January 5, 2000
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
by Robert E. Evenson
Robert E. Evenson is Professor of Economics and Director of the Economic Growth Center, Yale
University
Abstract: Agricultural research and extension programs have been built in most of the world=s
economies. A substantial number of economic impact studies evaluating the contributions of research
and extension program to increased farm productivity and farm incomes and to consumer welfare have
been undertaken in recent years. This chapter reviews these studies using estimated rates of return on
investment to index economic impacts. In almost all categories of studies, median (social) estimated
rates of return are high, (often exceeding 40 percent) but the range of estimates was also high. The
chapter concludes that most of the estimates were consistent with actual economic growth experiences.
Chapter for Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Bruce L. Gardner and Gordon C. Rausser. eds., to be
published by Elsevier Science.
Corresponding Author Information:
Robert E. Evenson
Economic Growth Center
P. O. Box 208269
27 Hillhouse Avenue
New Haven, CT 06520-8269
Phone: 203-432-3626
Fax: 203-432-5591
robert.evenson@yale.edu
Acknowledgments: Constructive comments from Bruce Gardner, Wallace Huffman, Jock Anderson,
Terry Roe, Yoav Kislev and Vernon Ruttan are acknowledged.
2
Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research and Extension
R. E. Evenson
Yale University
(January 5, 2000)
I.
Introduction
Agricultural research is conducted both by private sector firms supplying inputs to farm producers
and by public sector experiment stations, universities and other research organizations. In the United States,
agricultural research has been treated as a public sector responsibility for much of the nation=s history. The
U.S. Patent Office, one of the oldest government agencies in the U.S., recognizing that intellectual property
right (patent) incentives were not available to stimulate the development of improved plants and animals in
the 19th century, initiated programs to search for and import seeds and breeding animals from abroad.1 After
the establishment of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Land Grant Colleges in
1862, the Hatch Act in 1878 provided for financial support for the State Agricultural Experiment Station
system (SAES). Agricultural research in the public sector today is conducted in both USDA and SAES
organizations and to a limited extent in general universities. Agricultural extension is also conducted by
private sector firms and by public sector extension programs. Formal extension program development
occurred somewhat later in the U.S. than was the case for research.2
1 Huffman and Evenson (1993) discuss the development of the U.S. research and extension system and the
early role of the patent office.
2 The Capper-Volstead Act of 1914 provided for formal extension services, but as with research programs,
official government sanction and support for these programs came only after state and private experiments with precursor
programs were deemed to be successful.
3
The development of agricultural research and extension programs in the U.S. occurred at roughly the
same time that similar programs were being developed in Europe. By the beginning of the twentieth
century, most of today=s developed countries had agricultural research systems in place. By the middle of
the twentieth century many of today=s developing countries had agricultural research and extension systems
as well.3 The perceived success of both research and extension programs in the first half of the 20th century
led to the judgment that these programs should be central components in the large-scale economic
development programs ushered in after World War II.
Institutional, Analytic and Methodology Issues (for Ex Post Studies)
Today, a complex system of International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs), National
Agricultural Research programs (NARs) and sub-national or regional programs has been built covering most
of the globe. Similarly, extension programs have been developed in most countries. These programs are
under various forms of review and evaluation, as is appropriate given their perceived importance as public
sector investments. Some of these evaluations are administrative or financial, others are informal ?peer@
reviews and ratings. Some reviews are economic impact evaluations, and these are the concern of this
paper.
Economic impact evaluations differ from other evaluations in that they associate economic benefits
produced by a program and associate these benefits with the economic costs of the program. This means
computing a benefit/cost ratio and/or other associated economic calculation, such as the present value of
benefits net of costs, or internal rates of return to investment.4 Many evaluations, such as the ?monitoring
and evaluation@ activities associated with World Bank research and extension projects, provide indicators of
3 See Boyce and Evenson (1975), Judd, Boyce and Evenson (1986), and Pardey and Roseboom (1993) for
international reviews of investment in research and extension.
