A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON UNDERINVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL R&D



Table 3: Regression results for estimating slope coefficient β1

βo

t-statistic

βι

t-statistic

R2

Developed countries - cutoff rate 20%

All rates of return 20%

3.5859

43.45

-0.0054

-10.19

0.642

All rates of return 20% and <100%

4.6193

242.54

-0.0257

-66.68

0.989

All rates of return 15% and <100%

4.6340

315.62

-0.0259

-81.51

0.991

All rates of return 25% and <100%

4.6525

176.98

-0.0262

-53.38

0.986

All rates of return 20% and <100%, 1985

3.7143

51.51

-0.0242

-15.98

0.938

All rates of return 20% and <100%, >1985

4.1117

188.13

-0.0264

-61.08

0.992

Developing countries - cutoff rate 40%

All rates of return 40%

5.1689

81.98

-0.0233

-30.34

0.918

All rates of return 40% and <100%

5.6659

264.60

-0.0308

-90.71

0.992

All rates of return 30% and <100%

5.6091

377.08

-0.0300

-116.53

0.993

All rates of return 50% and <100%

5.5628

196.02

-0.0295

-71.42

0.991

All rates of return 40% and <100%, 1985

4.3305

52.27

-0.0313

-25.20

0.975

All rates of return 40% and <100%, >1985

5.3658

176.03

-0.0305

-61.74

0.987

Africa: all rates of return 30% and <100%

3.9918

52.87

-0.0349

-23.34

0.971

Asia: all rates of return 45% and <100%

3.9940

62.36

-0.0162

-17.09

0.939

LAC: all rates of return 40% and <100%

5.4419

80.66

-0.0442

-40.73

0.982

Differentiating the sample in studies from before and after 1985 hardly affects these results.
Given the rather approximate nature of the identified mode, extreme values for the mode were
adopted, which resulted in lower and upper bounds of the underinvestment gaps. Not surprisingly, the
underinvestment gap is quite sensitive to the estimation of the mode. Grouping the rates of return of
developing countries by region yields quite a bit of variation in both the cutoff rate and the slope
coefficient and suggests that underinvestment in agricultural R&D has been particularly high in Latin
America.

While there is considerable room for improvement in the statistical data used in the present
analysis (both in coverage as well as the quality of the rate-of-return methods used), the model cuts
quite nicely through what looked like a Gordian knot. It shows that the high
means of the rate-of-
return distributions as such are no evidence of underinvestment in R&D, nor are they indicative of the
size of the underinvestment gap. The approximated
modes of the rate-of-return distributions are a
substantially better indicator of underinvestment.

16



More intriguing information

1. Markets for Influence
2. The geography of collaborative knowledge production: entropy techniques and results for the European Union
3. Can we design a market for competitive health insurance? CHERE Discussion Paper No 53
4. LOCAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES TO HELP FARM PEOPLE ADJUST
5. Computational Experiments with the Fuzzy Love and Romance
6. Antidote Stocking at Hospitals in North Palestine
7. DURABLE CONSUMPTION AS A STATUS GOOD: A STUDY OF NEOCLASSICAL CASES
8. The name is absent
9. An Interview with Thomas J. Sargent
10. Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control*