Yu Jin (author), Huffman, Wallace E. (author), and Department of Economics, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
Department of Economics, Iowa State University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2016
Published:
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 16 Document Number: D10455
17 pages., Via online journal., This article provides new estimates of the marginal product of public agricultural research and extension on state agricultural productivity for the U.S., using updated data and definitions, and forecasts of future agricultural productivity growth by state. The underlying rationale for a number of important decisions that underlie the data used in cost‐return estimates for public agricultural research and extension are presented. The parameters of the state productivity model are estimated from a panel of contiguous U.S. 48 states from 1970 to 2004. Public research and extension are shown to be substitutes rather than complements. The econometric model of state agricultural TFP predicts growth rates of TFP for two‐thirds of states that is less than the past trend rate. The results and data indicate a real social rate of return to public investments in agricultural research of 67% and to agricultural extension of 100+%. The article concludes with guidance for TFP analyses in other countries.
32 pages., via online journal., The phrase in the title is not mine. I am borrowing it here from syndicated
columnist and cowboy poet Baxter Black, who borrowed the title of one
of his own columns “Growth of Agricultural Ignorance” from the editor of
the Delmarva Farmer (a weekly agricultural publication serving the Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia region). In many ways I agree with the term, and
believe it is accurate in part to describe American society in the late twentieth
century and into the twenty-first. Thus, I would like to take this opportunity
to discuss some trends in American agriculture, and for that matter, agricultural history, and some concerns that I have about them. Not all the trends are bad, of course, and perhaps in some ways, at least, American society is less agriculturally ignorant than Black and others suggest.
3 pages, Figure 1 above appeared on July 31, 2018, in Bloomberg. Bloomberg tweeted this graphic on August 13, and twenty-four hours later it had been retweeted by 84 twitter accounts and “liked” 118 times. Chances are you have seen this graphic on your social media newsfeed (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) by now. It is a novel idea to portray how U.S. land use could be represented across the United States. However, to the casual observer, which is most everyone viewing a graphic on social media, this graphic is misleading.
37 pages., Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic is the most recent example that global development problems can occur anywhere, rebutting the assumption of a world divided into developed and developing countries. Recent scholarship has coined the term “global development” to capture this changing geography of development problems.
Purpose
Our article contributes to these debates by proposing a novel empirical approach to localize global development problems in country contexts worldwide.
Methods and approach
Our approach rests on a universal understanding of “development.” We identify countries that are particularly relevant for global problem-solving and consider not only the problem dimension but also countries’ capacities to address these problems.
Findings
Our results show that countries with the most severe combinations of problems are as diverse as Afghanistan, Nigeria and the United States. Two thirds of countries with above-average contributions to global problems are authoritarian regimes. We also find that middle-income countries have hardly anything in common apart from their income level.
Policy implications
Our analysis shows that traditional development concepts of a binary world order and of foreign aid as financial transfer to remedy imbalances are not enough to address constellations of global problems and capacity that have long evolved beyond rich and poor.
15pgs, Research has suggested to not solely include cognitive processes but also affective processes in economic choice modeling. Studying Medjool dates, we conducted a laboratory experiment combining choice experiments and eye-tracking to account for cognitive processes. In addition, participants indicated their level of worry related to production practices to account for affective processes. Our results show that consumers worry more about pesticide residues than genetic modification in foods. They also pay more attention to labels related to these production practices compared to other labels; and the production practice labels received the highest willingness to pay (WTP). Results from linear regressions show that both cognitive and affective processes are associated with WTP. Especially in the full model for WTP for pesticide-free labeling an increase of attention by 1 s increases WTP on average by $0.10 and an increase of the level of worry from one category to the next increases WTP on average by $0.17. Overall, results show that including both cognitive and affective processes as explanatory variables is important when determining factors associated with WTP.
10 pages, In this paper, we evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on farmers market (FM) sales across the United
States during the 2020 operating season using survey responses from 420 market managers. Using
a multinomial logit model, we evaluate how certain market characteristics are associated with increased probabilities of market organizations gaining or losing revenue in 2020. We find that
SNAP sales changes, market location, and COVID-19 intensity impacted revenue outcomes. State COVID-19 policies for FM and the existence of FM assistance organizations had less of an impact.