4 Many of these evaluations also undertake growth accounting. In addition to the literature reviewed here, a “grey”
literature exists. Alston, et. al. (1999) report a meta-analysis of rates of return that includes more of the grey literature
than reviewed here. Unfortunately , a comparison of studies covered cannot be made as the authors stated that data from
4
benefits (such as the number of beneficiaries) or of project outputs (farmers visited, experiments completed,
etc.) , but do not calculate actual value measures of benefits and costs. These evaluations are important and
useful, but are not economic impact evaluations as defined here.
IFPRI studies will not be released until after publication of the report.
5
Economic impact evaluations are intended to measure whether a project or program actually had (or
is expected to have) an economic impact and to associate impacts with project or program costs. They do
not measure whether the project or program was designed optimally or managed and executed optimally.
Many extension and research projects and programs have had significant economic impacts even though
they were not as productive as they might have been.5 Project/program design and execution issues are
informed by economic impact studies, but also require other types of evaluation. Economic evaluations,
however, address basic investment and resource allocation issues that other evaluations do not address.
Economic impact evaluations can be classified into ex ante evaluations (undertaken before the
project or program is initiated) and ex post evaluations (undertaken after the project is initiated, sometimes
after it is completed). In practice, ex ante project evaluations are used by international aid agencies and to
some degree by national agencies to guide investments at the project level. These evaluations are seldom
reported in published form. They are also seldom compared with subsequent ex post evaluations.6
5Economic impact studies are often downgraded as measures of investment effectiveness because they do
not directly address project/program efficiency. The recent World Bank Operations Evaluation Department (OED)
Review of Agricultural Extension and Research (Purcell and Anderson, 1997) reflects this perspective. It is critical
of returns to research studies because they do not address project effectiveness. Given the World Bank’s use of ex
ante project evaluation methods (stressing economic impact indicators) the OED perspective on economic impact
studies is puzzling.
6Ex ante economic calculations can be found in project reports of the World Bank and the regional
development banks (the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank). As noted, however,
little ex ante-ex post work is done.
6
The organization of this chapter is as follows: In Part II a brief review of institutional and analytic
models of extension and research impacts is presented. Some of these models have implications for the
empirical specifications surveyed in later sections. Part III reviews ex post studies of extension impacts. A
number of these studies were based on farm-level observations and methodological issues associated with
these studies are addressed. Part IV reviews ex post studies of applied agricultural research impacts. Part V
reviews studies of R&D spillovers (to the agricultural sector from private sector research and development
R&D) and Agermplasmic@ spillovers from pre-invention science. Part VI reviews ex ante studies. The
concluding section addresses the “credibility” of the estimates and consistency of estimated rates of return
with actual growth experience.7
II. Institutional, Analytic, and Methodology Issues (For Ex Post Studies)
Extension programs seek two general objectives. The first is to provide technical education services
to farmers through demonstrations, lectures, contact farmers and other media. The second is to function in
an interactive fashion with the suppliers of new technology, by providing demand feedback to technology
suppliers and technical information to farmers to enable them to better evaluate potentially useful new
technology and ultimately to adopt (and adapt) new technology in their production systems.
Applied agricultural research programs in both the public and private sectors seek to invent new
technology for specific client or market groups. The market for agricultural inventions is highly
differentiated because the actual economic value of inventions is sensitive to soil, climate, price,
infrastructure, and institutional settings. Models of invention typically specify a distribution of potential
7There appears to be considerable skepticism regarding estimated rates of return (Ruttan, 1998). They are
widely perceived to be overestimated. This is true even though the economic impacts for other projects such as rural
credit programs, rural development programs, and rural infrastructure programs (roads, etc) are typically less
thoroughly documented or are apparently relatively low. A recent paper (Alston et al. 1998) reporting low rates of
return proclaims that appropriate time lag estimation techniques results in low returns to research and extension.
Serious flaws in this paper are noted later in this review (footnote 22), but the fact that it has attracted attention
attests to skepticism. This issue of skepticism is revisited in the growth accounting section of the paper where it is
shown that most high rates of return to research and extension are consistent with growth experience.
