington & Walter T Schaffer, 2018. "Publications as predictors of racial and ethnic differences in NIH research awards," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, November.
    2. Huffman, Wallace E. & Norton, George W. & Traxler, Greg & Frisvold, George B. & Foltz, Jeremy D., 2006. "Winners and Losers: Formula versus Competitive Funding of Agricultural Research," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 21(4), pages 1-6.
    3. Wallace E. Huffman & Robert E. Evenson, 2006. "Do Formula or Competitive Grant Funds Have Greater Impacts on State Agricultural Productivity?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 783-798.
    4. Ayoubi, Charles & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2019. "The important thing is not to win, it is to take part: What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 84-97.
    5. James F. Oehmke, 2017. "Re‐Examining the Reported Rates of Return to Food and Agricultural Research and Development: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 99(3), pages 818-826, April.
    6. James F. Oehmke, 2017. "Re-Examining the Reported Rates of Return to Food and Agricultural Research and Development: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 818-826.
    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. Andersen, Matthew A., 2019. "Knowledge productivity and the returns to agricultural research: a review," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    2. Xudong Rao & Terrance M. Hurley & Philip G. Pardey, 2020. "Recalibrating the reported returns to agricultural R&D: what if we all heeded Griliches?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 977-1001, July.
    3. Esposti, Roberto & Materia, Valentina, 2015. "The determinants of the public R&D cofinancing rate An empirical assessment on agricultural research," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211624, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Sparger, John Adam & Norton, George W. & Heisey, Paul W. & Alwang, Jeffrey, 2013. "Is the share of agricultural maintenance research rising in the United States?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 126-135.
    5. Hren, Darko & Pina, David G. & Norman, Christopher R. & Marušić, Ana, 2022. "What makes or breaks competitive research proposals? A mixed-methods analysis of research grant evaluation reports," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    6. Beghin, John C. & Jensen, Helen H., 2008. "Farm policies and added sugars in US diets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 480-488, December.
    7. Marc T. Law & Joseph M. Tonon & Gary J. Miller, 2008. "Earmarked: The Political Economy of Agricultural Research Appropriations," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 194-213.
    8. Sarah Shandera & Jes L Matsick & David R Hunter & Louis Leblond, 2021. "RASE: Modeling cumulative disadvantage due to marginalized group status in academia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-20, December.
    9. Jin, Yu & Huffman, Wallace E., 2013. "Reduced U.S. Funding of Public Agricultural Research and Extension Risks Lowering Future Agricultural Productivity Growth Prospects," Staff General Research Papers Archive 36796, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. repec:ags:phajad:199094 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    12. Yu Jin & Wallace E. Huffman, 2016. "Measuring public agricultural research and extension and estimating their impacts on agricultural productivity: new insights from U.S. evidence," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 15-31, January.
    13. Basheer Kalash & Sarah Guillou & Lionel Nesta & Michele Pezzoni, 2024. "Does Lab Funding Matter for the Technological Application of Scientific Research? An Empirical Analysis of French Labs," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 153, pages 39-76.
    14. Jacqueline N. Lane & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaule & Eva Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2021. "Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1215-1244, June.
    15. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    16. Kyle R. Myers, 2022. "Some Tradeoffs of Competition in Grant Contests," Papers 2207.02379, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    17. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    18. Alejandro Plastina & Lilyan Fulginiti, 2012. "Rates of return to public agricultural research in 48 US states," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 95-113, April.
    19. Yeboah Asuamah, Samuel, 2016. "Modelling the Effect of Investment on Agricultural Productivity in Ghana," MPRA Paper 70606, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Ghose, Arpita & Bhattacharyya, Debjani, 2011. "Total Factor Productivity Growth and its Determinants for West Bengal Agriculture," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 8(01), pages 1-18, June.
    21. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.

    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:wly:apecpp:v:46:y:2024:i:1:p:76-94. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2040-5804 .

    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.