81
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

      Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journalsFurthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

      scite_
       
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      EMERGING BIOTECHNOLOGIES: SOME ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

      Published
      research-article
      Bookmark

            Abstract

            Biotechnology is one of a number of technologies that may improve productivity and competitiveness in the rural and non-rural industries. As in other areas of research in Australia, the biotechnology research program will be undertaken by both the private and public sectors. Determination of an economically efficient balance between private and public research activities has often been made by reference to the market failure model. The principal characteristics of that model (namely indivisibility, inappropriability and uncertainty) suggest several reasons why governments may wish to consider supplementing the research effort undertaken by the private sector. To establish socially optimal levels of public expenditure on biotechnology research and development, and the priorities for such expenditure, it is necessary to go beyond the market failure model and use an explicit cost-benefit framework. Such a framework is developed and the main economic variables likely to affect net social returns to investment in biotechnology research and development are identified. These variables are compared with the funding criteria employed by the National Biotechnology Program Research Grants Advisory Committee and it is concluded that considerable scope exists for injecting additional economic analysis into the assessment procedures currently used by that Committee.

            Content

            Author and article information

            Journal
            cpro20
            CPRO
            Prometheus
            Critical Studies in Innovation
            Pluto Journals
            0810-9028
            1470-1030
            June 1985
            : 3
            : 1
            : 3-24
            Affiliations
            Article
            8628968 Prometheus, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1985: pp. 3–24
            10.1080/08109028508628968
            2c458fcf-8e81-4e66-b0db-c4e00aaeb2e3
            Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

            History
            Page count
            Figures: 0, Tables: 0, References: 27, Pages: 22
            Categories
            Original Articles

            Computer science,Arts,Social & Behavioral Sciences,Law,History,Economics
            biotechnology,technology policy,research priorities,research funding,market failure

            NOTES AND REFERENCES

            1. Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC), Biotechnology in Australia — Report to the Prime Minister, AGPS, Canberra, 1982, p. 4.

            2. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Biotechnology Research and Development, 1981.

            3. B. G. Johnston and J. Girdlestone, Implications for Future Research of Recent Development Trends in Agriculture, Report prepared jointly by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and CSIRO, AGPS, Canberra, 1983.

            4. Nelson R. R.. 1959. . ‘The simple economics of basic scientific research’. . Journal of Political Economy . , Vol. 67:: 297––306. .

            5. K. J. Arrow, ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources to invention’ in The Rate of Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton N.J., 1963.

            6. Demsetz H.. 1969. . ‘Information and efficiency: another viewpoint’. . Journal of Law and Economics . , Vol. 12:: 1––22. .

            7. Industries Assistance Commission (IAC), New Technology and Industry Assistance, AGPS, Canberra, 1983.

            8. Options identified by the IAC (p. 18) include investment in a range of activities, access to equity and loan finance, and the use of insurance and futures markets.

            9. IAC, Rural Income Fluctuations, AGPS, Canberra, 1978.

            10. K. Gannicott, ‘Research and development incentives’ in Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia, Technological Change in Australia, AGPS, Canberra, 1980, Vol. IV, pp. 287–314.

            11. ASTEC, op. cit., p. 13.

            12. Gannicott, op. cit.

            13. Hufbauer G.. 1966. . Synthetic Materials and the Theory of International Trade . , Cambridge : : Harvard University Press. .

            14. T. D. Mandeville, D. M. Lamberton and E. J. Bishop, Economic Effects of the Australian Patent System, AGPS, Canberra, 1982. The Australian Patents Office has expressed the view that genetic engineering inventions, at least in the case of micro-organisms, animal and plant-cell cultures, and probably also in the case of higher animal and plant organisms, would qualify for a patent. For further details, see P. Thomas, ‘Patents for genetic engineering inventions’ in Genetic Engineering: Commercial Opportunities in Australia, AGPS, Canberra, 1982. In this context, there has been considerable discussion about the desirability of introduction into Australia of plant variety rights, a type of patent for new plant varieties. A discussion of the key issues surrounding plant variety rights is contained in A. P. Ockwell, Plant Variety Rights — A Review of Issues, Bureau of Agricultural Economics Occasional Paper No. 64, AGPS, Canberra, 1982. It is not certain that introduction of plant variety rights would confer net benefits to Australia because they suffer from similar problems (e.g., monopoly rights) to patents in general.

            15. D. Sanger, ‘Biotechnology looks to law for the next breakthrough’, Australian Financial Review, 23 March 1984.

            16. Edwards G. W. and Freebairn J. W.. 1982. . Measuring a Country's Gains from Research: Theory and Application to Rural Research in Australia . , Canberra : : AGPS. .

            17. G. W. Edwards, ‘Some considerations in allocating resources between shifting supply and shifting demand’, paper presented to 28th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, University of Sydney, 7–9 February 1984.

            18. Edwards G. W. and Freebairn J. W.. 1982. . ‘The social benefits from an increase in productivity in part of an industry’. . Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics . , Vol. 50((2)): 193––210. .

            19. B. G. Johnston, Public and Private Interests in Government-Funded Research (Ph.D. thesis, ANU, Canberra, 1981).

            20. R. A. McLeish and B. S. Wonder, ‘CSIRO review of plant disease research in Australia: BAE submission’, paper presented to the CSIRO Committee of Review of Plant Disease Research, Melbourne, November 1982.

            21. Freebairn J. W., Davis J. S. and Edwards G. W.. 1982. . ‘Distribution of research gains to multistage production systems’. . American Journal of Agricultural Economics . , Vol. 64((1)): 39––46. .

            22. Norton G. W. and Davis J. S.. 1981. . ‘Evaluating returns to agricultural research: a review’. . American Journal of Agricultural Economics . , Vol. 63((4)): 685––99. .

            23. B. O. Jones, ‘Grants for biotechnology research’, media release, Department of Science and Technology, Canberra, 23 December 1983.

            24. Department of Science and Technology, Biotechnology — Appropriate Areas for Commercial Exploration in Australia, November 1982, AGPS, Canberra, 1983.

            25. ASTEC, op. cit.

            26. To generate these figures it was necessary to assume that the technology produced by the R&D was not transferred overseas, that the cost reducing research was adopted by all firms in the industry over a 5 year period, and that the technology provided benefits for 30 years. These assumptions are made for illustrative purposes only. See McLeish and Wonder, op. cit.

            27. Greig I. D.. 1982. . ‘Agricultural research management and the ex ante evaluation of research proposals: a review’. . Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics . , Vol. 49((2)): 73––93. .

            Comments

            Comment on this article