7
inventions whose parameters are determined by the stock of past inventions and invention methods or
techniques (i.e. the technology of technology production). This feature of invention calls for specifying two
types of spillovers: (1) invention-to-invention spillovers (which are often spatial), and (2) science (or pre-
invention science)-to-invention spillovers.
The studies reviewed here are empirical and most entail direct statistical estimation of coefficients
for variables that measure the economic impacts of extension, applied research, or pre-invention science
?services.@ All require some form of production framework. In this section alternative production
frameworks are first briefly reviewed. Then a simple characterization of technological infrastructure is
presented and related to extension and research programs. A more formal model of research and extension
interactions is then presented. Finally, methodological issues associated with the specification of research
and extension variables are discussed.
A. Production Frameworks
The starting point of economic impact studies is a productivity-technology specification. Consider
the general specification of a “meta-transformation function”:
G (Y, X, F, C, E, T, I, S) = O
(1)
where Y is a vector of outputs
X is a vector of variable factors
F is a vector of fixed factors
C is a vector of climate factors
E is a vector of edaphic or soil quality factors
T is a vector of technology (inventions)
I is a vector of market infrastructure
S is a vector of farmer skills
8
There are several empirical options to identify economic impacts of a change in T (extension and
research services) based on this expression. All entail meaningfully defining measures or proxies for T (as
well as measuring Y, X, F, C, E, I, and S accurately).
The empirical options are:
a)
To convert (1) to an aggregate “meta-production function” (MPF) by aggregating
commodities into a single output measure:
YA = F (X, F, C, E, T, I, S)
(2)
and estimating (2) with farm-level or aggregated cross-section and/or time series data.
b)
To derive the output supply-factor demand system from the maximized profits function (or
minimized cost function) via the Shephard-Hotelling lemma and estimate the profit function
and/or its derivative output supply and factor demand functions. (This is the cost (CF) or
profits (PF) production structure.)
π* = π (Py, Px, C, E, T, I, S)
(3)
Mπ*/MPy = Y* = Y (Py, Px, C, E, T, I, S)
Mπ*/MPx = X* = X (Py, Px, C, E, T, I, S)
c)
To derive “residual” total factor productivity (TFP) indexes from (1) and utilize a TFP
decomposition specification (the PD production structure):
Y/X = TFP = T (C, E, T, I, S)
(4)
d)
To derive partial factor productivity (PFP) indexes from (1) and utilize a PFP decomposition
specification (the PD(Y) production structure):
PFP (Y/Ha, Y/L etc.) = P (C, E, T, I, S)
(5)
Each of these options has been pursued in the studies reviewed in this paper. Methods for estimation
or measuring the relationship between T, the technology variables and the economic variables, have
included direct statistical estimation of (2), (3), (4), or (5), and non-statistical use of experimental and other
9
evidence. The options themselves have different implications and interpretations as well as having
functional form implications for estimation.
The aggregate production function structure is often estimated with farm data. It requires that
variable inputs, X, be treated as exogenous to the decision maker. It is typically argued in these studies that
observed X vectors are profit-maximizing vectors and that these are functions of exogenous prices and fixed
factors (as in (3)). This is a strong assumption in many settings. (From (2) one can compute the partial
effect of T on Y, i.e., MY/MT, holding X constant, but one cannot compute the total effect of T on Y( MX/MT
cannot be computed).
One of the problems with any statistical method is that one must have meaningful variation in the T
variables to identify their effects. This often means resorting to data with broad geographic or time series
dimensions. Such data are sometimes poorly suited to estimating production parameters. The TFP
decomposition specification often has an advantage in these situations because production parameters are
implicit in the TFP computations based on prices. With reasonable price data, TFP indexes can be
computed over time and in some situations over cross-sections.8 This may allow better estimates of T
effects on productivity, M(Y/X)/MT.
The richest specification is the duality-based specification, (3). It has the advantage that independent
variables are exogenous and it allows estimates of T impacts on all endogenous variables in the system.9
8Approximations to a Divisia index (Tornqist/Theil) are generally regarded to be the appropriate TFP
calculation method. Some growth accounting adjustments to inputs can affect the estimates of T parameters in (4).
