korea rural economic instituterepository.krei.re.kr/bitstream/2018.oak/22368/1/농촌... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
www. krei.re.kr
Vol. 40 | Special Issue.
Vol. 40 | Special Issue.
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Spb Disturbance: A Real Options Approach
An Hyun-jin
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in KoreaPark Ji-yun, Kim Chang-gil
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities: The Role and Mission of Land-Grant Universities
Lee Yoo Hwan, Gregory D. Graff
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline
Jeong Min-kook, Moon Han-pil, Song Woo-jin
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries
Lee Hye-jin
601, Bitgaram-ro, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, 58217, KoreaTel: 82-61-820-2000 Fax: 82-61-820-2211
Journal of Rural Developm
ent
Korea Rural Economic Institute
Korea Rural Economic Institute
Korea Rural Economic Institute
Vol. 37 No. 3 | 2014
ARTICLES
An Analysis of Consumers’ Preferences for Quality-Graded Beef Products Kim Sung-yong, Jeon Sang-gon, Lee Kyei-im
Impacts of Food Consumption Lifestyle on the Expenditure for the Processed Food: Using Cluster Analysis and Matching Method
Mi-Sung Park, Byeong-Il Ahn
Development and Measurement of the Index of Agrifood Consumer Competency Index Lee Kyei-im, Ban Hyun-jung, Park Ki-whan, Hwang Yun-jae
A Study on the Characteristics of Women Returning to Rural Areas and Their Settlement From the Gender Perspective
Jinyang Myong-suk
Lifelong Learning Participations of Rural People and Their Related Variables Ma Sang-jin, Kim Kang-ho
Factor Analysis on Need for Children in a Rural Area with the Lowest Fertility Rate: Married Women in Cheongdo-gun Kim Na-young
A Study on the Evaluations on Korea’s Official Development Assistance in the Forest Sector and the Way to Improve its Development Effectiveness
Byoung Il Yoo, Bo Eun Yoon
Unit Cost Estimation of Forest Offset Program Reflecting Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation. Jae Soo Bae, Yeongmo Son, Jong-Su Yim
Assessing Korean Consumers’ Valuation for BSE-Tested and Country of Origin Labeled Beef Products Lee Sang-hyeon, Lee Jy-yong, Han Doo-bong, Nayga Jr. Rodolfo
ISSN 1229-8263
서울특별시 동대문구 회기로 117-3 우)130-710
Tel:02-3299-4000 Fax:02-965-6950
www.facebook.com/jrd2011
제37권 제
3호
제37권 제3호
논문
쇠고기 등급별 소비자 선호도 분석_김성용, 전상곤, 이계임
식품소비 라이프스타일이 가공식품 지출에 미치는 효과 분석: 군집분석과 매칭기법을 이용하여_박미성, 안병일
농식품 소비역량지수 개발과 계측_이계임, 반현정, 박기환, 황윤재
젠더 관점에서 본 귀농·귀촌 여성의 정착 과정과 그 특성_진양명숙
농촌주민의 평생학습 참여 결정 요인 분석_마상진, 김강호
초저출산 농촌지역의 자녀필요성 결정 요인 분석: 청도군 기혼여성 사례_김나영
산림 분야 공적개발원조 사업평가와 성과제고 방안_유병일, 윤보은
온실가스 배출량을 반영한 대체산림자원조성비의 단가 추정 _배재수, 손영모, 임종수
Assessing Korean Consumers’ Valuation for BSE-Tested and Country of Origin Labeled Beef Products_이상현, 이지용, 한두봉, Nayga Jr. Rodolfo
제40권 특별호
KOREA RURAL ECONOMIC INSTITUTE
The Korea Rural Economic Institute (KREI) is a non-profit research institute, established in April, 1978. It is an autonomous research body in the field of agricultural economics including food, natural resources, environment and rural development of Korea. The KREI conducts long-term as well as short-term policy-oriented studies with a view to assisting government, farmers, cooperatives and agribusiness firms.
Any article or other material appearing in the Journal may not be republished in full or in part without the written permission of the editor.
Journal of Rural Development
PUBLlSHER
인쇄일 2017. 12. 20. 발행일 2017. 12. 21.
발행인 김 창 길
발행처 한국농촌경제연구원(대표전화 1833-5500)
전라남도 나주시 빛가람로 601
인터넷 홈페이지 http://www.krei.re.kr
정기간행물 등록 전남, 마00026(1978. 5. 30.)
인쇄소 ㈜프리비(061-332-1492)
Journal of Rural DevelopmentVol. 40, Special Issue. [통권 제 171호]
Kim, Chang-Gil, President
ⓒ 2017 Korea Rural Economic Institute
JOURNAL OF RURAL DEVELOPMENTEDITOR:Lee, Kye-im, Research Director, KREIB. Wade Brorsen, Oklahoma State University, U.S.A
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE:Ahn, Byeong-il, Professor, Korea University, KoreaChung, Won-ho, Professor, Pusan National University, KoreaJang, Jae-bong, Professor, Konkuk University, KoreaJeon, Sang-gon, Professor, Gyeongsang National University, KoreaJi, In-bae, Senior Research Fellow, KREIJun, Ik-su, Professor, Chungbuk National University, KoreaKim, Jeong-seop, Senior Research Fellow, KREIKim, Jong-jin, Senior Research Fellow, KREIKim, Kwan-soo, Professor, Seoul National University, KoreaKim, Yoon-hyong, Professor, Chonnam National University, KoreaLee, Byoung-hoon, Professor, Kangwon National University, KoreaLee, Sang-min, Senior Research Fellow, KREIPark Joon-kee, Research Director, KREISim, Jae-hun, Senior Research Fellow, KREIYeo, Jun-ho, Professor, Kyungpook National University, Korea
Journal of Rural Development (JRD) is a collection of scholarly papers on agricultural economics, rural sociology, regional planning and other related academic fields. Written in English and registered as Nongchon-Gyeongje, the journal is published annually by the Korea Rural Economic Institute (KREI).
■ Nongchon-Gyeong je was selected as an officially registered scientific journal in 2005 by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF).
■ Publication Cycle- four times a year: March 21, June 21, September 21, December 21
Communications concerning subscription and other matters should be addressed to:Seong, Jin-seokJournal of Rural DevelopmentKorea Rural Economic Institute601, Bitgaram-ro, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, 58321, KoreaTel. (82-61)820-2212, Fax. (82-61)[email protected]
ISSN 1229-8263
Vol. 40 | Special Issue.
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision
Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance: A Real Option Approach
An Hyun-jin
1
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea
Park Ji-yun , Kim Chang-gil
35
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge
at U.S. Research Universities: The Role and Mission of Land-Grant Universities
Lee Yoo Hwan , Gregory D. Graff
63
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products
due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline
Jeong Min-kook , Moon Han-pil , Song Woo-jin
105
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector
in Developing Countries
Lee Hye-jin
125
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue): 1~33 1
FOREST CARBON SEQUESTRATION ANDOPTIMAL HARVESTING DECISION CONSIDERINGSOUTHERN PINE BEETLE (SPB) DISTURBANCE:A REAL OPTION APPROACH
AN HYUN-JIN*
Keywords
real option, flexible harvest, carbon sequestration, southern pine beetle,
value of uncertainty
Abstract
This study evaluates the forest management decision making of loblolly
pine forest in the southern U.S. using the real option approach. The study
incorporates three uncertainties that forest owners have faced including
timber price volatility, forest carbon sequestration, and impacts of insect
outbreaks into the real option model to investigate the relationship be-
tween such uncertainties and forest bare land value and tree rotation
age. The results show that forest owners can face a mixed outcome of
these uncertainties when they make forest management decisions, and
the real option approach helps the forest managers consider future con-
sequence through allowing the flexible harvest decision. Generally, a high-
er bare land value is generated if a flexible harvest decision making (real
option) is allowed compared to a fixed harvest. The standing tree seques-
trates CO2, and the forest’s role of carbon sequestration could generate
extra value in the forest while insect outbreaks reduce the bare land
value. The increasing social cost of carbon tends to call for increasing the
bare land value of forest tree rotation age. Therefore, as climate change
becomes more looming due to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere,
the value of standing forests would increase due to enhancing oppor-
tunity cost of carbon sequestration in forests. Continuous efforts of pest
management for forests are necessary since a higher insect risk tends to
reduce the bare land value of forests. Also, employing marketable climate
policy such as emissions trading is necessary to create a market carbon
price and offset extra cost to keep the forest.
* Research Fellow, Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, Korea.
e-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)2
I. Introduction
Forest owners in the southern U.S. region are facing several risks, and these risks
are increasing in magnitude with climate change. Uncertainties associated with
management decisions are challengeable tasks of forest managers because in-
appropriate decision making can result in the loss of economic opportunities and
profits due to the irreversible characteristic of forests. Moreover, theongoing cli-
mate change tends to accelerate the uncertainties by altering forest disturbance and
forest ecology. The fundamental challenges for forest resource management deci-
sion making are evaluating trade-offs between the social-economic benefit of har-
vesting timber and the ecological benefit of preserving the forests (Morgan,
Abdallah, and Lasserre 2007). To examine this need, this paper investigates a de-
veloped methodology to adopt for forest management strategy under uncertainties.
This study applies the real options valuation approach to the field of forest man-
agement decision making considering various cases that forest owners might face.
The real option approach can supplement the main weakness of traditional forest
management evaluation, because it takes into account the flexibility of harvest de-
cisions due to timber price fluctuations (Tee et al. 2014). Also, the real option ap-
proach does fully consider the possibility of reversible investment opportunities
(Duku-Kaakyire and Nanang 2004).
The definition of real option is the value of being able to choose some
characteristic of decision allowing flexible outcome (Saphores 2000). The term
"real" refers to tangible assets such as facilities and natural resource,and several
studies have adapted a real options framework to the field of forestry.
Developments in real option study in forestry have increased the need for risk
management of forest investment and forest business management for optimizing
the financial performance of forest assets.
The real option approach is very useful in understanding tradeoffs be-
tween timber and ecosystem services provided by forests to incorporate un-
certainties and flexibility in timing (Alavalapati and Kant 2014). Tee et al. (2014)
applied real options analysis of forestry carbon valuation under the New Zealand
emission trading scheme. They incorporated both stochastic timber price and car-
bon value into calculating real option value of the New Zealand forests using the
binomial tree method.
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 3
This study demonstrates the utility of the real options valuation approach
to the field of forest management decision making considering various cases that
forest owners might face. The term “valuation” means the bare land value of lo-
blolly (Pinus taeda) pine plantation in southern U.S. Loblolly pine is the most
commercially important forest species in the southern U.S., and its native range
extends throughout 14 states from southern New Jersey to central Florida and to
eastern Texas (Baker and Langdon 1990). The objectives of the study are to find
answers to the following questions:
1) How does the sawtimber price volatility affect the bare land valuation of
loblolly pine forests in the southern U.S.?
2) How much could the bare landvalue be changed if we consider not only
timber price but also the carbon sequestration ability of the forest and
pine beetle outbreak risk?
3) What is the optimal harvesting decision for loblolly pine plantations in
the southern U.S. considering timber price volatility, carbon value, and
pine beetle infestation risk?
This study applies binomial tree methods based on Guthrie’s approach
(2009), for evaluating real option value. The binomial tree methods have several
advantages such as numerically efficient and conceptually undemanding technique
to calculate option value. The main contribution of this study is to evaluate the
optimal stand management decision considering timber price, carbon sequestration,
and trees damaged by insects, southern pine beetle (SPB) in particular, which is
one of the main causes of tree damages in the southern U.S. There are many stud-
ies that evaluate the value of the forests using the real options theory but re-
searchers have not treated damaged trees in detail. Insect infestation directly af-
fects forest owner’s profit because it reduces timber productivity. Regarding forest
carbon sequestration, dead trees do not release significant amounts of CO2into the
atmosphere than expected because dead trees hold their carbon for a long time and
prevent it from quickly being released into the atmosphere (Moore et al. 2013).
Thus, damaged trees represent a substantial proportion of the total carbon
sink/source in forest stands, and these damaged trees will affect tree management
decision such as harvesting age (Asante, Armstrong, and Adamowicz 2011).
Without considering this, the carbon sequestration ability of forest could be
underestimated. This paper provides guidelines for forest owners for improving
their timber harvest decisions to consider some cases they could face under cli-
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)4
mate change including timber price volatility risk, benefit from mitigation CO2 due
to forest carbon sequestration, and SPB outbreak risk.
II. Model setting up
1. Binomial tree of price movement
Timber price volatility is one of the critical uncertainties that forestland owners
could face. Suppose that is the current price of sawtimber ($/m3).
denotes the sawtimber price at the node (i, n), where i is the number of
downward price moves and n is the time step. Suppose that , are the size
of the up movement and down movement where ∆ and
∆
(see equation (A1) in appendix), respectively. Sawtimber price could be either in-
creased or decreased with probability or at each node. If sawtim-
ber price is increasedat the node , it could be and
when sawtimber price is decreased. The binomial tree of
sawtimber price movement process for is described in Figure A1. The forest-
land owners expect some profits from the sales of forest products; the amount of
the profit depends on the timber price movement in the market. Assume that this
timber price follows a mean-reverting series. Schwartz (1997) suggested a strong
mean reversion in the commercial commodity prices. The mean-reverting price
process implies that unlike the random walk price process, shocks to mean-revert-
ing timber spot prices are not permanent. In other words, the sudden increase in
timber price leads to an increase in supply as well, so the market price of timber
will move back towards the timber’s long-run marginal cost of production in
long-term. Likewise, a sudden decrease in timber price causes a reduction in sup-
ply that triggers increase in future timber price. Therefore, a sudden increase
(decrease) in timber spot price is not sustainable (Guthrie 2009).