24 pages, National planning and health organizations agree that to achieve healthy and sustainable food systems, planners must balance goals across a spectrum of sustainability issues that include economic vitality, public health, ecological sustainability, social equity, and cultural diversity. This research is an assessment of government-adopted food system plans in the U.S. that examines which topics, across the three dimensions of sustainability (social, environmental, and economic), are included in local food system plans and conducts an exploratory analysis that asks whether the community capitals (built, cultural, social, financial, human, and natural) available in a community are associated with the content of food system plans. The research team first developed a Sustainable Food System Policy Index made up of 26 policy areas across the three dimensions that, in aggregate, define and operationalize sustainable food systems. With this index we evaluated a sample of 28 food system plans for inclusion of these policy impact areas. We then performed an exploratory regression analysis to examine whether the availability of community capitals was associated with the content of food system plans. Findings indicated that jurisdictions integrated a broad range of issues into their food system plans; however, there are certain issues across every dimension of sustainability that are much less frequently included in plans, such as strategies related to participation in decision-making, financial infrastructure, and the stewardship of natural resources. Regression analysis identified statistically significant linear relationships between particular capitals and the proportion of policy areas included in plans. In particular, higher metrics associated with poverty were associated with the inclusion of fewer policy areas and with a potentially narrower policy agenda. This study adds to the plan evaluation literature as one of the first attempts to document the content of a sample of U.S. food system plans through a sustainability lens, contributing to the knowledge of what types of issues are advanced by local food system plans and the policy implications of current gaps in planning agendas.
13 pages, This article looks at the United States’ federal H-2A Temporary Agricultural Visa Program and reforms proposed by the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. In this policy analysis, we draw on media content analysis and qualitative interviews to compare the viewpoints of farmers, workers, grower and worker advocacy groups, intermediary agents, and politicians. We find that perspectives on the program are dependent upon actors’ level of direct interaction with workers. Moderate-sized farmers and regionally based worker advocacy groups tend to be the most concerned with day-to-day program operations and fair working conditions. In contrast, national-level advocacy groups, intermediary agents, and politicians are less critical of the program and seek to broadly expand farmer access to guestworkers, justifying proposed program reforms with discourses of national food security and immigration reform. Ultimately, we suggest that engaging a food systems lens to understand these policies provides a more nuanced perspective, addressing national food security and immigration as related issues.
12 pages, Food waste and food insecurity are two concurrent major public health issues. To address them, gleaning programs can reduce waste and enhance food security by diverting produce to food pantries. To understand the experiences of farmers and gleaning programs, interviews were completed with 12 farmers who had participated in a gleaning program and 16 farmers who had not donated produce through a gleaning program within the Greater Kansas City metro area. For farmers who had participated in the gleaning program, the ease of donating and tax incentives were primary benefits. Inadequate experience and inefficient volunteers were cited as challenges. Farmers without experience with gleaning programs cited safety and liability issues as concerns. Because farmers communicate frequently with other farmers, food rescue organizations should consider enlisting their support. Communities and government agencies should provide financial support to improve the resources and infrastructure of gleaning organizations to improve farmer-gleaner relationships.
11 pages, Food, waste, and food waste are embroiled in a wide array of political and moral debates in the United States today. These debates are staged across a range of scales and sites—from individual decisions made in front of refrigerators and compost bins to public deliberations on the U.S. Senate and House floors. They often manifest as a moral panic inspiring a range of Americans at seemingly opposed ends of the political spectrum. This article contrasts three distinct sites where food waste is moralized, with the aim of deconstructing connections between discarded food and consumer ethics. In doing so, we argue that across the contemporary American social strata, food waste reduction efforts enfold taken-for-granted ideas of moral justice, or theodicy, that foreground individual responsibility and, as a result, obfuscate broader systemic issues of food inequality perpetuated by late stage capitalism.