For example, adjustments for capital stock quality may effectively remove some of the contributions of research
from the TFP measure. Many studies adjust for labor quality using schooling data. This, of course, eliminates the
possibility for estimating schooling effects in (4), but it may improve prospects for estimating T effects because
schooling S can be dropped from (4).
9This specification is also the most demanding of data.
10
The partial productivity framework suffers from the obvious fact that these measures are affected by
other factors not included in the denominator. Nonetheless, given widely available yield and area data,
some useful studies can be undertaken in this framework.
B. Technological Infrastructure and Institutions
Agricultural extension and research programs contribute to economic growth in an interactive way.
The contribution of each depends on the developmental stage of the economy. Both are subject to
diminishing returns. To aid in clarifying these points, consider Figure 1. Here, five different stages or
levels of technology infrastructure are considered. For each, a set of yield levels is depicted for a typical
crop. These yield levels should be considered to be standardized for fertilizer, water, labor, and other factor
levels.
Four yield levels are depicted. The first is the actual yield (A) realized on the average farmer=s
fields. The second is the ?best practice@ yield (BP) which can be realized using the best available
technology. It is possible that some farmers obtain best practice yields but the average farmer does not. The
third yield level is the ?research potential@ (RP) yield, i.e., it is the hypothetical best practice yield that
would be expected to be attained as a result of a successful applied research program directed toward this
crop. The fourth is the ?science potential@ (SP) yield. This is also a hypothetical yield. It is the research
potential yield attainable if new scientific discoveries (e.g., in biotechnology) are made and utilized in an
applied research program.
Associated with these yields we can define three ?gaps.@ The ?extension gap@ is the difference
between best practice (BP) and average (A) yields. Extension programs are designed to close this gap. The
?research gap@ is the difference between research potential (RP) yields and best practice (BP) yields.
Applied research programs, if successful, will close this gap (and will thus open up the extension gap).
Similarly, a ?science gap@ exists between science potential (SP) and research potential (RP) yields.
11
Consider technology infrastructure stage I. This is a stage where little extension, research or science
is being undertaken. Farmer schooling levels are low, markets are poor and infrastructure lacking.10 The
extension gap is large in this stage and thus there is considerable scope for a high payoff to extension, even
if there are few effective research programs that are raising best practice yields. After extension programs
have achieved a transition to stage II, the extension gap will have been reduced to some fraction of its
original size (EXTGAP 1). The gains from reducing the original gap (EXTGAP 2) may be quite large and
they are ?permanent@ in the sense that they are long-term gains that could not have been produced by other
programs (at least not in a short time period).
10Many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa fit this description.
Once an economy achieves stage II, it has exploited EXTGAP 2. There is further scope for
extension contributions but they are not what they were in stage I (EXTGAP 1). In fact, the economy now
becomes dependent on the closing of the research gap to open up the extension gap. As the economy is
transformed from stage II to stage III a direct link between research and extension is forged. Extension
programs now become responsible for extending relatively newly developed technology to farmers.
When pre-invention science becomes more effective, the research potential yield (RP) is raised and
with active research and extension programs the economy may move into stage IV. Further progress, i.e., to
stage V and beyond, depends on effective pre-invention science, research and extension programming.
Consider the situation in Africa and Asia. It appears that much of Africa has not made the transition
yet to stage II and there is limited evidence that it has achieved a transition to stage III where research
systems are producing significant flows of new technology suited to farmers in most regions. This is in
contrast to the situation in both South and Southeast Asia where by the mid-1960s many economies were
already in stage II and where Agreen revolution@ technology in rice, wheat, corn, and other crops has enabled
12
them to make the transition to stage III. Today in some Asian countries, there are prospects for moving to
stage IV.
It is possible that spill-ins from abroad can raise best practice yields before economies have made the
transition to stage II. Most research gains , however, have been realized in economies that have already
achieved stage II market, infrastructure and skill levels. In some cases this has been induced by the
development (often in international centers) of genetic resources and methods that increase the RP yield
levels. In Africa these RP yield levels for some countries may be quite low because of limited genetic
resources and difficult disease and insect problems, so that the research gap is actually quite small. If this is
the case, ?stimulus from above@ in the form of improvements in science (closing of the science gap) may be
required to achieve better research performance.