Under the mean-reverting price assumption, the logarithm of the price fol-
lows a first order autoregressive process:
(1)
∼
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 5
where is the market price of sawtimber, is the error term that follows a nor-
mal distribution with mean=0 and variance= . After obtaining OLS estimated co-
efficients, , , and , from equation (1), we can calculate Ornstein-Uhlenbeck
parameters with the following equation using the OLS coefficients:
(2)1/201 1
1 1 1
ˆˆ ˆˆˆlog(1 ) 2 log(1 )
ˆ , , ( )ˆ ˆ(2 )ˆ
d d
a bt ta
sa
aa af
a
-- + += = =
D + D$
Where = mean reversion rate, = long-term level price, = volatility of the
Ornstein-Uhlenbeck parameters, and ∆ = size of time step. From the solution to
equation (2), the binomial tree parameters, , , and are calculated by
the following equations (See equation A4 in appendix) :
(3)
∆ ,
∆
if
∆
∆log≤
∆
∆logif
∆
∆log
if
∆
∆log≥
2. Calculating risk neutral probability using capital asset pricing
model (CAPM)
The risk neutral probability is the likelihood of future outcome under the assump-
tion that underlying risk asset has the same expected return as riskless assets such
as Treasuries bills (Hull 2008). Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) can be ap-
plied to calculate the risk neutral probability. The risk neutral probability is
calculated by subtracting a Market Risk Premium adjustment () from the
valuation binomial tree’s probability (Guthrie 2009):
(4), and
1 .
U U adj
D U
MRPqP = -
P = -P
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)6
The is obtained by regressing returns on the market portfolio (Guthrie
2009). The common stock indices such as S&P 500 and NASDAQ are widely
used as a proxy for the market portfolio. This study uses the S&P 500 index as
a proxy of the market portfolio.
3. Binomial tree of valuation movement
The forest value in each node is denoted by , and is related to tim-
ber price movements and . The two-step valuation binomial tree
( ) is shown in Figure A2. The forest value could be increased with proba-
bility or decreased with probability . n is the time step (year) and
i is the number of down movements. The risk neutral probability can be expressed
as and . The two-step valuation binomial tree with
risk neutral probability is shown in Figure A2. The valuation binomial tree is cal-
culated backwards starting from where N denotes the terminal time step
and the ending is . Therefore, valuation at node is
(5)
( , 1) ( 1, 1)( , )
f
DU
f
V i n V i nV i n
R R
P + P + += +
where fR = (1+discount rate).
At node , the forestland owner faces two alternative situations. The
first alternative is harvesting. If she/he decides to harvest the forest, she/he must pay
the harvest cost H per timber volume. Total costs are equal to where
is the total volume of the timber harvested. She/he gains some revenue from selling
the timber, which is equal to , where indicates the expected mar-
ket timber price in the nth time period. After harvest, the forestland is turning into
bare land worth per hectare. is the bare land value after harvest. She/he also
must pay taxes at a rate of T. All in all, the harvest payoff equation is
(6) (1 )( ( , ) ) ( )T X i n H Q n B- - +
The second alternative is that the forestland owner decides not to harvest,
rather postponesthe harvest until an appropriate timber price is going to be
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 7
reached. In this case, she/he must pay forest maintenance cost per hectare. After
one period, the timber price is going to move either up and down. So the corre-
sponding forest value is either or . Thus, the expected
payoff from postponing harvest is
(7)( , ) ( , 1) ( , ) ( 1, 1)
(1 ) M duT
f
i n V i n i n V i nT
R
P + +P + +- - +
for all where is the terminal node and MT is the forest maintenance
cost. The payoff at the terminal node is
(8) (1 )( ( , ) ) ( )T X i N H Q N B- - +
At each node, the decision to harvest or not harvest is re-evaluated. If the present
value of the cash flows from harvesting is larger than the current value of the cash
flows from not harvesting at the node, the optimal decision is to harvest at this
node. On the other hand, if the present value of the cash flows from not harvesting
is larger than the current value of the cash flows from harvesting, the optimal deci-
sion is not harvesting at this node. Therefore, the valuation at each node is
(9)
(1 )(( ( , ) ) ( )) ,
( , ) ( , 1) ( , ) ( 1, 1)( , ) max(1 ) u d
T
f
T X i n H Q n B
i n V i n i n V i nV i nT M
R
- - +ì üï ï
+ + + += í ý- - +ï
P
î
P
The first line in the max function, equation (9), implies the cash flow from
harvesting. On the other hand, the second line represents the cash flow from not
harvesting. The forest owner makes a decision by comparing the present values
of the corresponding expected future cash flows at every node. This problem is
solved by calculating backwards, starting from the terminal node where
and ending at .
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)8
4. Market value of bare land
The backward procedure is conducted recursively over multiple iterations and each
iteration represents one harvest/planting rotation. Calculating the market value of
bare landfollows these steps: (1) The bare land value is zero when calculating val-
ue for the first iteration. (2) After finishing the first iteration, (The market
value of the forest at date 0) is obtained. (3) The bare landvalue is estimated by
which implies minus the cost of replanting the for-
est, where G is regeneration cost and T is tax rate. This first iteration bare land
value implies real option value for a single rotation (the value for single rotation
forest with flexibility). When calculating the value of the second iteration, the bare
land value derived from the first iteration is used as the new initial value instead
of 0. This process is repeated until the bare landvalues converge. This converged
bare land value is the real option value with infinite rotation (value of an infinite
rotation forest with flexible harvest).
5. Value of flexibility
The value of flexibility is calculated by comparing bare land value from fixed har-
vest with the value of real option. The valuation method for fixed harvest follows
the same process with real option but assumes that the harvest date is fixed.
Suppose that the harvest decision is fixed at node (e.g., 30 years or any years
smaller than the terminal node (100 year), ), the terminal condition is
and the years larger than are ignored. The termi-
nal condition is still not different from that used in the real option method except
that instead of is used. However, at all nodes earlier than , there is no
reevaluation of the decision since the harvest date is fixed. Therefore, the decision
to "wait" is only at nodes and the recursive equation at nodes
to becomes
(10)( , ) ( , 1) ( , ) ( 1, 1)
( , ) (1 ) u dT
f
i n V i n i n V i nV i n T M
R
P + + + += +
P- -
The value of bare land converges to the value under the infinite rotation after cer-
tain number of iterations. This value is the Land Expectation Value (LEV) of in-
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 9
finite rotation (Tee et al. 2014). The difference between LEV and real option
(flexible harvest decision) value is the value of flexibility.
III. Application of real option to flexible harvest decision
Forests play a significant role in carbon sequestration because trees absorb carbon
during growth. Several studies (Alavalapatiand Kant 2014; Tee et al. 2014;
Petrasek and Perez-Garcia 2010) have asserted that we should consider forests not
only as a source of timber but also a carbon pool. Therefore, the stock of stored
carbon in trees should be considered when we choose the optimal harvest age.
Many studies have examined the relationship between optimal harvest age and car-
bon storage ability to stand trees, but most analyses have focused on carbon se-
questration only in living trees. Dead trees, however, represent a significant pro-
portion of the total carbon stored in a forest (Asante and Armstrong 2012).
Therefore, stored carbon by dead trees may be necessary when determining opti-
mal harvest age. This study aims to establish three different real options models
to compare optimal harvest ages and bare land prices.
1. Timber only
The valuation function for timber only is the same as equation (11) discussed in
the previous section:
(11)
(1 )(( ( , ) ) ( )) ,
( , ) ( , 1) ( , ) ( 1, 1)( , ) max(1 ) u d
T
f
T X i n H Q n B
i n V i n i n V i nV i nT M
R
- - +ì üï ï
+ + + += í ý- - +ï
P
î
P
The terminal node is 100 years and the results for the rotation ages of up to
90 years will be reported.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)10
2. Timber and carbon storage in living trees
Carbon of trees provides additional benefit to forest owners. Carbon benefits are
usually considered the amount of carbon per unit volume of biomass (Amacher,
Ollikainen, and Koskela 2009). Since as a growth function of a forest at
time and as the carbon stock (t/ha) in the forest of volume , the change
in the benefit from sequestrated carbon in living trees is a function of time :
where is the social cost of carbon. The stored carbon
in standing living trees is derived from a forest ecosystem yield table. The forest
ecosystem yield table (J. Smith et al. 2006) provides tabulated carbon density at
different stand ages and timber volumes by carbon pools including live trees,
standing dead trees, soil organic matters and so on. If timber age or volume is
not explicitly provided in the table, the carbon stock is estimated using an inter-
polation method. The real option valuation function for carbon sequestration by
trees is:
(12)
(1 ){( ( , ) ) ( ) X ( 1)} ,
(1 )( [( , ) max
( , ) ( , 1) ( , ) ( 1, 1
(
)
) ( 1)])
s c
T s c c
u d
f
T X i n H Q n Q n B
T M X QV i n
i n V i n i n V
n Q n
i n
R
-
- - - - +ì üï ïï ïï ï- - - += í ýï ï+ + + +ï ï+ï ïî þ
-
P P
3. Timber and carbon storage in living trees and dead trees
damaged by SPB
The SPB infestation risk affects both the amount of carbon sequestration in trees
and timber/wood products per unit forest land area. The trees killed by SPB have
a lower merchantable value and preserve less carbon than healthy trees, but these
dead trees still represent a substantial proportion of the total carbon stored in for-
est stands (Asante and Armstrong 2012) and can/will be replaced by new trees
naturally and with human assistance. Assume that the percent of trees killed by
SPB in each year is given by %. The forest owners may clear cut or damaged
trees in the same year or delay the harvest to a future year. In this case, one
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 11
should separate the two carbon sequestration pools: 1) carbon pool from live
standing trees, and 2) carbon pool from trees killed by SPB.
The timber production in year will decrease due to SPB damage.
Assume that the average yearly SPB damage is given by %, then the total timber
production ( /ha) in year will decrease according to equation (13). Therefore,
the total tree production will be instead of as given below:
(13) *( ) ( ) ( )n Q n nQ Qd= - .
The value of the live standing tree pool is
(14)* *( ) ( 1)s c cX Q n Q né ù- -ë û .
Equation (14) implies the value of carbon stored in live standing trees in
each year. is carbon density (t/ha) and is the social cost of
carbon ($/t). Assume that average yearly SPB damage is given by %, then the
total volume of live trees on the site in year is . The car-
bon density stored in live trees, is calculated from the forest ecosystem
yield table with the corresponding volume using an interpolation method.
The damaged tree pool (DTP) implies carbon stored in standing dead trees
killed by SPB. The trees killed by SPB are assumed to decompose at a rate of
per year, and trees killed by SPB are added to the DTP each year. Therefore,
the DTP pool grows according to
(15) ( 1) (1 ) ( ) (n 1)D n D n Qh d+ = - + +
where represents carbon stored in the damaged tree pool. The estimated
decomposition rate is =0.00578, which is derived from Asante, Armstrong, and
Adamowicz (2011). is the average SPB risk. The change in DTP for the no
harvest case is ∆ , which implies
∆
where the discount factor. Combining
all the equations stated above yields the real options value function under SPB risk:
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)12
(16)
**
**( )
(1 ){( ( , ) ) ( ) X [ ( 1) D(n 1)]} ,
( , ) max (1 )( ([
( ,
( 1)]
) ( , 1) ( , )
( ))
1)
)
( 1,
s
T s
d
c
cc
u
f
n
T X i n H Q n Q n B
V i n T M X Q
i n V i n i n V i
Q n D n
n
R
- - + D
P P
ì ü- - - - + - +ï ïï ïï ï
= - - - +í ýï ï
+ + + +ï ï+ï ïî þ
Starkey et al. (1997) examined that SPB infected at least 10 percent of the slash
and/or loblolly pine forest in the southern U.S. Reed (1979) simulated the spread
of SPB infestation using a nonlinear spot growth model. He tested the model on
11 infestation spots from northern Georgia and projected 6% of the total number
of tree killed by SPB. However, it was not very precise model to estimate dam-
ages from individual infestation (Thatcher 1981). There are not many studies to
investigate the SPB infestation in loblolly pine forest only and previous studies
cannot reflect the current trend of SPB infestation in loblolly pine forest. With this
limitation, this study assumes 3% of SPB damages. This number may reflect the
current overall trend of SPB infestation risk in the southern U.S. Because the SPB
risk is assumed to be constant, sensitive analysis will be performed.
IV. Data and cash flows
1. Timber volume and mean carbon stock in the South and South
Central region
The mean volume of timber growth and estimated carbon stock for loblolly pine
in the southern U.S. are shown in Figure A4 and Figure A5 in the appendix,
respectively. The mean volume of timber growth and the estimated forest carbon
stock of southern (or loblolly) pines are obtained from "Forest Ecosystem Carbon
Tables" from the USDA Forest Service (J. Smith et al. 2006). The Tables were
developed using a national-level forest carbon accounting model (FORCARB2), a
timber projection model (ATLAS), and the USDA Forest Service and the Forest
Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program’s database on forest survey (FIADB) (J.
Smith et al. 2006).
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 13
2. Costs and cash flows
Forest management costs and cost cash flows are shown in Tables A1 and A2 in
the appendix. These costs are based on market research (Doran et al. 2009).
Carbon stocks are calculated based on the timber volume for the loblolly
pine forest (living and dead trees, m3/ha) using the forest carbon table in “Methods
for Calculating Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Carbon with Standard Estimates
for Forest Types of the United States” (J. Smith et al. 2006). The average stum-
page price of southern pine sawtimber price movement is shown in Figure A6 in
the appendix and $150 is the long - term level price of southern pine sawtimber
stumpage price calculated by equation (2). The timber stumpage price is an ideal
state variable for calculating forest value because the timber stumpage price is the
price of timber while it is still standing. So the stumpage price does not reflect
the additional cost such as cost of harvesting and transporting the log to the mill
(Guthrie 2009). The social costs of carbon (Figure A7 in the appendix) used in
the model are obtained from the Interagency Working Group’s Technical Support
Report (Council of Economic Advisers et al. 2013).
