IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare14/165879.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Application of Multi-Commodity Partial Equilibrium Model to Quantify the Welfare Benefits of Research

Author

Listed:
  • Nedumaran, S.
  • Bantilan, Ma Cynthia S.
  • Mason-D'Croz, Daniel
  • Singh, Piara

Abstract

Most of the research evaluation and priority setting studies in the past are not likely to incorporate the cross-commodity effects in the estimation of welfare benefits since the cross-price elasticities are often unavailable and cross-commodity spillovers of technologies may be difficult to estimate. This paper also illustrates how the multi-commodity framework is suitable in addressing longer term trends in quantifying future welfare gains and their implications for resource allocation for dryland crops namely sorghum and groundnuts. To address these gaps, this paper will highlight the application of multi-commodity partial equilibrium model called International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) to estimate the welfare benefits of sorghum and groundnuts research. The modelling framework also integrates crop modelling suite, hydrology model, climate models and welfare analysis. This model will endogenously estimate the changes in the production, consumption and prices due to adoption of new productivity enhancing technologies and also estimate the changes in the other commodities demand, supply and prices through cross price elasticities effects. The returns to research investment for developing these promising cultivars and dissemination in the target countries were also estimated. The potential global net benefits derived from adoption of heat and drought tolerant cultivar in the target counties are about $302.39 million and $784.08 million with IRR of 30% and 41% respectively. The promising technology with combination of three traits (drought tolerance, heat tolerance and increased yield potential) will produce potential net benefits of $1.5 billion with IRR of 50%.

Suggested Citation

  • Nedumaran, S. & Bantilan, Ma Cynthia S. & Mason-D'Croz, Daniel & Singh, Piara, 2014. "Application of Multi-Commodity Partial Equilibrium Model to Quantify the Welfare Benefits of Research," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165879, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare14:165879
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.165879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/165879/files/Swamikannu%20CP.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.165879?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. Geoff W. Edwards & John W. Freebairn, 1984. "The Gains from Research into Tradable Commodities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(1), pages 41-49.
    2. Mackay, Ronald & Horton, Douglas, 2003. "Expanding the use of impact assessment and evaluation in agricultural research and development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 143-165, November.
    3. Davis, Jeffrey S. & Oram, Peter A. & Ryan, James G., 1987. "Assessment of Agricultural Research Priorities: An International Perspective," Monographs, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, number 118048.
    4. Renkow, Mitch & Byerlee, Derek, 2010. "The impacts of CGIAR research: A review of recent evidence," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 391-402, October.
    5. Richard Robertson & Gerald Nelson & Timothy Thomas & Mark Rosegrant, 2013. "Incorporating Process-Based Crop Simulation Models into Global Economic Analyses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 228-235.
    6. Maredia, Mywish K., 2009. "Improving the proof: Evolution of and emerging trends in impact assessment methods and approaches in agricultural development," IFPRI discussion papers 929, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Nikolaus Gotsch & Michael K. Wohlgenant, 2001. "A Welfare Analysis of Biological Technical Change under Different Supply Shift Assumptions: The Case of Cocoa in Malaysia," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 49(1), pages 87-104, March.
    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. Thornton, PK & Schuetz, T & Förch, W & Cramer, L & Abreu, D & Vermeulen, S & Campbell, BM, 2017. "Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 145-153.
    2. Kamanda, Josey & Birner, Regina & Bantilan, Cynthia, 2017. "The “efficient boundaries” of international agricultural research: A conceptual framework with empirical illustrations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 78-85.
    3. Nedumaran, S. & Bantilan, M.C.S. & Gupta, S.K. & Irshad, A. & Davis, J.S., 2015. "Potential Welfare Benefit of Millets Improvement Research to Inform Decision Making: Multi country- Economic Surplus model approach," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 230224, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Bradford F. Mills, 1998. "Ex Ante Research Evaluation and Regional Trade Flows: Maize in Kenya," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 393-408, September.
    5. Charyulu, D. Kumara & Shyam, D. Moses & Bantilan, Ma Cynthia S. & Nedumaran, S. & Davis, Jeff, 2014. "Unit Cost Reduction across Production Environments and Measurement of Welfare Changes," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165847, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Will Martin & Julian M. Alston, 1997. "Producer Surplus without Apology? Evaluating Investments in RD," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 73(221), pages 146-158, June.
    7. Michael Harris & Alan Lloyd, 1991. "The Returns to Agricultural Research and the Underinvestment Hypothesis ‐ A Survey," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 24(3), pages 16-27, July.
    8. Schweikhardt, David B. & Bonnen, James T., 1992. "Financing Agricultural Research in the Presence of International Benefit Spillovers: The Need for Institutional Coordination and Innovation," 1991 Conference, August 22-29, 1991, Tokyo, Japan 183359, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Griffith, G. R. & Vere, D. T. & Bootle, B. W., 1995. "An integrated approach to assessing the farm and market level impacts of new technology adoption in Australian lamb production and marketing systems: The case of large, lean lamb," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 175-198.
    10. Vere, David T. & Griffith, Garry R. & Bootle, B.W., 1992. "Assessing the Impacts of Production Technology Adoption in the Australian Prime Lamb Industry," 1992 Conference (36th), February 10-13, 1992, Canberra, Australia 147350, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Tsukada,Kazunari & Arimoto,Yutaka & Kojin,Emi & Mano,Yukichi & Lan Nguyen,Kim, 2023. "Cumulative Effects of Intensified Cropping Cycles: Triple Rice Cropping in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta," IDE Discussion Papers 899, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    12. Brennan, John P. & Bantilan, Ma Cynthia S., 1999. "Impact of ICRISAT Research on Australian Agriculture," Research Reports 28006, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Research Economists.
    13. Tun, Than & Kennedy, Adam & Nischan, Ulrike, 2015. "Promoting Agricultural Growth In Myanmar: A Review Of Policies And An Assessment Of Knowledge Gaps," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 259018, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    14. Ashok, K.R. & Giuliani, A. & Thilagavathi, M. & Raj, S.V. & Ramamoorthy R. & Devi M. & Sanjeevikumar A., 2017. "Trait Valuation in Genetically Modified Crops: An ex-ante Analysis of GM Cassava 223 against Cassava Mosaic Disease," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 30(2).
    15. Kym Anderson, 2023. "Loss of preferential access to the protected EU sugar market: Fiji's response," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(3), pages 480-499, July.
    16. Kelley, T. G. & Ryan, J. G. & Patel, B. K., 1995. "Applied participatory priority setting in international agricultural research: Making trade-offs transparent and explicit," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 177-216.
    17. Mekonnen, D. & Spielman, D., 2018. "Changing patterns in the international movement of crop genetic material: An analysis of global policy drivers and potential consequences," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277432, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Lunduka, Rodney & Fisher, Monica & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2012. "Could farmer interest in a diversity of seed attributes explain adoption plateaus for modern maize varieties in Malawi?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 504-510.
    19. McVey, Marty Jay, 1996. "Valuing quality differentiated grains from a total logistics perspective," ISU General Staff Papers 1996010108000012326, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Tomich, Thomas P. & Lidder, Preetmoninder & Coley, Mariah & Gollin, Douglas & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Webb, Patrick & Carberry, Peter, 2019. "Food and agricultural innovation pathways for prosperity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 1-15.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Financial Economics; Political Economy;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aare14:165879. 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/aaresea.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.