C. Formal Models
The economics literature includes models of technology diffusion, of invention and of growth. In
practice, these literatures are not well integrated. Technology diffusion (adoption) models typically consider
technology to have already been produced and address the mechanisms of diffusion C usually employing a
logistic or sigmoid functional form. Models of invention do integrate research and extension activities and
are probably most useful for providing structure for the activities discussed in an informal way in Figure 1.
The ?new endogenous growth@ literature has some insights to offer as regards R&D and invention but does
not effectively integrate the invention model perspective into formal growth models.11
As noted earlier, extension programs are designed to (a) provide general technical adult education
services and (b) to facilitate the evaluation and adoption of recently developed technology. The technology
diffusion literature specifies a logistic form for the adoption of technology:
Ti
* = 1 / (1 B exp(a + bt + cEXT)
(6)
11The models of Romer (1986, 1990) provide a serious treatment of invention but do not effectively address
spillovers.
This functional form is relevant to adoption studies (the second function of extension) but not
necessarily to studies where the first function of extension is important.12
Invention models can be combined with diffusion specifications, but typically are not. Consider an
invention discovery model based on a simple random search model. For a given distribution of potential
inventions the probability of making an invention for the n th draw from any distribution is 1/n. An
invention must have a higher quality index (eg. The yield of a plant variety) than previous discovered
inventions. The expected cumulative number of inventions from n experiments (or draws) in a given
distribution is:
Install Equation Editor and double-
click here to view equation.
1/i
(7)
Install Equation Editor and double-
click here to view equation.
13
12This is usually estimated by taking logarithms (Feder et al. 1985).
This expression for research discoveries was first derived by Evenson and Kislev (1976) for an exponential
distribution of potential inventions. Kortum (1994) generalized this expression for any search distribution.13
Expression (7) relates inventions (I) to research (n). Empirical work relating research to productivity
requires the further step of relating inventions to productivity. Kortum (1994) derives the standard
relationship between research and productivity used in industrial studies
Install Equation Editor and double-
click here to view equation.
(8)
where RESS is the cumulated research stock (net of depreciation).14
Since empirical studies are undertaken using data where extension services are not constant and
where the underlying parameters of applied invention search are also not constant, the empirical
specification should be extended to include extension variables and pre-invention research variables.
Extension has two effects on productivity. Most importantly, it speeds up the rate of adoption of
inventions by farmers. This role is subject to diminishing returns in a manner similar to invention, calling
for a Rn (EXT) term. However, extension can influence inventions as well. It can facilitate inventions by
conveying farmer evaluation signals to inventors more rapidly. It can also help inventors to identify
unpromising search avenues and this changes the parameters of the underlying invention search distribution.
This argues for a Rn (EXT) x Rn (RESS) term.
Rn (TFP) = a + b Rn (RESS) + c Rn (EXT) + d Rn (RESS) Rn(EXT)
(9)
14
13This semi-logarithmic approximation is accurate when n is large.
14Evenson and Kislev (1976) utilized an exponential distribution of potential inventions. They showed that
the logarithmic approximation held for this distribution as well.
15
Pre-invention science is designed to change the parameters of the underlying search distribution as
well. These discoveries may shift the mean of the underlying search distribution leading to an added term
for pre-invention science.
Rn (TFP) = a + b Rn (RESS) + c Rn (EXT) + d Rn (RESS) Rn(EXT) + e Rn (PRINV) (10)
Pre-invention science may also shift the variance of the underlying distribution as well calling for an
added interaction term in TFP decomposition specifications.