V. Results
1. Land value (real option), harvest threshold and value of flexibility
The results for the flexible harvest (real option) of infinite rotation are shown in
Figure 1. For the timber only cases, the bare land value converges to $5329/ha,
after nine cycles/rotations of harvest-and-replant. For the timber plus carbon case
($75/ha of carbon cost is assumed), the bare landvalue converges to $7408/ha, af-
ter eight cycles of harvest-and-replant. For the case considering damage of SPB
case (a 3% of SPB damaged is assumed), the bare landvalue converges to
$6918/ha, also after eight cycles of harvest-and-replant. To consider the carbon
storage ability of forest, the forest value would increase by 39%, compared to the
case of considering only timber price. The SPB risk would decrease the forest
value. The bare land value damaged by SPB would decrease by 6% compared to
the case of the timber plus carbon forest. However, the SPB damaged forest still
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)14
has a higher value than the timber only case because even if SPB damages the
forest, the forest still has the ability of carbon storage. Thus, the value of carbon
storage would compensate the price loss from damaged timber by SPB.
Figure 1. Infinite rotation values for bare land
The market value of forests for fixed harvest of infinite rotation is given
in Figure 2. The infinite rotation problem is commonly known as the Faustmann
rotation, which is defined as “choosing the harvest period to maximize the net
present value of a series of future harvest” (Grafton et al. 2008: 138; Gane,
Gehren, and Faustmann 1968). In this study, the NPV of a forest could be in-
dicated as a sum of discount net cash flow over an infinite time horizon (Viitala
2006). For evaluating the value of forests for fixed harvest, the same process is
used with flexible harvest, but the fixed harvest case assumes that the harvest de-
cision is fixed at the node t= fixed harvest age. Thus, the backward evaluations
are started from node t (e.g.: 60 years, 50 years) rather than N (100 year), without
no re-evaluation of a harvest decision. Thus, the valuation equation for each node
equals to equation (17) and value of bare land converges to infinite rotation NPV
of the fixed harvest.
(17)( , ) ( , 1) ( , ) ( 1, 1)
( , ) (1 ) u dT
f
i n V i n i n V i nV i n T M
R
P + + + += +
P- -
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 15
Under the fixed harvest assumption, generated net present value (NPV) of the for-
est by timber only case is, $3220/ha, around age 30. In timber plus carbon case,
the net present value of forest is at its maximum, $4812/ha, at age 40. In the case
of timber plus carbon under SPB risk, thenet present value of the forest is the
highest, $4308/ha, at age 40. If allowed for flexible harvest (real option), the mar-
ket value of the bare land is $5329/ha for the timber only case, $7408/ha for the
timber plus carbon case, and $6918/ha for the case of timber plus carbon under
SPB risk, respectively. Thus, timber harvest flexibility adds approximately 65% to
the value of bare landfor the timber only case (54% for the timber plus carbon
case, 61% for the case of timber plus carbon under SPB risk). This result shows
that flexible harvest generates the higher valuation through allowing forest owners
to make a better investment decision using information of various price levels. If
timer prices are low, the forest owners can postpone harvest while they hasten har-
vest when prices are high.
Using these results, we can estimate the optimal harvest/rotation age as
well. The NPV of the forest is maximized at the point of optimal rotation age for
both fixed rotation and infinite rotation. The optimal rotation age is 30 years for
the timber only case, 40 years for the timber plus carbon case and 40 years for
the case of timber plus carbon forest under SPB risk. The optimal rotation age
increases when considering the carbon storage ability of the forest. In the case of
SPB damage, the optimal rotation is similar to the carbon forest case, but the for-
est value is lower than that under the carbon forest case at the optimal rotation
age. The value of flexibility also increased if we consider carbon storage ability
of the forest because the capacity to be flexible can increase the value of invest-
ment when uncertainty and irreversibility become larger (Tee et al. 2014).
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)16
Figure 2. Market value of bare land: fixed harvest, infinite rotation
Figures 3-5 show the optimal harvest threshold for infinite rotations, tim-
ber only case, carbon plus timber case and carbon plus timber under SPB risk.
The values are rounded off to the nearest whole number. These figures show the
harvest threshold price for all possible ages of the forest. The shaded area implies
the range of sawtimber price that is optimal to harvest for a given forest age. In
every case, if the forest is very young (less than 10 years old), the optimal choice
is not to harvestunless the timber price would become extremely high. However,
as the age of the forest increases, the threshold price falls. For example, in Figure
3, if the timber price is above $258/ when the forest age is between 20 to 26
years old, the optimal decision is to harvest while the optimal decision would be
to defer harvest if the timber price is below $258/ .
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 17
Figure 3. Sawtimber threshold prices for the timber-only case
Figure 4. Sawtimber threshold prices for the carbon-forest case
Figure 5. Sawtimber threshold prices for the carbon-forest under SPB risk case
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)18
Figure 6 and Table 1 compares the timber threshold price changes among
timber only case, carbon plus timber case, and carbon plus timber under SPB case
for all possible ages of the forest. It is apparent from this figure and table that
harvest threshold price decrease as trees age for all three cases. If the age of trees
is younger than 10 years, the optimal decision is not to harvest in all cases. The
threshold price tends to be high under the cases with considering carbon storage,
compare to timber only. This is because carbon store ability of forest incurs a
higher opportunity cost of harvesting the forest, therefore, to offset the burden of
harvest, a higher timber price (revenue) would be required compare to timber only
case. The SPB damage reduces the advantage of standing forest its threshold price
is higher than timber only case because dead trees still provide carbon
sequestration. The benefit from carbon sequestration of standing tree partially com-
pensates the lost from reducing the total volume of harvest by SPB damage.
Figure 6. Comparisons of threshold price changes: timber only vs. carbon forest under
SPB vs. carbon forest
Area above the line is optimal harvesting zone
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 19
Table 1. Comparison of timber threshold price ages
Age Timber only Carbon Forest Carbon forest under SPB risk
10 Not harvest 1000 1000
11 460 531 531
20 258 344 297
40 223 258 227
60 193 223 193
80 167 223 167
86 144 167 144
89 125 167 144
2. Sensitive analysis for carbon social cost
Figure 7 presents infinite rotation valuation for fixed harvestunder various levels
of social cost of carbon. As the social cost of carbon increases from $50/t to $75/t,
the expected NPV of the forest increases from $4224/ha to $5164/ha at 2.4% dis-
count rate. The optimal rotation age does not change, but the bare land values
changes according to difference of carbon social cost; as the social cost of carbon
increases, the value of the forest increases.
Figure 7. Market value of bare land under various levels of social cost of carbon: Fixed
Harvest
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)20
Figure 8. Market value of bare land under various social costs of carbon: Flexible harvest
The bare land price changes for flexible harvest (real option) of infinite
rotation under various levels of social cost of carbon are shown in Figure 8. If
the carbon social cost is $50/t, the bare land value converges to $6699/ha, after
eight cycles of harvest-and-replant. If the carbon social cost is $75/t, the bare land
value converges to $7408/ha, after eight cycle of harvest and replant. If the carbon
social cost is $90/t, the bare landvalue converges to $7841/ha, after eight cycle
of harvest-and-replant. Compare to fixed harvest case, flexibility adds approx-
imately 59% to the value of bare land under a $50/t social cost, 54% under a $75/t
social cost, 51% under a $90/t social cost.
The timber threshold price changes for all possible ages of the forest un-
der various level of social cost of carbon are presented in Figure 9. The harvest
threshold price decreases as the social cost of carbon decreases. No difference in
threshold price depending on social cost of carbon if the age of the forest is young
(less than 20 years old). If the forest age is 36 years, the timber threshold price
is $257/m3 for a $90/t of carbon social cost, $223/m3 for a $50/t of carbon social
cost, and $223/m3 for a $75/t of carbon cost, respectively. The timber threshold
price decreases as the trees grow. The higher social cost of carbon increases the
opportunity cost to harvest trees. Therefore, it requires a higher timber price is
necessary to compensate the loss of the opportunity cost associated with cutting
trees down. Therefore, as the carbon social cost increases, the forest owner would
consider delay timber harvest if anything else remains the same.
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 21
Figure 9. Timber threshold price by different social costs of carbon
3. Sensitivity analysis for SPB risk
Fixed harvest valuation (infinite rotation) under various SPB damage rates are il-
lustrated in Figure 10. If the SPB damage rate increases, the value of bare land
will decrease bare land. If SPB damages 1% of the forest, the forest value is
$4308/ha at the optimal rotation age (40 years old). However, if SPB damages 2%
of the forest, the forest value is $3681/ha at the optimal harvest age (30 years
old). If SPB damages 3% of the forest, the forest value is $2908/ha at the optimal
harvest age (30 years old). As the SPB risk increases, both the bare land value
and the optimal rotation age decreasebecause high SPB infestation reduces both to-
tal harvest volume and carbon sequestration ability of trees. This generates a po-
tential profit loss to the forest owners by reducing timber productivity in forest.
When forest owners make a harvest decision, they need to determine if the rate
of return from continuing the investment in the forest is worth more than the rate
of return received from an alternative investment (Jacobson 2015). Therefore, in-
centives from continuing to grow the trees would decrease under high SPB in-
festation risk by decreasing the future expected rate of return from continuing the
investment in the trees. Thus, forest owner’s choice is seeking other opportunities
to invest.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)22
Figure 10. Value of bare land (with fixed harvest) at various SPB risks
The change of real option value (flexible harvest valuation) under various
SPB damage rates are shown in Figure 11. The real option values decrease from
$6918/ha to $5169/ha as SPB risk rises from 1% to 3%.
Figure 11. Market value of bare land (flexible harvest) changes at various SPB risks
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 23
The timber threshold price for harvesting at various SPB damage rates.
For example, the harvest threshold price is $297/m3 at a 1% SPB risk, $258/m3
at both 2% and 3% SPB risk at age 23 is shown in Figure 12. If the forest age
is 40 years, the threshold price is $223/m3 at 1% and 2% SPB risk, $193/m3 for
the case of 3% SPB risk. A higher SPB risk reduces the benefit from keeping the
forest. Therefore, harvesting is optimal at a lower timber price as SPB damage risk
becomes more severe, especially, if the forest is younger than 55 years.
Figure 12. Optimal harvest price flow at various SPB damage rates
VI. Conclusion
This paper evaluates the combined impact of the three factors on forest manager’s
decision making using real option approach. The major finding of this paper is
that flexible harvest decision making using real options is a better strategy than
the fixed harvest decision when forest owners face several uncertainties including
sawtimber price volatility, climate change, and insect outbreaks. A higher bare
land value is generated if a flexible harvest decision making (real option) by in-
corporating stochastic price movement is allowed because the value of flexibility
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)24
adds to forest valueswhen flexible harvest decision is allowed. The CO2 storage
of a forest enhances the bare land value while SPB outbreaks reduce the bare land
value. However, if we consider the carbon sequestration ability of damaged trees,
the bare land value is still higher than that without taking into account carbon stor-
age of damaged trees. The value of standing trees is higher as the carbon social
cost increases due to increasing opportunity cost of carbon sequestration on trees.
When social cost of carbon is high, the incentive from converting abandoned agri-
cultural land to forest land and using wood products instead of other material will
become higher. Moreover, the high social cost of carbon also adds value to wood
products because the wood products also contribute to carbon storage.
As the global CO2 concentration increases under climate change, the value
of carbon storage of forest would increase. Therefore, at higher social cost of car-
bon, higher timber price is required to warrant harvesting due to increasing oppor-
tunity cost of cutting trees. Higher SPB risk tends to reduce the bare land value
of forest. The high bare landvalue of carbon forest provides an incentive to forest
owners to plant new forests and perform intensive treatments to keep forests
healthy and productive. The U.S. forests currently absorb 10% of the national
greenhouse gas emissions (Ingerson 2009). Increasing the forest rotation age by in-
creasing the value of standing trees could enhance forests’ CO2 storage by defer-
ring harvest. This might provide positive impacts on CO2 mitigation in the south-
ern U.S. This study confirms that standing forests could provide social benefits by
absorbing CO2. However, planting new forests and keeping them healthy may re-
quire additional costs such as the cost of pesticide and fertilization. This might
carry an extra burden to forest owners. Therefore, policy makers should establish
legislation that provides additional incentives to forest owners to offset additional
burden by differing harvest and planting new forest. Emissions trading may be one
of the solutions. Under emissions trading, the forest owners could earn carbon
credit by standing forest and sell them in domestic and international market. For
example, under the the New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme (NZETS), the
post-1989 forests (planted on and after 1st January 1990) are qualified as carbon
credit that could be accumulated or immediately sold in carbon market (Tee et al.
2014). This could provide extra income to forest owners, and the extra cash flow
might generate incentives to forest owner to harvest new forests.
A limitation of this study is the absence of considering various forest
management practicesincluding pruning, thinning and fertilizing. Also, the pesti-
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 25
cide control impact should be considered in the case of SPB outbreak risk in fu-
ture research. The impact of CO2 fertilizations on forest productivity might be in-
cluded in real option valuation equations as well. The increments of timber prod-
ucts because of CO2 fertilizations may offset the loss from timber damages by
SPB infestation under climate change. To consider these factors, more sophisti-
cated real option valuation modeling approaches will be necessary for further
studies. Unless several limitations, I convince that the paper will give insights into
what forest owners need to do for improving their timber harvest decisions under
uncertainty. The optimal harvest thresholds in particular, provide a useful guideline
for forest owners by offering an insightful decision-making tool which can be
compared with actual timber price in every year.
REFERENCES
Alavalapati, Janaki, and Shashi Kant. 2014. Handbook of Forest Resource Economics. 1
edition. London: Routledge.
Amacher, Gregory, Markku Ollikainen, and Erkki A. Koskela. 2009. Economics of Forest
Resources. 1 edition. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Asante, Patrick, and Glen W. Armstrong. 2012. “Optimal Forest Harvest Age Considering
Carbon Sequestration in Multiple Carbon Pools: A Comparative Statics Analysis.”
Journal of Forest Economics 18 (2): 145–56. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2011.12.002
Asante, Patrick, Glen W. Armstrong, and Wiktor L. Adamowicz. 2011. “Carbon
Sequestration and the Optimal Forest Harvest Decision: A Dynamic Programming
Approach Considering Biomass and Dead Organic Matter.” Journal of Forest
Economics 17 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2010.07.001.
