Table 4: Estimations of the underinvestment gap
|
Cutoff rate Slope coefficient β1 Underinvestment gap | |||
|
Developed countries (social cutoff rate 7%) | |||
|
Baseline |
20% |
-0.0257 |
39.7% |
|
Rates of return ≤ 1985 |
20% |
-0.0242 |
37.0% |
|
Rates of return >1985 |
20% |
-0.0264 |
41.0% |
|
5% points lower cutoff rate |
15% |
-0.0259 |
23.1% |
|
5% points higher cutoff rate |
25% |
-0.0262 |
60.4% |
|
Developing countries (social cutoff rate 12%) | |||
|
Baseline |
40% |
-0.0308 |
136.9% |
|
Rates of return ≤ 1985 |
40% |
-0.0313 |
139.9% |
|
Rates of return >1985 |
40% |
-0.0305 |
134.8% |
|
10% points lower cutoff rate |
30% |
-0.0300 |
71.6% |
|
10% points higher cutoff rate |
50% |
-0.0295 |
206.3% |
|
Africa |
30% |
-0.0349 |
87.3% |
|
Asia |
45% |
-0.0162 |
70.3% |
|
Latin America |
40% |
-0.0442 |
244.5% |
5. R&D opportunity curve
In the previous sections agricultural R&D investments have been characterized without any reference
to the actual amount invested. In this section the analysis will be taken a step further by linking the
characteristics of the reconstructed ex ante distribution of agricultural R&D projects (i.e., the implicit
cutoff rate and slope coefficient β1 ) with past agricultural R&D investment levels as reported by
Anderson, Pardey, and Roseboom (1994). By accumulating the ranked distribution, a third dimension
can be added to the picture, namely, that of R&D expenditure or intensity. The resulting R&D
opportunity curves provide a comprehensive way of simultaneously illustrating the differences in
R&D opportunities and underinvestment between developed and developing countries (figure 5).
In retrospect, the optimal level of investment in agricultural R&D for developed countries can
be estimated at $6.7 billion per annum rather than the actual $4.8 billion spent, by bringing the cutoff
rate down from 20% to 7%.1 For developing countries the difference is substantially larger - rather
than the actual $4.4 billion, $10.4 billion could have been spent before reaching the social cutoff rate
of 12% (figure 5a). In relative terms, however, the developed countries clearly stand out as having a
1 The expenditure data reported here are expressed in constant 1985 PPP dollars.
17
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The name is absent
3. Epistemology and conceptual resources for the development of learning technologies
4. Text of a letter
5. Analyzing the Agricultural Trade Impacts of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement
6. The name is absent
7. Structural Influences on Participation Rates: A Canada-U.S. Comparison
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. A Rational Analysis of Alternating Search and Reflection Strategies in Problem Solving