Rn (TFP) = a + b Rn (RESS) + c Rn (EXT) + d Rn (RESS) Rn(EXT) + e Rn (PRINV) +
f Rn (PRINV) Rn (RESS)
(11)
Few of the studies reviewed below were motivated by the model described here. It does, however,
have some functional form implications, and while they were generally not imposed or even recognized in
reported studies, the interpretative insights of the model will be useful in discussing the findings of the
studies.15
D. Specifying Research and Extension Variables in Empirical Studies
Most of the studies reviewed in subsequent sections utilized a statistical specification of one of the
production frameworks discussed above. This requires the development of research and extension variables
that are appropriate to the unit of observation. These variables are conceptually similar to capital stock
variables that measure capital service flows to the unit of observation. The observation may be a farm or an
aggregate of farms. Production or productivity may be measured in level form or in rate-of-change form.
The observation is typically for a given location and period.
15Note that this model is not a simple “linear model of science” where PRINV recharges the invention pool
and inventions determine the productivity of extension. Extension and research have “upstream” effects. However,
the idea of exhaustion of invention pools, or of attempting to invent when the pool has not really been created , is
relevant to research policy making.
16
Research and extension service flow variables then need to consider time weight, spatial weight and
deflator issues.
1. Time weights
Research and extension programs have economic impacts that typically last for more than one
period. Accordingly, the services provided by these programs to a given location in a given period may be
based on research and extension activities undertaken in prior periods.
Figure 2 depicts alternative extension and research “time shapes.” Consider the extension weights
(Figure 2a). Two cases for the effects of extension activity in time t0 on technology adoption patterns are
depicted. In case 1, applicable to advanced technology infrastructure levels (see Figure 1), good substitutes
for extension activities exist. Accordingly, productive technology will eventually be fully adopted in the
absence of the extension program. The technology will be adopted earlier, given the presence of an
extension program.
In case 2, applicable to low levels of technological infrastructure (e.g. , stage 1, Figure 1) good
substitutes for extension programs do not exist. In this case, productive technology may not be fully
adopted in the absence of extension programs. Extension then has both a speeding-up effect and a level
effect.16
The “time-shape” weights associated with these two extension cases will depend on the production
framework used. If the dependent variable is the level of production or of partial productivity, the time
weights are as depicted in panels 1.1 and 2.1. For case 1, extension activity conducted prior to period t-ta is
not relevant to the observation. For case 2 all prior extension may be relevant.
When the dependent variable is a rate of change as in a first difference or a change in a TFP index,
the time weights are as depicted in panels 1.2 and 2.2. Note that in panel 1.1 there are negative weights for
16The level effect can be seen as exploiting EXTGAP 2.
17
extension in some prior periods. This illustrates the fact that when extension has merely a speeding-up
effect it does not actually have a net effect on the growth in production or productivity. For case 2 it does
have an effect on the level of production and on growth.
Many of the studies reviewed here utilized a total factor productivity (TFP) decomposition
framework where production data were first used to compute a TFP index. Then in a second stage this TFP
measure is regressed on research and extension variables. Often the TFP measure is set at some level (1 or
100) in the base period (tb) and then annual changes are “cumulated” in future periods. For this case the
time shape weights are as depicted in panels 1.2 and 2.2 for the period tb+1 B tb and cumulated for subsequent
periods. This produces a time shape similar to the shape depicted in panels 1.1 and 1.2 except that there is a
cut-off in past activities associated with the date tb.17
Research service time shape weights are also depicted for two cases (Figure 2b). In case 1 research
activity in t0 has future impacts that are depicted in three segments:18
segment a from t0 to ta in which no impact is realized
segment b for ta to tb in which a rising impact is realized
segment c from t0 to 4 in which the effect is constant
17That is, activities that affected only the base period and prior periods are inappropriate in the
specifications because they only affect the constant term.
18Note that these segments are not arbitrary. Research programs do not produce immediate impacts. Their
contributions rise to a peak after several periods. Utilizing a distributed log specification that does not recognize this
logic can give very misleading estimates of the log structure.
18
In case 1, research service impacts (in the form of inventions adopted) do not “depreciate.” They
may become obsolete (i.e. replaced by improved inventions), but the improved inventions “build on” the
inventions they displace. Thus the original inventions “live on” as part of the inventions that displace them.