Baker, James B., and Gordon Langdon. 1990. “Loblolly Pine.” vol. 1. Silvics of North
America. USDA Forest Service.
Bentz, B. J., and D. E. Mullins. 1999. “Ecology of Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera:
Scolytidae) Cold Hardening in the Intermountain West.” Environmental Entomology 28
(4): 577–87. doi:10.1093/ee/28.4.577.
Conrad, Jon M. 2000. “Wilderness: Options to Preserve, Extract, or Develop.” Resource
and Energy Economics 22 (3): 205–19. doi:10.1016/S0928-7655(00)00031-2.
Council of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, Department of
Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of
Transportation, Domestic Policy Council, et al. 2013. “Technical Support Document: -
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis -
Under Executive Order 12866 -.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
assets/inforeg/technical-update- social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.
Doran, Faye S., Coleman W. Dangerfield, Frederick W. Cubbage, James E. Johnson,
James W. Pease, Larry A. Johnson, and George M. Hopper. 2009. “Tree Crops for
Marginal Farmland: Loblolly Pine.” 446–604. Verginia Cooperative Extension.
Duku-Kaakyire, Armstrong, and David M. Nanang. 2004. “Application of Real Options
Theory to Forestry Investment Analysis.” Forest Policy and Economics 6 (6): 539–52.
doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00003-0.
Frank Werner, Ruedi Taverna. 2005. “Carbon Pool and Substitution Effects of an Increased
Use of Wood in Buildings in Switzerland: First Estimates.” Annals of Forest Science
62 (2005): 889–902. doi:10.1051/forest:2005080.
Gane, Michael, Edmund Franz von Gehren, and M. Faustmann. 1968. Martin Faustmann
and the Evolution of Discounted Cash Flow: Two Articles from the Original German
of 1849. Commonwealth Forestry Institute.
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 27
Grafton, Quentin, Wiktor Adamowicz, Diane Dupont, Harry Nelson, Robert J. Hill, and
Steven Renzetti. 2008. The Economics of the Environment and Natural Resources. John
Wiley & Sons.
Guthrie, Graeme. 2009. Real Options in Theory and Practice. Har/Cdr edition. Oxford ;
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hull, John. 2008. Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives. Upper Saddle River, N.J. :
Prentice Hall, [2008].
Ingerson, Ann. 2009. Wood Products and Carbon Storage: Can Increased Production Help
Solve the Climate Crisis? Washington, D.C.: The Wilderness Society.
IPCC. 2000. “Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry.” Cambridge, UK. http://www.ipcc.ch/
ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0.
Jacobson, Michael. 2015. “Forest Finance 8: To Cut or Not Cut — Tree Value and Deciding
When to Harvest Timber (Forest Finance and Taxation).” Forest Finance and Taxation
(Penn State Extension). Accessed October 5. http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/
forests/finance/forest-tax-info/publications/forest-finance-8-to-cut-or-not-cut-tree-value-and-d
eciding-when-to-harvest-timber.
Moore, David J. P., Nicole A. Trahan, Phil Wilkes, Tristan Quaife, Britton B. Stephens,
Kelly Elder, Ankur R. Desai, Jose Negron, and Russell K. Monson. 2013. “Persistent
Reduced Ecosystem Respiration after Insect Disturbance in High Elevation Forests.”
Ecology Letters 16 (6): 731–37. doi:10.1111/ele.12097.
Morgan, Don, Ben Abdallah, and Pierre Lasserre. 2007. “A Real Options Approach to
Forest-Management Decision Making to Protect Caribou under the Threat of
Extinction.” Ecology and Society 13 (1): 27.
Petrasek, Stanislav, and John M. Perez-Garcia. 2010. “Valuation of Timber Harvest
Contracts as American Call Options with Modified Least-Squares Monte Carlo
Algorithm.” Forest Science 56 (5): 494–504.
Reed, David Doss. 1979. Estimating Region-Wide Damages Caused by the Southern Pine
Beetle. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Saphores, Jean-Daniel M. 2000. “Real Options and the Timing of Implementation of
Emission Limits under Ecological Uncertainty.”
Schwartz, Eduardo S. 1997. “The Stochastic Behavior of Commodity Prices: Implications
for Valuation and Hedging.” The Journal of Finance 52 (3): 923–73. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-6261.1997.tb02721.x.
Smith, James, Linda Heath, Kenneth Skog, and Birdsey A Richard. 2006. “Methods for
Calculating Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Carbon with Standard Estimates for Forest
Types of the United States.” General Technical Report NE343. United States
Department of Agriculture.
Starkey, Dale, Robert Anderson, Carol Young, Noel Cost, John Vissage, Dennis May, and Edwin
Yockey. 1997. Monitoring Incidence of Fusiform Rust in the South and Change Over Time.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region Forest Health Protection.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)28
Tee, James, Riccardo Scarpa, Dan Marsh, and Graeme Guthrie. 2014. “Forest Valuation
under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme: A Real Options Binomial Tree
with Stochastic Carbon and Timber Prices.” Land Economics 90 (1): 44–60.
Thatcher, Robert C. 1981. The Southern Pine Beetle. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Expanded
Southern Pine Beetle Research and Applications Program, Forest Service, Science and
Education Administration.
Viitala, Esa-Jussi. 2006. “An Early Contribution of Martin Faustmann to Natural Resource
Economics.” Journal of Forest Economics 12 (2): 131–44.
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 29
APPENDIX
Figure A1. Two-step price binomial tree
Figure A2. Two step valuation binomial tree
Figure A3. Two step valuation binomial tree with risk neutral probability
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)30
Figure A4. Estimates of timber volume for loblolly pine stands in southern U.S.
Figure A5. Estimates of carbon stock for loblolly pine stands in southern U.S.
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 31
Table A1. Forest management costs
Management cost description Cost ($)
Regeneration cost (including the cost of site preparation, seedling, planting and weed control),
$618/ha
Forest management cost, $22/ha
Tax rate, 28%
Harvest cost $68.67/m3
Discount factor (Risk free interest ate base on current 20 year U.S. treasury rate),
2.5%
Table A2. Cost cash flow
Year 0 1 …15th
rotation…
24throtation
…90th
rotation
Planting Cost (618) (618) … (618) … (618) … (618)
Maintenance Cost, (22) (22) … (22) … (22) … (22)
Timber Revenue $ $ … $ … $ … $
Harvest Cost $ $ … $ … $ … $
Figure A6. Average stumpage price of sawtimber
Source: Louisiana Department of Agriculture
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)32
Figure A7. Revised social cost of CO2, 2010–2050 (in 2007 dollars per metric ton of CO2)
Source: Council of Economic Advisors 2013
Calculating size of up and down movement U, D
The size of an up and down movement U, D can be obtained from following process
(Guthrie 2009). The log price of is defined as log and which is
composed of the following equation
(A1) log ∆ ∆
where log = starting value, ∆ = effect of up moves, ∆ = effect
of down moves. Taking exponentials of both sides of this equation explain that the level of
the price at node and the up/down moves takes the price to
(A2)
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
The size of an up and down moves, and , at this node must equal to the following
equation. The size of up and down moves are constant through the binomial tree.
(A3)
∆
∆
Forest Carbon Sequestration and Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) Disturbance 33
Calculating probability of up and down movement
The probability of an up movement for mean reverting process was calculated using
equation from Guthrie’s work (2009). The expected value of the change in the log price
over next period is equal to the value that is implied by our normalized parameter
estimates.
(A4)
∆
∆
∆ log
is the expected change in the log price, which is the same as the
expected value for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. If the current log price is higher than
its long-run level, which is , then the price likely moves to the down, which is
. As the log price grows larger, a down move more likely to happen.
Conversely, if the log price is currently lower than its long-run level then an up move is
more likely than down move. If is sufficiently large, then will have
negative value. Similarly, if is sufficiently small, then will be greater than
one. However, since is a probability, the value of must be located between
0 and 1. Thus, our solution set equal to 0 if expression in equation (A4) has
negative value, and 1 if greater than 1. Therefore, the final form of the probability of an
up and down movement at node should be
(A5)
if
∆
∆ log≤
∆
∆logif
∆
∆log
if
∆
∆ log≥
Date Submitted: Oct. 28, 2016
Period of Review: Nov. 11. 2016~Dec. 15, 2017
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue): 35~62 35
AN ECONOMIC EFFECT OF THE CROP INSURANCEAT THE FARMLAND IN KOREA*
PARK JI-YUN**
KIM CHANG-GIL***
Keywords
climate change adaptation, crop insurance, extreme weather events,
Just-Pope model, evaluation of climate change adaptation options
Abstract
Climate change has a direct and indirect impact on agricultural pro-
duction through rising temperatures, changes in precipitation and ex-
treme weather events. To cope with climate change efficiently, it is im-
portant to carefully estimate the economic effects of adaptation meas-
ures and establish innovative methods based on the findings. In this
study, we examine statistically the damage and correlation of natural
disasters, which are soaring due to climate change, and farm income,
and measure the economic effect of crop insurance, which is a repre-
sentative option for climate change adaptation. To achieve the pur-
pose, we employ the Just-Pope model to perform an econometric anal-
ysis and use the data of orchard households. The empirical analysis dem-
onstrates that there exists a negative effect of extreme weather on farm
income and the negative effect increases as frequency of weather dis-
asters increases. However, the study also proves that crop insurance is
an effective adaptation measure and the economic effect of the crop
insurance is greater as more frequent extreme weather events occur.
Finally this study shows that insured farmers receive benefits of 1.39 mil-
lion KRW in comparison with uninsured farmers.
* This study utilized a part of the research “Economic analysis of adaptation measures to climate
change in the agricultural sector”.** Research Fellow, Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, Korea.
Corresponding author. e-mail: [email protected]*** President, Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, Korea.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)36
I. Introduction
Climate change represents a statistically significant change in the average state of
the climate; the duration of this can span from years to decades. Climate change
can be caused by natural internal processes, external forcing or by artificial changes
in atmospheric composition or land use. In its fifth comprehensive report on climate
change assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated
that the impact of human activities on the climate system is a fact, and thus, diag-
nosed a wide impact. According to the global climate change prospects in the IPCC
(2014), if the current trend in climate change continues at the current greenhouse
gas emission level, the global average temperature in the late 21st century would
be expected to increase by 3.7 ℃; they also indicated that sea level is expected
to rise by 63 cm from 1986 to 2005. In the scenarios of global warming, it is
expected that weather patterns such as droughts, floods and typhoons, as well as
weather conditions will change greatly per region on a yearly basis.
Climate change has a direct and indirect impact on agricultural production
through rising temperatures, changes in precipitation and extreme weather events.
In many parts of the world, it has been clearly observed that climate change has
a significant impact on crop and food production; furthermore, negative re-
percussions are more common than the benefits. In particular, under climate
change scenarios where the average regional temperature increases by 3 to 4 °C
or higher, agricultural productivity will be adversely affected, thus, jeopardizing
world food production and food security (IPCC 2014).
In Korea, the temperature has risen by 1.8 ℃ over the past 100 years
(1912 ~ 2010) and the precipitation has increased by more than 200mm (Kwon
2012). In other words, the climate in Korea has been changing faster than the
global average. Compared to the mean temperature in the past 40 years (1970 to
2010), future climate change forecasts are projected to rise by 1.8 ℃ in 2020 and
3.7 ℃ in 2050 (KMA: Korea Meteorological Administration 2012). Specifically,
the average annual temperature of the Korean peninsula has risen by 1.2 ℃ (0.41
℃ / decade) for the past 30 years from 1981 to 2010, and the average annual pre-
cipitation tends to increase slightly by 78mm (KMA 2012).
As climate change worsens, extreme weather events such as heavy rain-
fall, typhoons, drought, cold waves and heavy snowfall frequently occur and agri-
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 37
cultural damage increases accordingly. As the sub-tropicalization of the Korean
peninsula has progressed rapidly, the quantity of farmlands and the pattern of the
cultivation area have changed; the winter pest damage has also increased (Kim et
al. 2009).
The agricultural sector is more vulnerable to climate change than it is to
other industries. Therefore, the impact of climate change on agriculture should be
scientifically analyzed, wherein systematic and phased adaptation measures should
be prepared. Since climate change adaptation measures require a considerable amount
of time and budget, it is important to carefully estimate the economic effects of
adaptation measures and establish innovative methods based on the findings.
In order to establish a comprehensive and effective adaptation measure to
climate change, an economic analysis of options for responding to climate change
should be preceded, but the analysis of various climate change adaptation options
is still lacking. Hence, in this study, we analyze the economic effects of crop in-
surance under climate change, particularly extreme weather events in the farm
level. Through the analysis, we evaluate the crop insurance as an adaptation option
for climate change.
II. Background and Literature Review
1. Extreme Weather Events in Korea
According to the IPCC (2014), climate changes include sudden changes in precip-
itation pattern or increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather such as
typhoon, localized heavy rains, cold waves and heavy snowfalls, as well as in-
creasing average temperature and precipitation. Recently, Korea has also experi-
enced greater frequency and higher intensity of these extreme weather events. The
increasing special reports being issued on extreme weather by the Korea
Meteorological Administration is proof of this trend. The special reports on ex-
treme weather refer to announced forecasts when disasters are likely to occur due
to extreme weather. Currently, these reports are issued in the case of strong winds,
heavy seas, heavy rainfall, heavy snowfall, droughts and tsunamis, as well as
winds carrying yellow dusts, cold waves, typhoons and heat waves.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)38
As Table 1 shows, over the last 20 years, the total number of issued spe-
cial reports on extreme weather increased by 241%, from 596 in 1995 to 1,439
in 2015. Especially, special reports on cold wave have been issued 79 times annu-
ally on average in the last five years, compared to only once on average between
1990 and 1994. On other weather disasters such as heavy rainfalls, heavy snow-
falls and draughts, the frequency of special reports issued has been significantly
increased; that is, the average temperatures and precipitation in Korea are increas-
ing, but the fluctuation of weather is getting bigger with the increase of freezing
and drying phenomenon.