In research case 2 real depreciation of inventions takes place as depicted in the segment d. This may
be due to such factors as pest and pathogen responses to host plant resistance breeding improvements, or to
incomplete “building on”. After some point (segment e) research activity at t0 will be “buried” in future
productivity levels.19 This is reflected in the time weight panels 2.1 and 2.2. As with extension, when the
production structure is in rate of change form, the time shapes are quite different (panels 2.1 and 2.2). When
cumulated TFP measures are used there is a cut-off on early research that is buried (segment c in case 1 or e
in case 2) before tb the beginning date of the TFP series. It is not appropriate to include this research (or
extension) in the estimation.
Strategies for estimating time weights include:
a)
“free form” estimates obtained by including a number of lagged research and/or extension
variables.
b)
“segment length” estimates obtained by constructing alternative lengths of the segments
depicted in Figures 2a and 2b and undertaking an iterative search over segment lengths to
minimize mean square error (a form of non-linear least squares estimation, (Evenson, 1968)).
c)
“distributed lag” estimates obtained by imposing a functional form on the time shape — such
as a Nerlovian exponentially declining structure as a quadratic or other form.
Free form lag estimates are generally not very satisfactory because with high multicollinearity
between lagged research variables, coefficients tend to oscillate between positive and negative values and
only make sense when smoothed.
19The contribution is buried in the sense that its contribution is no longer affecting current inventions or
improvements even though the original invention may have been quite important.
19
Distributed lag estimates can impose very strong structure on time shapes, especially when improper
or redundant (buried) lagged research is included in rate of change specifications.20
20If buried research activities are included in a free form estimation specification they are essentially
redundant variables. If they are included in a distributed lag specification with a polynomial or other form they can
have a significant effect on time weight estimates. A recent paper Alston et al. (1997) claims that when
“appropriate” estimation techniques are used, rates of return to research and extension are actually quite low. Their
specification amalgamates research and extension time weights and includes buried activities in activities that do not
contribute to TFP growth after 1950. Their free form estimates of lag weights show high rates of return. Imposing a
polynomial specification with the buried activities down-weights more recent lags. This results in a substantial
downward bias in rate of return estimates.
20
The segment length method, while crude, does allow flexibility in segment lengths while imposing
reasonable shape weights for segments. (It is plausible that some form of non-parametric estimates would
be an improvement.)21
2. Location spill-ins C spatial weights
Research and extension services have locational spill-overs. A geographic unit of observation is
likely to receive services (spill-in) from activities located outside its geographic boundaries. These must be
considered in developing research and extension variables.
Extension variables are perhaps easiest to deal with. Most extension services have a multi-level
structure. Field staff are typically assigned to a region and to a set of client farms. Supervisory staff and
subject matter specialists are typically assigned to cover more than one field staff unit. Field staff services
from one region typically do not flow or “spill-in” to other regions. However, subject matter specialist
services probably do. This problem for extension is generally dealt with in the context of defining
“extension services supplied” variables (see Part III).22
21The segment length method entails systematically searching for the segment length combination that
minimizes means square error.
22Fixed effects estimations where spatial dummy variables are incorporated into the specification can have
important effects on spill-in. For example, in two recent World Bank studies of Training and Visit (T&V) extension
in Kenya fixed effects in the form of District dummy variables altered the results. In the original study Bindlish and
Evenson (1994) argued that using District dummy variables would essentially eliminate most of the relevant cross-
section variations for the farms in the seven District study. District dummies do not allow for “between district”
variation. If there are substantial within-district spillovers from the subject-matter specialist and supervisory
structure of the T&V system, within -district variation in staffing levels will capture little of the real differences in
extension service. In later work Gautam and Anderson (1998) show that including District dummy variables does
21
eliminate much of the correlation between extension services and farm productivity.
For research variables the problem of spatial weights is more serious, especially as many research
studies utilize repeated cross-section observations. These observations must be appropriately matched with
the locations where applied research is conducted. Most large national research systems are organized by
political region (e.g. the state system in the U.S.) and thus each research center can often be associated with
a region. However, units of observation in one region (state) may benefit from research done in another
region even when they are not the clients of the other region. They may benefit in two ways:
1)
Farmers may directly adopt inventions made in and for the other region, and
2)
Researchers in the region may experience enhanced research productivity because of
inventions made in the other region. (See (11) and (12) where b could be changed by inventions made in the
other regions.)
Spatial spill-in has been handled in three ways in the studies reviewed. Many studies have either
ignored the issue or implicitly argued that spill-ins are roughly offset by spill-outs. A number of studies
have utilized geo-climate region data to specify spillovers. A small number have defined spill-over barrier
measures and used these to specify spillovers.
The geo-climate region methodology is similar to the segment length estimation for time weights.
Evenson (1969), Evenson and Welch (1980) and Huffman and Evenson (1993) utilized geo-climate region
and sub-region data to define the research stocks for a unit of observation i as:
Install Equation Editor and double-
click here to view equation.
(15)
where the spatial weights (Sij) measured the relative importance of the neighboring research locations to
region i. Searches over Sij weights have also been combined with searches over time segment weights.23
22
23This procedure is used in Huffman and Evenson (1993).
The use of spillover barrier indexes in a few studies suggests that these are a convenient means for
estimating spatial weights over a number of locations. The spillover barrier between two locations i and j is
defined as:
SPBij = 1 B Cij/Cii
(16)
where Cii is the minimum cost of producing the good in location i using the best (cost-minimizing)
technology available to location i and Cij is the minimum cost of producing the good in region i when
producers are constrained to use location j’s minimum cost technology.
Crop yield trial data, where a common set of cultivars are planted in different locations, enable one
to actually measure SPBij by comparing yields in location i of the highest yielding cultivar in location i with
the yield in location i of location j’s highest yielding cultivar.24 The actual spill-in variable can then be
estimated as:
Install Equation Editor and double-
click here to view equation.
(17)
where α can be estimated by non-linear techniques.25
3.
Deflators
Deflators are needed for extension service variables for two purposes:
1)
To put financial data (expenditures) into constant currency units, and
2)
To account for farm contact heterogeneity.
The typical extension deflator is the number of farms or of areas served (see Part III).
Deflators for research variables are also required to put financial data into constant currency units
and to correct for diversity not captured by spillover measures (see Part IV).
24Evenson (1998) developed SPB indexes using international yield trial data for rice and applied then to
spillover estimates in India. da Cruz and Evenson (1997) use similar procedures for Brazil.
25An alternative way to scale the SPB weights is SPBij
αBγ. This can also be estimated with non-linear
techniques.
23
24
III. Studies of Agricultural Extension Impacts
Studies of agricultural extension impacts can be grouped into three categories:
A. Studies based on farm level (cross-section) observations where extension services vary by
observation but where it is presumed that research services do not vary by observation (Tables 1 and 2).
B. Studies based on aggregated farm production data (e.g. a district, country or state) usually in a
cross-section framework, where both extension and applied research services are specified to vary by
observation (and where research variables are included along with extension variables) (Table 3).
C. Studies based on aggregated farm data (usually repeated cross-section) where for reasons of data
availability a variable measuring the combined services of research and extension is constructed (Table 4).
In this part, studies of the first two categories are reviewed. Discussion of the studies using a
combined research-extension variable is deferred to Part IV where research variables are discussed in more
depth.
Cross-section studies based on farm-level observations where research services can be considered to
be constant over observations and where extension services vary should offer a good Awith/without@
experimental design setting in which to measure economic impacts. In cases where panel data for the same
farms over time can be utilized, a Abefore/after@ design element is added. A before/after comparison might
be made when extension programs were first introduced. However, the only panel farm level data studies
surveyed here of the before/after type attempted to measure the qualitative effect of a change in the design
and management of extension from the traditional design to the Training and Visit (T&V) management
implemented in World Bank- funded extension projects in India (Feder et al., 1985) in the early 1980s and
in Kenya (Bindlish and Evenson, 1991) and Burkina Faso (Bindlish et al., 1997) in the late 1980s.26
26In one sense, the best opportunity to achieve a before/after statistical design is at the time when extension
25
programs are first introduced. The effect of a change in design as in the case of T&V management is difficult to
measure.