Table 1. Number of special reports issued each year
YearTotal number of
special reports on extreme weather
Heavyrainfalls
Cold wavesHeavy
snowfallsDraught
1990 655 169 0 46 0
1991 529 114 0 68 10
1992 448 82 3 37 11
1993 534 127 0 39 8
1994 640 58 1 41 25
1995 596 101 4 27 16
1996 376 58 1 50 6
1997 465 116 1 45 21
1998 1,097 320 10 47 30
1999 1,051 294 7 50 25
2000 374 205 4 51 30
2001 866 161 5 91 59
2002 1,021 167 0 52 34
2003 1,138 294 14 81 39
2004 1,006 241 8 59 55
2005 1,016 323 8 210 43
2006 957 305 3 125 49
2007 1,152 428 0 82 41
2008 1,467 354 12 167 89
2009 1,760 526 51 159 187
2010 1,760 601 53 280 85
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 39
Source: MPSS (Ministry of Public Safety and Security), Each year.
According to the Natural Disaster Yearbook published by the MPSS, since
1990, the scale of damage to the agricultural sector by natural disasters has sig-
nificantly increased, including but not limited to farmland loss and destruction.
The amount of damage by natural disasters increased from 28.4 billion KRW aver-
age in the 1960s to 101.5 billion KRW in the 2000s. The analysis of damage by
natural disasters after 1916 reveals that in 6 of 10 years, most damage occurred
due to natural disasters after 2000. In particular, in 2002 typhoon ‘Rusa’ and lo-
calized heavy rainfall caused the bulk of the damage. It was the year of the worst
damage by natural disasters in Korea’s recorded history. The agricultural sector al-
so suffered from loss and destruction of farmland, estimated at 585.3 billion won.
It is estimated that the total damage in the agricultural sector may be more than
the amount announced by the MPSS, given that crop damage is greater than farm-
land damage (loss or destruction of land) due to natural disasters in the agricul-
tural sector.
YearTotal number of
special reports on extreme weather
Heavyrainfalls
Cold wavesHeavy
snowfallsDraught
2011 1,652 661 86 208 117
2012 1,614 458 111 242 101
2013 1,465 447 87 222 122
2014 1,460 365 82 288 155
2015 1,439 264 29 143 189
1990-1994(average) 561 110 1 46 11
2011-2015(average) 1,526 439 79 221 137
(continued)
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)40
Figure 1. Amount of damage from farmland loss and destruction due to
natural disasters (1958 to 2015)
Unit: million won
Source: MPSS, Each year.
The frequency of extreme weather events in Korea is rapidly increasing
and the damage in the agricultural sector due to extreme weather is also
increasing. However, most previous studies that analyze the impacts of climate
change on agriculture, considered changes in mean temperature and precipitation
as major regressors. In other words, they are trying to estimate the effects of
changes in mean temperature or precipitation on agriculture (Adams et al., 1990;
Kim et al. 2009; Gammans, Mérel and Ortiz-Bobea 2017).
However, damage to agriculture due to climate change is more likely to
be caused by extreme weather events that occur intensively in a short time than
slowly changing temperature and precipitation. Changes in average temperature
and precipitation can be accommodated by changes in cultivation areas or culti-
vation periods, but extreme weather events such as typhoons, cold waves or heat
waves are difficult for farmers to respond in the short term. Previous studies veri-
fied that extreme weather events have negative effects on crops. Lee et al. (1991)
review the effects of meteorological disasters on the productivity of oilseed crops
and suggest the variety improvement and the advanced cultural practice for stable
production. Kim et al. (2010) analyze the damage situation of seedlings caused by
meteorological disasters and proposed measures for them. Kim et al. (2012) dem-
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 41
onstrate the negative effects of heat waves and heavy rainfalls on the rice yield
through the panel data analysis. Lobell, Sibley and Ortiz-Monasterio (2012) show
that under extreme heat (greater than 34°C), there is statistically significant accel-
eration of withering with the satellite data of wheat in India. Through the empiri-
cal analysis of U.S. crop yields, Schlenker and Roberts (2009) provide evidence
that crop yields are optimally increasing with temperature, but if temperature rises
more than the thresholds, yields decline sharply. Welch et al. (2010) estimate the
impacts of daily minimum and maximum temperature and solar radiation on rice
yields in tropical and subtropical Asia; they find that as minimum temperature in-
creases, rice yields decrease, but with higher maximum temperature, rice yields
increase. However, these are only a measure of the physical damage of crops, and
the impact on the farm income and farmer's risk management has not yet been
analyzed.
2. Crop Insurance in Korea
The crop insurance in Korea was introduced in 2001 to help farmers to adapt to
the effects of natural disasters, to stabilize income and support farmers. It is one
of the most widely adopted adaptation strategies to climate change in Korea.
The crop insurance started in 2001 and insured against damage to apple
and pear trees due to typhoons, hail and frost. In 2001, 8,055 farm households
bought the crop insurance and 17.5% of total production area was enrolled, which
is 4,096 ha. Compared with 2 items in 2001, the range of insurance coverage was
further extended to 46 items and various other natural disasters in 2015. In 2015,
122,054 farm households bought the crop insurance, covering 185,239 ha of farm-
land (respectively, a 15-fold and 45-fold increase since 2001). Since the crop in-
surance was extended to rice from 2009, the number of insured farm households
and the area of insured farmland increased. However, rice growers were not great-
ly interested in buying the insurance initially and the insured ratio of rice was low,
so the total insured ratio also dropped sharply as Figure 2 presents. On the other
hand, for orchard for special risk introduced in 2001, the number of insured farm
households has steadily increased from 17.5% in 2001 to 45.4% in 2015, implying
a successful landing of the crop insurance to market.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)42
Figure 2. Insured Ratio by Year
Source: MAFRA (2016).
In 2015, 18,049 apple growers bought the crop insurance for special risk,
the greatest number except for rice (54,415 growers), followed by 9,775 insured
pear growers for special risk. The highest ratio of area insured consists of pears
(81.6% of pear production area) followed by apples (76.8%) and sweet persim-
mons (32.0%). The areas insured for field crops or greenhouse crops make up just
5%, and the insured area for rice, only 26.6%.
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 43
Table 2. Insured by Major Crops (2015)
Unit: ha, households, %
CategoryProduction
area
No. of insured farm
households
Insuredarea
Insured ratio of area
Orchard(special
risk)
Apples 20,674 18,049 15,887 76.8
Asian Pears 12,045 9,775 9,830 81.6
Tangerines 16,414 57 45 0.3
Sweet persimmons 10,478 3,109 3,348 32.0
Astringent persimmons 9,175 3,109 2,179 23.8
Orchard(multiple
risk)
Peaches 9,318 1,798 1,167 12.5
Grapes 10,974 197 78 0.7
Plums 3,976 613 272 6.8
Japanese apricots 7,017 300 211 3.0
Fieldcrops
Soy Beans 26,597 594 855 3.2
Fall Onions 13,019 311 205 1.6
Garlic 12,903 56 41 0.3
Tea 749 80 63 8.3
Red Peppers 20,828 871 236 1.1
Rice Rice 515,276 54,415 137,171 26.6
Greenhousecrops
Greenhouse watermelons 13,960 373 183 1.3
Greenhouse strawberries 6,769 1,020 385 5.7
Greenhouse melons (Chamwei) 5,345 2,213 1,191 22.3
Greenhouse tomatoes 6,928 821 310 4.5
Source: MAFRA (2016).
The share of the national area covered by the crop insurance was 21.7 %
in 2015, with 122,054 farmers buying the crop insurance. The highest insured ratio
is in Jeonbuk, followed by Jeonnam and Chungnam. The insured area in Jeonnam
is 55,496 ha and the insured area ratio is 39.9%. From Table 3 and Figure 4, it
can be seen that Jeolla has the high frequency of extreme weather events and large
agricultural lands, as well as the high insured ratio of area.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)44
Table 3. Insured by Provinces (2015)
Unit: ha, household, %
Category Production areaNo. of insured
farm householdsInsured area
Insured ratio of area
Total 854,301 122,054 185,239 21.7
Gyeonggi 83,286 4,044 5,934 7.1
Gangwon 38,216 2,684 5,487 14.4
Chungbuk 50,550 3,867 4,528 9.0
Chungnam 138,005 11,519 25,659 18.6
Jeonbuk 103,254 19,255 41,185 39.9
Jeonnam 157,297 30,699 55,496 35.3
Gyeongbuk 135,402 26,829 23,811 17.6
Gyeongnam 93,113 14,945 13,584 14.6
Jeju 23,680 3,087 2,060 8.7
Source: MAFRA (2016).
Figure 3. Special Reports on Extreme Weather and Insured Ratios by Provinces (2015)
Source: MAFRA (2016) and MPSS (2016).
The agricultural insurance budget of MAFRA, which includes the crop in-
surance, increased from 16.6 billion won in 2001 to 285.3 billion won in 2015.
The agricultural insurance budget has increased 17 times and the share of the agri-
cultural insurance in the total budget of MAFRA has increased from 0.2% in 2001
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 45
to 2.0% in 2015. This shows the growing importance of the agricultural insurance
in agricultural policy.
Table 4. MAFRA budget for Agricultural Insurance (2001 to 2015)
Unit: 100 million won, %
Years Budgets of MAFRA (A) Agricultural insurance budget (B) Ratio (B/A)
2001 93,634 166 0.2
2002 102,450 247 0.2
2003 101,496 363 0.4
2004 106,907 388 0.4
2005 110,630 499 0.5
2006 118,560 998 0.8
2007 121,208 1,031 0.9
2008 124,242 1,161 0.9
2009 129,887 1,218 0.9
2010 129,888 1,319 1.0
2011 131,929 1,663 1.3
2012 136,778 1,856 1.4
2013 135,267 2,348 1.8
2014 135,344 2,701 2.0
2015 140,431 2,853 2.0
Source: Nonghyup Property & Casualty Insurance (2015), MAFRA (2016).
Thus, crop insurance is one of the most important policy-driven farmer's
risk management options and is also one of the major options of adaptation to cli-
mate change; crop insurance has also been rapidly distributed. However, so far,
previous studies on crop insurance have only estimated policy effects such as an
increase of total production or cultivation area (Young and Westcot 2000; Han
2014); recently, several studies have tried to analyze the effect of crop insurance
on production or cultivation area in farm level. Kim (2001) conducted an empirical
analysis of apple farm households and measured the welfare effect of crop in-
surance and income insurance. Comparing the welfare effects of crop insurance
and income insurance, Kim insisted that income insurance is a more desirable poli-
cy tool. Gray et al. (2004) showed that if the policies including crop insurance
were implemented, the expected profit of the farm household increased and the
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)46
profit distribution changed. On the basis of this, Gray et al. analyzed empirically
how the profit distribution of producers is changed by implementing multiple poli-
cies at the same time. They found that individual policies increase expected returns
and lower risk, but the effect of using crop insurance with other policies such as
marketing loan payment and direct payment is rather reduced. Choi, Chae, and
Yun (2010) evaluated the overall performance of crop insurance in Korea. After
evaluating the performance of crop insurance for ten years using econometric
methods, they analyzed the problems of crop insurance and suggested the political
reform measures. They found that the risk management measures such as disaster
prevention facilities have an alternative relation to insurance, and the crop in-
surance is effective in reducing instability in farm household income. Han (2014)
analyzed empirically the effect of crop insurance on farmers' production patterns
and the effect on crop market caused by changed production. Using DID
(difference-in-differences), Han estimated the effect of crop insurance on the pro-
duction by crop type and business type. From the results, Han found that the par-
ticipation rate of crop insurance affects the quantity produced positively and there-
fore may affect the market price of the item insured.
Di Falco et al. (2014) states that the demand for crop insurance increases
according to weather condition, and crop insurance is an effective measure for risk
management. However, research on whether or not crop insurance is beneficial to
the farm economy when natural disasters occur, which is the intrinsic goal of crop
insurance, has not yet been conducted.
III. Model and Economic Theory
1. Just-Pope Model
With the increasing threat of extreme weather events, the benefits of the crop in-
surance are growing as a strategy for farmers’ effective risk management.
Nevertheless, the impact of the crop insurance in reducing damage by extreme
weather has not been studied so far. Earlier studies on the crop insurance have
focused largely on the political effects, for example, changes of areas cultivated
and quantity produced.
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 47
This study focuses on the effect of the crop insurance in mitigating farm-
ers’ income damage and fluctuations due to extreme weather, which is the primary
goal of crop insurance. For this analysis, the Just-Pope model (Just and Pope,
1978) is employed.
An evaluation of extreme weather events and crop insurance was accom-
plished by a Just-Pope mean function model, which characterized the expected in-
come and variance of income per farm by different functions (denoted mean func-
tion, f and variance function or risk function, g, respectively):
y = f(X;α) + g(X;β)ε
where y represents farm income, X is the vector of independent variables, α and
β are parameter vectors, and ε~N(0, 1). After assigning functional forms to f
and g, econometric estimation of the Just-Pope mean function yielded the system-
atic effects of regressor on both expected income and the variance of income.
The Just-Pope model is a 3-step approach in which step 1 estimates in-
come from crop cultivation by OLS (Ordinary Least Squared):
y = f(X;α) + u
where u is the residual term. Furthermore, step 2 estimates the variability of in-
come from crop cultivation with the square of error terms derived at step 1 as a
dependent variable.
var(y)= E[(y-E(y))2] = E(u2)= [g(X; β)]2
Step 3 applies the estimate of the error terms derived at step 2 to remove
heteroscedasticity and then re-estimates income from crop cultivation.
y/g(X;β) = f(X;α)/g(X;β) + ε
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)48
Since income risk may be modeled as heteroskedasticity, the parameters
in the mean function cannot be efficiently estimated if the income risk is not ac-
counted for. In the empirical literature, this is done by estimating the mean func-
tion and the variance function together, primarily by a feasible generalized least
squares (FGLS) three-stage estimator (Asche and Tveteras 1999).
Using the minimizing Akaike’s information criterion, we choose re-
gressors, and the equation of an empirical panel estimation for farm income from
crop cultivation at step 1 is:
CropIncit = α0 + α1Dfulltime
it + α3Dexpert
it + α4Ageit + α5Ageit2 + α6Acreit +
α7Dins
it×Warningit + α8Dcrop
it + ci + uit
where i is farmer’s id; t is time; CropInc is income from crop cultivation;
Dfulltime is full-time farmers; Age is farmer’s age; Acre is farmer’s cultivation area;
Dins is farmer’s buying the crop insurance policy; Warning is the number of issued
weather alerts; and Dcrop is a dummy variable; c is an individual effect; u is an
idiosyncratic error.
The equation for estimating variability of income from crop cultivation at
step 2 is:
ln(CropIncit-E(CropIncit))2 = β0 + β1D
fulltimeit + β2D
expertit + β3Ageit + β4Ageit
2
+ β5Acreit + β8Dins
it×Warningit + β9Dcrop
it + ci + νit
They are consistent estimates of the variances, which are calculated as the
antilogarithm of the predictions from step 2. At step 3, using the squared root of
the variance predictions as weights the original model by weighted least squares
(WLS) is estimated (McCarl, Villavicencio and Wu 2008).
2. Probit Model
After exploring how crop insurance mitigates damage to farms caused by abnormal
weather, we examine whether the farmer’s choice of adopting crop insurance
would be affected by the extreme weathers. We model a representative risk-averse
farm household as choosing to adopt a crop insurance to maximize the expected
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 49
utility from final revenue, given the production function, land and other constraints
(Yesuf et al.). We assume that farmers are price-takers and they operate in perfect
competition market structure (Yesuf et al.). Also, assuming that the utility function
is state-independent, solving this problem would give an optimal adaptation strat-
egy undertaken by the representative farm household, given by equation:
Ait = A(Xit;α) + εit
where A is equal to 1 if household i adopted an insurance scheme at time t, and
Xit is the vector of independent variables including the farmer’s characteristics and
climatic variables. The inclusion of the extreme weather event variable in the
equation allows us to test whether the frequency of extreme weather events is a
potential complement or substitute for the decision to adopt crop insurance. α is
a vector of parameters, and εit is the error term. A risk averse household chooses
to adopt the strategy of adopting crop insurance, A = 1, over the strategy of not
adopting crop insurance, A = 0, if, and only if, the expected utility from adapta-
tion strategy is greater than the expected utility of strategy.
3. Data
In order to estimate the damage caused by climate change and examine the effect
of crop insurance on damage reduction, we use data on farm income, insurance
expenditure and general characteristics of farm households from “Farm Economic
Survey”, and data on special reports on extreme weather events from “Natural
Disaster Yearbook”. The Farm Economic Survey is a statistical survey carried out
annually by Statistics Korea on 2,800 sample farms in 560 sample locations
nationwide. The sample farm households are replaced every five years. When the
panel is replaced, the identification number of each farm is also changed. It makes
it difficult to utilize it as panel data. Hence, in this study, only the data from 2008
to 2012 that used the same sample is used for examination.1
In this study, we use only orchard farm data from the Farm Economic
1 Most recently, the survey panel has been replaced since 2013, and data are currently available
until 2016, so a data for four years is available for the latest panels. In this study, we used the
panel data for 5 years from 2008 to 2012 to get as much data as possible.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)50
Survey, for the crop insurance was first introduced for orchard farms and the in-
sured ratio of orchard farms is relatively high. If we use the whole data set of
orchard farm for examination, it is difficult to obtain meaningful findings in the
quantitative analysis because of the huge income gap. The minimum value of in-
come from orchard farm data set is negative 120 million KRW and the maximum
value is 426 million KRW. Therefore, we use only 549 observations from the sec-
ond and third quintiles of farm income except the extremes.
Full-time farmers in the analysis account for approximately 59%, full-time
farmers account for approximately 63% of insured fruit growers and full-time
farmers account for approximately 58% of uninsured fruit growers. Specialized
fruit growers account for approximately 61% of all fruit growers, and among the
insured fruit growers, specialized fruit growers account for approximately 74%.
However, in the uninsured fruit growers, only 58% are specialized fruit growers;
as such, more full-time farmers or specialized fruit growers purchased the crop in-
surance in comparison to part-time or non-specialized fruit growers.
126 orchard farms, which make up 23% of total orchard farms, purchased
the crop insurance and 423 farms did not. Average farm income from crop culti-
vation and off-farm income were 30 million KRW and 5.11 million KRW,
respectively. For the insured farms, farm income from crop cultivation was 36 mil-
lion KRW and off-farm income was 5.2 million KRW. On the other hand, for the
uninsured farms, farm income from crop cultivation was 28 million KRW and
off-farm income was 5.1 million KRW. Insured farms had relatively high agricul-
tural income, while there was no big difference in off-farm income levels of in-
sured and uninsured farms. The average orchard area is 77a. The average orchard
area of insured farms is 87a, which is larger than that of 74a of uninsured farms.
The Natural Disaster Yearbook provides quarterly statistics on special re-
port on extreme weather events for each of the six regions in Korea (Seoul and
Gyeonggi-do; Busan and Gyeongsang-do; Gwangju and Jeolla-do; Daejeon and
Chungcheong-do; Gangwon-do; Jeju-do). Considering the fruit growing period, we
use data from the second and third quarter; in addition, the total number of special
reports issued for strong winds, heavy rainfall, heavy snowfall, drought, cold
waves, typhoons and heat waves is used. The frequency of special reports on
heavy seas, tsunamis and winds carrying yellow dusts is excluded, for these ex-
treme weather events hardly affect fruit tree growth.
The average number of special reports issued in the second and third
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 51
quarter was 116, and insured farms experienced 127 special reports. Therefore, we
can assume that there is correlation between the frequency of extreme weather
events and farmers’ decision-making on buying the crop insurance.
Table 5. Basic statistics of key variables
Variable AverageStandard deviation
Min. value
Max. value
All fruit growers (obs.=549)
D (full-time grower=1, class 1 and 2 two-job grower=0)2 0.59 0.49225 0 1
D (specialized grower=1, general · sideline· self-sufficient grower=0)3 0.61 0.48731 0 1
D (insured=1, uninsured=0) 0.23 0.42090 0 1
Age 66.05 9.95046 32 91
Cultivated area (a) 76.84 60.9259 0 447
Farm income from crop cultivation (1,000 KRW) 29937 18614.7 4970.5 221756.1
Number of special reports issued in 2nd & 3rd quarters 116.3 42.0317 49 212
Insured growers (obs.=126)
D (full-time grower=1) 0.63 0.48554 0 1
D (specialized grower=1) 0.74 0.44143 0 1
Age 65.40 9.09952 37 91
Cultivated area (a) 87.10 66.0790 4.1 446.6
Farm income from crop cultivation (1,000 KRW) 36037 23952.6 8129.6 221756.1
Number of special reports issued in 2nd & 3rd quarters 127.0 35.2997 49 212
Uninsured growers (obs.=423)
D (full-time grower=1) 0.58 0.49427 0 1
D (specialized grower=1) 0.58 0.49465 0 1
Age 66.25 10.1922 32 85
Cultivated area (a) 73.78 59.0434 0 294.5
Farm income from crop cultivation (1,000 KRW) 28120 16297.4 4970.5 117913.2
Number of special reports issued in 2nd & 3rd quarters 113.2 43.3704 49 212
Source: Kim et al. (2015).
2 In this case, full-time fruit growers refer to those who do not have family members engaged in
other work than farming for more than 30 days each year. In addition, Class 1 two-job fruit
growers refer to those whose agricultural income is more than their off-farm income, and the
Class 2 two-job fruit growers refer to those whose agricultural income is smaller than their
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)52
IV. Results
Table 6 presents the results of estimating the effects of extreme weather events
and crop insurance on farm income. According to the result of the estimation, the
correlation between the farm owners’ age and farm income is not statistically
significant. Moreover, the difference in farm income between the full-time growers
and the part-time growers is not statistically significant either. However, speci-
alized growers are expected to earn 9.07 million KRW more in farm income than
others. It shows that the scale of cultivation affects the farm income rather than
how much farmers concentrate on farming. The larger the farmland is, the more
the farm income is. As the cultivation area is increased by 10a, the farm income
is increased by about 130 thousand KRW. This implies that there exists an econo-
my of scale in fruit farming.
About the extreme weather events, the result presents that the farm in-
come is lower, as the frequency of special reports on extreme weather events is-
sued during the second and third quarter of the major crop growth period is
increasing. That is, orchards are actually experiencing economic damage due to
extreme climates such as heat waves, cold waves, typhoons, heavy rainfalls, and
droughts. It is estimated that an average of 27,680 KRW of economic damage oc-
curs to uninsured farmers every time a special report is issued. By applying the
average annual 116 special reports between 2009 and 2012, it is estimated that ex-
treme weather caused approximately 3.21 million won of damage to fruit growers.
off-farm income (Statistics Korea 2015).3 In this case, categories of specialized fruit growers, general fruit growers and sideline fruit grow-
ers comply with the farmer classification standard of Statistics Korea. The specialized fruit grow-
ers refer to those who have at least 3ha of farmland or at least 20 million won of agricultural
income. The general fruit growers refer to those who have farmland smaller than 3ha and at most
20 million won of agricultural income. The sideline fruit growers refer to those whose off-farm
income is more than agricultural income among fruit grower who have at least 30a of farmland
or at least 2 million won of agricultural income. The self-sufficient fruit growers refer to those
whose agricultural income is smaller than 2 million won among those who have farmland smaller
than 30a (Statistics Korea 2015).
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 53
Table 6. Result of estimated effect of the crop insurance for
reducing damage by extreme weather events
Variable Coef. Std. Err. P>|z|
D (full-time fruit grower=1, part-time fruit grower=0) 1430.33 905.70 0.114
D (specialized fruit grower=1, general · sideline · self-sufficient fruit grower=0)
9069.64 966.10 0.000
Age -544.68 571.04 0.340
Age2 1.50 4.61 0.745
Cultivated area (a) 134.34 12.34 0.000
Number of special reports issued in 2nd & 3rd quarters -27.68 14.95 0.064
Number of special reports issued in 2nd & 3rd quarters *D (insured=1)
20.36 6.70 0.002
D (general apple=1) -2706.86 1924.01 0.159
D (dwarf apple=1) 479.80 2406.97 0.842
D (Asian pear=1) 4479.17 1653.94 0.007
D (grape=1) 2310.13 1810.55 0.202
D (peach=1) -53.00 1491.01 0.972
D (persimmon=1) -481.36 1497.97 0.748
D (tangerine=1) -2746.62 2903.42 0.344
Constant term 45303.90 17504.55 0.010
# of obs. 549
Wald chi2 (14) 368.12
Prob>chi2 0.000
Source: Kim et al. (2015).
Meanwhile, through the examination, we find that the crop insurance can
mitigate the economic damage caused by extreme weather events. As Table 6
shows, the crop insurance reduces farm income loss by 20,360 KRW per special
report. Hence, compared with 27,680 KRW for an uninsured grower, an insured
fruit grower is expecting that an economic loss of only 7,320 KRW occurs every
time a special report is issued. By applying 116 times of average special reports
issued between 2009 and 2012, it is estimated that an insured grower is damaged
by 850 thousand KRW. This is approximately 2.36 million KRW smaller than
3.21 million won for the uninsured fruit growers. Considering that the average
crop insurance premium of the insured farmers in this sample is 1,040 thousand
KRW; the comprehensive effect of crop insurance on farm income is 1,322 KRW.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)54
Figure 4. The economic effect of crop insurance on farm income
Source: Kim et al. (2015).
Table 7 presents the estimated result of the effect of the crop insurance
and extreme weather events on farm income volatility. According to the result of
analyzing the effects of crop insurance and extreme weather on the variability of
farm income, the variability of farm income of full-time or specialized growers is
higher than others. Furthermore, the estimation result shows that as a fruit grower
cultivates in a larger scale, the variability of farm income is also increased. This
means that the higher the farm income is, the higher the variability is.
The number of special reports on extreme weather events has a positive
correlation with the volatility of farm income. As the extreme weather events oc-
cur frequently in the fruit growing season, the volatility of farm income also
increases. That is, natural disasters such as heat wave, cold wave, heavy rain and
snowfall, typhoons and droughts not only aggravate the farm income, but also in-
crease the uncertainty of farm income. The estimation result shows that the crop
insurance reduces the volatility of farm income slightly, but the effect is not stat-
istically significant. This analysis suggests that the volatility of farm income de-
pends on the frequency of natural disaster and the scale of cultivation area rather
than the crop insurance and farm owner’s age.
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 55
Since this study is based on farm-level information, it is hard to make an
accurate estimation of the variability of farm income. To better an analysis of the
effect of crop insurance on the variability of farm income, it is necessary to carry
out estimation to the exclusion of the scale of production. Therefore, more accu-
rate results can be obtained if farm income per unit area rather than fruit grower’s
total agricultural income is analyzed in future studies.
Table 7. Result of the estimated effect of crop insurance for
reducing variability of farm income
Variable Coef. Std. Err. P>|z|
D (full-time fruit grower=1, part-time fruit grower =0) 0.7555 0.2040 0.000
D (specialized fruit grower =1, general · sideline · self-sufficient fruit grower =0)
0.3719 0.2193 0.090
Age -0.0297 0.0948 0.754
Age2 0.0000 0.0008 0.966
Cultivated area (a) 0.0116 0.0019 0.000
Number of special reports issued in 2nd & 3rd quarters 0.0065 0.0032 0.039
Number of special reports issued in 2nd & 3rd quarters*D (insured=1)
-0.0001 0.0018 0.974
D (general apple=1) -0.2018 0.3341 0.546
D (dwarf apple=1) 0.4127 0.3245 0.203
D (Asian pear=1) 0.7183 0.2700 0.008
D (grape=1) 0.4563 0.2535 0.072
D (peach=1) -0.1941 0.2671 0.467
D (persimmon=1) -0.0402 0.2391 0.867
D (tangerine=1) 0.8925 0.4494 0.047
Constant term 16.3680 2.9443 0.000
# of obs. 549
Wald chi2 (14) 121.04
Prob>chi2 0.000
Source: Kim et al. (2015).
Finally, Table 8 presents the results of the probit estimation. According
to the Probit analysis, as the time passes, the incentive for crop insurance in-
creases, which is considered to be a positive publicity effect. In addition, it was
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)56
found that the incentive of insurance for the specialized fruit grower is higher than
that of the others, and the larger the cultivation area, the greater the insurance
incentive. Thus, the farmers who are engaged in large - scale farming are more
interested in risk management. As for the cultivated items, the insurance incidence
of dwarf apples and Asian pears is relatively high and grapes are low, which is
consistent with Table 2.
Table 8. Estimation result of crop insurance probit
Variable Coef. Std. Err. P>|z|
Trend 0.3428 0.0595 0.000
Number of special reports issued in 2nd & 3rd quarters t-1 0.0044 0.0020 0.024
D (full-time fruit grower=1, part-time fruit grower=0) 0.1741 0.1495 0.244
D (specialized fruit grower=1, general · sideline · self-sufficient fruit grower=0)
0.3590 0.1576 0.023
Age 0.1068 0.0721 0.138
Age2 -0.0009 0.0006 0.124
D (general apple=1) 0.0516 0.2234 0.817
D (dwarf apple=1) 0.7278 0.2100 0.001
D (Asian pear=1) 0.3766 0.1839 0.041
D (grape=1) -0.4323 0.1829 0.018
D (peach=1) -0.2781 0.1941 0.152
D (persimmon=1) -0.0369 0.1757 0.834
D (tangerine=1) -0.4556 0.3351 0.174
Cultivated area (ha) 0.2206 0.1339 0.099
Constant term -5.7429 2.2538 0.011
# of obs. 549
Wald chi2(14) 74.67
Prob>chi2 0
The number of special reports on extreme weather events of the previous
year has a positive correlation with the farmers’ choice on crop insurance and is
statistically significant. This result is quite intuitive, indicating that farmers who
have experienced natural disasters adopt more crop insurance to hedge against bad
environmental conditions. This implies that more frequent extreme weather events
make the farmer more willing to undertake crop insurance.
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 57
V. Conclusion
In this study, we try to statistically prove the damage and correlation of natural
disasters, which are soaring due to climate change, on farm income, and to meas-
ure the economic effect of crop insurance, which is a representative option for cli-
mate change adaptation. To achieve the purpose, we employ the Just-Pope model
to perform an econometric analysis and use the data from “Farm Economic
Survey” and statistics of special reports on extreme weather.
In this study, we find that the farm income is influenced not only by the
characteristics of the farm owner such as age, or full-time/part-time farming, but
also the size of the farm, the cultivated items and the frequency of extreme
weather. As the farmland size increases, both farm income and income volatility
also increase. On the other hand, as the frequency of natural disasters increases,
farm income decreases, but income volatility continues to climb due to increased
uncertainty. In addition, it is verified that as a countermeasure against the decrease
of farm income due to meteorological disasters, crop insurance has statistically sig-
nificant effects and its impacts increase as the frequency of weather disaster
increases.
By applying 116 times the annual average special report on extreme
weather during 2009 ~ 2012, the crop insurance has economic effects of 1,230
thousand KRW per farm household. If the number of annual special reports issued
is 51 times or fewer, the expected benefits from crop insurance are lower than the
premium of crop insurance. In other words, in areas where weather conditions are
favorable and natural disasters occur less frequently, crop insurance premiums are
higher than expected economic effects of crop insurance, so it is a reasonable
choice not to join the crop insurance. For example, the insured rate of Jeju, which
has a smaller number of special reports on extreme weather than other regions,
appears to be very low.
From the result of analyzing the effect of extreme weather events on
farmers’ decision-making about crop insurance, we find that the more frequent nat-
ural disasters farmers suffer, the greater the intention to purchase crop insurance.
These findings from the study can provide several implications to re-
searchers and policy-makers. Our finding shows that extreme weather events have
an adverse impact on farm income and the damage is expected to increase with
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)58
the increasing frequency of extreme weather events due to climate change.
However, most studies on the impact of climate change on agriculture were about
how average temperature or precipitation would affect agricultural production and
land use. There are still very limited statistical data and research on extreme
weather events and agriculture. Hence, it is required to produce statistics on natu-
ral disasters that can be used in the agricultural sector and to conduct further stud-
ies on the impact of abnormal temperatures on the sector.
As it is proven that crop insurance is an effective means of adapting to
climate change, it is necessary to conduct campaigns and promotions regarding
crop insurance. As climate change is expected to become more severe in the fu-
ture, the effect of the insurance is expected to increase. In a region with a low
frequency of extreme weather, farmers do not prefer crop insurance because the
premium is higher than the crop insurance effect; it will be more effective to focus
public relations of the crop insurance and encourage farmers to be insured in the
regions where weather disasters occur frequently.
As a result of the study, crop insurance is considered to be a very effec-
tive tool for farmers' risk management due to climate change, but as Goodwin and
Smith (2013) insist, because of the high subsidy rate, there is a tendency to distort
the production market, which transfers the financial burden to the taxpayers.
Hence, there is a need for a systematic supplement that allows insurance to work
reasonably in the long term.
From the estimation results, we found crop insurance does not have a stat-
istically significant effect on farm income volatility, but considering the limitation
of farm-level data, which is significantly affected by size of business, it is neces-
sary to carry out estimation to the exclusion of the scale of production to better
an analysis of the effect of crop insurance on the variability of farm income.
Therefore, more accurate results can be obtained if farm income per unit area rath-
er than fruit grower’s total agricultural income is analyzed in future studies.
Lastly, this study also has limitations. In this study, we use sample data,
which includes only 2nd and 3rd quantiles of farms. Because of the limitation of
data, the representation of analysis results is also limited. In order to obtain a
higher level of representation and analyze responses of farmers in various farm in-
come levels, in further studies, it is necessary to update the data set and carry out
a further analysis using various models such as quantile regression or mixed level
regression.
An Economic Effect of the Crop Insurance at the Farmland in Korea 59
Appendix. Criteria for issuing special reports on extreme weather
Category Warning Alert
Strong winds
Wind speed is forecasted 14m/s or faster, or instantaneous wind speed 20m/s or faster on land, but wind speed is forecasted 17m/s or faster, or instantaneous wind speed 25m/s or faster in mountainous areas.
Wind speed is forecasted 21m/s or faster, or instantaneous wind speed 26m/s or faster on land, but wind speed is forecasted 24m/s or faster, or instantaneous wind speed 30m/s or faster in mountainous areas.
Heavy seas
Wind speed faster than 14m/s is forecasted to continue for at least 3 hours or the significant wave height higher than 3m is forecasted in the sea.
Wind speed faster than 21m/s is forecasted to continue for at least 3 hours or the significant wave height higher than 5m is forecasted in the sea.
Heavy rainfalls
Rainfall more than 70mm for 6 hours or rainfall more than 110mm for 12 hours is forecasted.
Rainfall more than 110mm for 6 hours or rainfall more than 180mm for 12 hours is forecasted.
Heavy snowfalls
Fresh snow cover deeper than 5 cm for 24 hours is forecasted.
Fresh snow cover deeper than 20 cm for 24 hours is forecasted. However, fresh snow cover deeper than 30 cm for 24 hours is forecasted in mountainous areas.
DrynessEffective humidity not higher than 35% is forecasted to continue for two or more days.
Effective humidity not higher than 25% is forecasted to continue for two or more days.
Windstormtsunamis
Values greater than the effective standard value for tsunamis are forecasted by rising sea level due to complex effects including astronomical tides, windstorms, or low pressure. However, the effective standard value is specified for each region.
Values greater than the effective standard value for tsunamis are forecasted by rising sea level due to complex effects including astronomical tides, windstorms, or low pressure. However, the effective standard value is specified for each region.
EarthquakeTsunamis
Tsunamis by earthquakes with wave height of 0.5 to 1.0m are forecasted around coastal areas of Korea due to submarine earthquakes higher than scale 7.0 in the waters around the Korean Peninsula (21N~45N, 110E~145E).
Tsunamis by earthquakes with wave height greater than 1.0m are forecasted around coastal areas of Korea due to submarine earthquakes higher than scale 7.0 in the waters around the Korean Peninsula (21N~45N, 110E~145E).
Extreme colds
From October to April, one of the following occurs.➀ The lowest temperature in the morning is
forecasted to be at least 10°C lower than the previous morning, and lower than 3°C, and 3°C lower than the temperature in the previous year.
➁ The lowest temperature in the morning lower than –12°C is forecasted to continue for two or more days.
From October to April, one of the following occurs.➀ The lowest temperature in the morning is
forecasted to be at least 15°C lower than the previous morning, and lower than 3°C, and 3°C lower than the temperature in the previous year.
➁ The lowest temperature in the morning lower than –15°C is forecasted to continue for two or more days.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)60
Source: Korea Meteorological Administration. <http://www.kma.go.kr/>. May 11, 2015.
Category Warning Alert
➂ Severe damage is forecasted due to extremely low temperature.
➂ Severe damage is forecasted in extensive areas due to extremely low temperature.
Typhoon
The forecast is that typhoons cause strong winds, heavy seas, heavy rainfalls and windstorms tsunamis to reach their warning standards.
The forecast is typhoons cause any one of the following.➀ Reach the strong winds (or heavy seas)
alert level.➁ Total rainfall more than 200mm.➂ Reach the windstorms tsunamis alert level.
Winds carrying yellow dusts
The forecast is the average ultrafine dust (PM10) concentration/hour greater than 400㎍/m3 continues for at least two hours due to winds carrying yellow dusts.
The forecast is the average ultrafine dust (PM10) concentration/hour greater than 800㎍/m3 continues for at least two hours due to winds carrying yellow dusts.
Heat waves
The forecast is that the daily highest temperature higher than 33°C continues for two or more days.
The forecast is that the daily highest temperature higher than 35°C continues for two or more days.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. R., et al. 1990. “Global climate change and US agriculture.” Nature 345:
219-224.
Asche, F. and R. Tveteras. 1999. “Modeling production risk with a two-step procedure.”
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 24(2): 424-430.
Choi Kyeong-hwan, Chea Gwang-seok and Yoon Byeong-seok. 2010. The Performance and
Tasks of Crop Insurance. Research Report R615. Korea Rural Economic Institute.
Di Falco, S., et al. 2014. “Crop Insurance as a Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change.”
Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(2): 485-504. doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12053
Gammans, M., P. Mérel, and A. Ortiz-Bobea. 2017. “Negative impacts of climate change
on cereal yields: statistical evidence from France.” Environmental Research Letters
12:1-9. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6b0c
Goodwin, B. K. and V. H. Smith. 2013. “What harm is done by subsidizing crop
insurance?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95(2): 489-497.
doi:10.1093/ajae/aas092
Gray, A.W. et al. 2004. “How U.S. Farm Programs and Crop Revenue Insurance Affect
Returns to Farm Land.” Review of Agricultural Economics 26(2): 238-253.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00173.x
Han Sung-min. 2014. “An Empirical Analysis on the Production and Price Effect by
Agricultural Disaster Insurance.” Korea Development Studies 36(4): 135-169.
doi:10.23895/kdijep.2014.36.4.135
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Just, R. E. and R. D. Pope. 1978. “Stochastic specification of production functions and economic
implications.” Journal of Econometrics 7(1): 67-86. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(78)90006-4
Kim Chang-gil, et al. 2009. Impacts and Countermeasures of Climate Change in Korean
Agriculture. Research Report R593. Korea Rural Economic Institute.
Kim Chang-gil, et al. 2012. Impacts and Countermeasures of Climate Change on Food
Supply in Korea. Research Report R663. Korea Rural Economic Institute.
Kim Chang-gil, et al. 2015. Economic Analysis of Adaptation Measures to Climate Change
in the Agricultural Sector. Research Report R749. Korea Rural Economic Institute.
Kim Pan-ki et al. 2010. “Damage of seedlings caused by weather disasters.” Journal of
Climate Research 5(2): 148-616.
Kim Tae-kyun. 2001. “Producer Preferences and Welfare Effects of Crop Insurance
Schemes.” Korean Journal of Agricultural Economics 42(2): 33-49.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)62
Korea Meteorological Administration website. <http://www.kma.go.kr/>. (May. 11. 2015;
Nov. 11, 2015.)
Korea Meteorological Administration. 2012. Report of Climate Change Outlook in Korean
Peninsula.
Kwon Won-tae. 2012. “Climate Change Scenario and Use thereof for Agriculture.”
Prospect of Agriculture 2012(II). EO4-2012. Korea Rural Economic Institute. pp.
997-1026.
Lee Bong-ho et al. 1991. “The impacts of weather disaster on oilseed crops and
countermeasures reducing the damage.” Korean journal of crop science 36(5): 445-458.
Lobell, D. B., A. Sibley and J. I. Ortiz-Monasterio. 2012. “Extreme heat effects on wheat
senescence in India.” Nature Climate Change 2: 186–189. doi:10.1038/nclimate1356
McCarl, B. A., X. Villavicencio and X. Wu. 2008. “Climate change and future analysis: is
stationarity dying?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(5): 1241-1247.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01211.x
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2016. 2015 Crop Insurance Yearbook.
Ministry of Public Safety and Security. Annual Natural Disaster Report. Each year.
National Center for Agro Meteorology website. <http://www.ncam.kr/>.
Nonghyup Property & Casualty Insurance. 2015. Data about public relations of crop
insurance scheme.
Schlenker, W. and M. J. Roberts. 2009. “Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe
damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change.” PNAS 106(37): 15594-15598.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0906865106
Statistics Korea website. <http://kosis.kr/>.
Statistics Korea. Economic Survey of Farmers. Each Year.
Welch, J. R. et al. 2010. “Rice yields in tropical/subtropical Asia exhibit large but
opposing sensitivities to minimum and maximum temperature.” PNAS 107(33):
14562-14567. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001222107
Young, C. E. and P. C. Westcot. 2000. “How Decoupled Is U.S. Agricultural Support for
Major Crops?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 762–767.
doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00076
Date Submitted: Oct. 10, 2017
Period of Review: Oct. 16~Dec. 15, 2017
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue): 63~103 63
THE PRODUCTION AND DISSEMINATION OFAGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AT U.S. RESEARCHUNIVERSITIES: THE ROLE AND MISSION OFLAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES
LEE YOO HWAN*
GREGORY D. GRAFF**
Keywords
agricultural R&D, Land-Grant university, knowledge production function,
public domain, technology transfer and dissemination, polynomial dis-
tributed lags
Abstract
This paper analyzes food and agriculturally-related knowledge pro-
duction and transfer for 114 top-tier U.S. research universities from 1993 to
2015, to understand the role of the Land-Grant universities in promoting
commercial innovation and regional economic development in this
sector. We utilize two empirical methods: (1) a panel analysis of the
knowledge production function (KPF) for research productivity and (2) an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the role of the Land-Grant universities in
such knowledge production. Output of research publications exhibits de-
creasing returns to scale for all sub-fields, but cost advantages and
mean research (gestation) lags vary by sub-field. The mean number of
research publications by the Land-Grant universities is much higher than
non Land-Grant universities, especially in the Central region of the U.S.
These results demonstrate how specialization by Land-Grant universities in
agricultural R&D contributes to commercial innovation within a diffuse
yet regionalized industry. Moreover, the main context and results of this
paper would suggest some important implications to the study of the sys-
tem of food and agricultural R&D and commercial innovations in Korea.
* Chief Research Associate, Business Consulting Research Center, Department of Business
Consulting, Daejeon University, Daejeon, South Korea. Corresponding author.
e-mail: [email protected]** Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO, U.S.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)64
I. Introduction and Background
In the global knowledge economy, universities play a significant role in knowledge
creation and transfer. Today, most research universities are engaged in industrial
innovation and regional economic development, leading to positive social returns
(Jaffe 1989; Mansfield 1991, 1995; Audretsch and Feldman 1996; Adams and
Griliches 1998; Cowan 2005). Following Cohen, Nelson, and Walsh (2002), uni-
versity research is identified to be of at least moderate importance to R&D within
a wide range of industries, including both high technology and more traditional.
Moreover, studies have measured the contributions of academic research to in-
dustrial innovation and the introduction of new products and processes through
different knowledge dissemination channels and different modes of impact
(Mansfield 1991 and 1995; Henderson et al. 1998; Agrawal and Henderson 2002).
In the United States in 2013, university research accounted for roughly 50
percent of total basic research, and universities make up the second largest per-
former of research and development (R&D) after industry, accounting for $64.7
billion of the total $456 billion, or 14 percent, of R&D performed (NSF 2016).
By far the largest source of funding for university performed R&D was the U.S.
federal government; while the share of university R&D expenditures funded by the
business sector accounted for just $3.5 billion or 5.4 percent. In the agricultural
and food industries in the U.S. total expenditures on R&D in 2013 was $16.3
billion. Of that total, public research institutions―including the system of the
Land-Grant universities, together with the state agricultural experiment stations
(SAES) and Cooperative Extension institutions―accounted for almost 30 percent
of the total agricultural and food R&D expenditures, over twice the level com-
pared to the economy as a whole (USDA ERS 2016; Clancy et al. 2016).
In the U.S., the Land-Grant universities have long focused on providing
agricultural R&D and, in so doing, have served as a source of ideas for commer-
cial innovation and regional economic development. Historically, the Land-Grant
system was very closely associated with the development of the U.S. public higher
education system driven by several landmark policy changes, including the Morrill
Land-Grant Act of 1862 and 1890, the Hatch Act of 1887, and the Smith-Lever
Act of 1914.1 Following these landmark policies, the Land-Grant universities have
generally come to embrace three interwoven missions in education, research, and
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 65
outreach. The Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890 provided funds, through
the granting of land assets by the federal government, to each state of the United
States, according to the act:
“for the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college
where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical
studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are
related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, … in order to promote the liberal
and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and pro-
fessions in life.”
The Hatch Act of 1887 created and funded state agricultural experimental
stations for each state, which were often established as the research division of
the state’s new Land-Grant college or university, to conduct R&D specific for that
state’s agricultural industry and rural economy. Finally, the Smith-Lever Act of
1914 created and funded the Cooperative Extension Service) as an integral part of
the states’ land-grant college or university, yet funded and managed cooperatively
with the state government, to provide information and education regarding agri-
culture throughout the state’s local communities.
Today, the public Land-Grant universities make up the largest share of the
top-tier research universities in the U.S. In this analysis, we will see that, of the
114 universities classified by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education as “R1 research universities”, 41 (or 36 percent) are Land-Grant
universities. Altogether, 70 percent of these top-tier universities are public uni-
versities, yet the non Land-Grant public universities make up 34 percent of the
total. Private universities make up just 30 percent of the total. Moreover, still to-
day, the Land-Grant universities continue to maintain education, research, and out-
reach programs in areas related to agricultural sciences and engineering (a.k.a. the
“mechanical arts”). And, in each of the states of the United States today, the
Land-Grant university’s production of new scientific knowledge and transfer of
new technology to industry continue to be important factors spurring the creation
of agricultural innovations, driving investment and engagement by the private sec-
tor, and providing opportunities for rural economic development.
The production of such economically-useful knowledge can be measured in
1 More information: https://nifa.usda.gov/history
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)66
several different ways. This makes it possible to analyze the extent to which differ-
ent types of knowledge dissemination channels are utilized by universities. These
can include channels such as the public domain, university-industry collaboration,
patent licensing, and venture creation (Lee and Graff 2017). Since universities and
public research institutions are generally recognized as non profit organizations,
most results of university research are released into the public domain, via pub-
lications and open access of research results, given that the role of university is
largely to serve public purposes. Recently, however, the emergence of the
“entrepreneurial” university characterized by the commercial utilization of university
research results have induced new processes or modes of university R&D and dis-
semination activities, which are based on the intellectual property rights (IPRs)2 and
collaborative research projects conducted jointly with industry sponsors and part-
ners, expanding the mission and role of the university3 (Etzkowitz 2003).
Although both formal IP-mediated tech transfer activities and more in-
formal industry collaboration and extension activities are used to disseminate
knowledge outputs from the university, the public domain-oriented knowledge out-
puts—such as published journal articles, conference proceedings, book chapters
and reviews, public lectures, and even degree awards—are still the major knowl-
edge outputs of any university. In fact, the magnitude and size of knowledge out-
puts produced and disseminated via the public domain are significantly greater
than the knowledge outputs produced and disseminated via the traditional industry
collaboration and the formal IP-mediated tech transfer activities. Because of the
nature of knowledge, the different types of knowledge outputs are closely inter-
twined and have complex complementary and substitute relationships depending
upon the context (Agrawal and Henderson 2002; Payne and Siow 2003;
Bonaccorsi et al. 2006; Thursby and Thursby 2011; Folz et al. 2007; Lee and
Graff 2017). Thus, the public domain-oriented knowledge outputs should continue
to be considered the primary output of the university and likely to affect the pro-
duction of the other types of knowledge outputs, even though the extent and direc-
2 By the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the U.S. university inventors have been permitted
to possess the ownership of their patented inventions, which made with federal funding.
Moreover, due to the increase in university-industry collaborations, university inventors have pos-
sessed the co-ownership of private funded inventions, and become co-founders of new startup
companies.3 The outreach mission of economic and social development, as well as the mission of teaching
and research.
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 67
tion of causality may not be fully resolved.4
The geographic proximity between university and industry is also important
for university R&D and dissemination activities (Jaffe 1989; Jaffe et al. 1993;
Audretsch and Feldman 1996; Anselin et al. 2000; Adams 2002; Boschma 2005;
Ponds 2010; Buenstorf and Schacht 2013). As demonstrated by the history of the
Land-Grant university system in the U.S., the university's outreach mission (regional
economic development) is intimately linked with the geographic distance, with more
proximate industry likely to have a cost advantage in absorbing and using new
knowledge from the university. Generally, shorter distances mean lower transaction
costs. However, this rule of proximity is not applicable in every circumstance, and
in fact it may vary systematically across the different types of knowledge
dissemination. According to Jaffe (1989), geographic proximity is unimportant if
the knowledge channel is based on publications, but geographic proximity is im-
portant if the channel is based on informal exchange. Moreover, due to the im-
provement of telecommunication and information technologies today, some of the
underlying mechanism of knowledge spillovers between university and industry may
not be as constrained by regional proximity today as it was in the past.
However, within the context of the formation of industry clusters, wherein
sets of interrelated private sector firms and associated public institutions within
particular fields of industry or technologies tend to aggregate in the same region,
geographic proximity does appear to remain important. In agriculture, following
Graff et al. (2014), innovation clusters in the food and agriculture-related in-
dustries can be shaped by the structure of the food and agricultural value chain
within a state, which in turn is affected by the relationships between the region’s
industry and public research institutions.
The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the system of agricultur-
ally-related knowledge production and transfer activities across the 114 top U.S.
research universities, over more than two decades, from 1993 to 2015. This paper
introduces and explores several empirical specifications of a more general model
of the knowledge production function (KPF), utilizing a detailed dataset of uni-
versity knowledge inputs and outputs, including life science research expenditures
4 According to Agrawal and Henderson (2002), the patent volume does not predict the volume of
publications and vice versa, but patent volume seems to be positively correlated with the paper
citations. They also point out that finding the correlation between patenting and publication activ-
ities is difficult but it is an important and meaningful question.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)68
and several different categories of food and agriculture-related research pub-
lications, respectively. The main research questions of this study concern the sys-
tematic relationship between research inputs and outputs by universities in agri-
culturally related fields of research: How does the productivity as well as the tim-
ing and lag structure of knowledge production vary across different ag-related re-
search fields? How does output of agriculturally-related knowledge differ for the
Land-Grant universities, which have historically specialized in these fields, and all
other universities? To what extent do such differences seem to be related to the
geographic location of Land-Grant universities and the regional profile of the agri-
cultural and food industries? These questions have important implications for
knowledge output, innovation and productivity growth, and regional economic de-
velopment, particularly for those regions that are more dependent upon or speci-
alized in agricultural and food production. Finally, we explore how these questions
and the results of this analysis apply to food and agriculture-related research and
innovation in South Korea.
The rest of this paper is organized into four sections. Section II describes
a technique for estimating the knowledge production function involving panel
count data within a polynomial distributed lag scheme using a novel research in-
put-output data set. Section III shows the results for the empirical tests by the 114
top tier research universities in the United States from 1993 to 2015. Then from
an analysis of variance (ANOVA), we look at the relationship between the geo-
graphic location of Land-Grant universities and the dissemination of new knowl-
edge in different ag related research fields via research publications. Section IV
discusses important implications for food and agriculturally-related research and
innovation in Korea based on the results of this study. Section V summarizes the
main conclusions and insights of this study.
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 69
II. Model Framework and Data
1. Empirical model framework
The knowledge production function (KPF) is based on the concept of the neo-clas-
sical production function, and it is useful for describing the unobservable, yet val-
uable, additions that research contributes to the stock of knowledge capital.
However, the production of knowledge differs from that of normal economic goods
in two major ways. First, the profit maximization problem is rarely applied to the
knowledge production problem due to the lack of a stable, appropriated market
price of research outputs. Second, the units or increments of actual or “underlying”
economically valuable technological knowledge are often unobservable. According
to Pardey (1989), empirical studies of knowledge production is limited in large part
because of the difficulties of obtaining suitable indicators of research outputs.
Nevertheless, the literature demonstrates that we can be confident that there exists
a systematic input-output relationship between research inputs and new knowledge
outputs as measured by a number of proxy variables. In this study, we estimate
three different specifications of the knowledge production function (KPF) in which
output is measured by the count of research publications: (1) a log-log model with
an unrestricted PDL scheme, (2) a negative binomial MLE model with unrestricted
PDL scheme, and a negative binomial MLE model with restricted PDL scheme.
The initial idea and functional form of the knowledge production was in-
troduced by Griliches (1979) and Pakes and Griliches (1980 and 1984). Specific
to agriculture, Parday (1989) adapted the knowledge production function (KPF) to
48 state Land-Grant universities and their state agricultural experimental stations
(SAESs) over 13 years. In classical production theory, there are various functional
forms for representing the relationship between inputs and outputs, such as log lin-
ear, quadratic, Cobb-Douglas, CES, transcendental, von Liebig, Mitscherlich-Baule,
translog, etc. However, most previous empirical studies of knowledge production
have utilized one of most common, the Cobb-Douglas production function, be-
cause of its amenability to econometric techniques but also because of its suitable
representation of some of the inherent characteristics of knowledge production.
Equation (1) represents the log-linear form of the Cobb-Douglas or the log-log
KPF model5 adapted from Griliches (1979) and from Pardey (1989):
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)70
(1) ln
ln
where Y is the logarithm of the university knowledge outputs6 and R is the loga-
rithm of the lagged time period of the research expenditures for re-
search university i at time t. ε is an independent and identically distributed panel
disturbance term.7
Before developing the main model, we need to outline two major issues:
(1) the count data dependent variable and (2) the lag scheme of the relationship
between the input of past research expenditures and the output of research
publications. First, most university research outputs are measured by count data8,
such as the number of publications per year, the number of degree awards per
year, the number of patent applications and issued patents per year, etc. So, we
attempt to use negative binomial maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) models
as the countable dependant variable (see Hausman et al. 1984; Hall et al. 1986)
and the log-likelihood function is equation (2) below:
(2) ln
ln
5 We initially tested the model specification errors, considering such issues as omitted relevant vari-
ables and included irrelevant variables, using a bottom-up approaches. The preliminary results in-
dicated that some important variables, such as dummy proxies for a Land-Grant university and
the geographic region, could not be included in the KPF because of multicollinearity with the
fixed effect model in the panel data analysis. Instead, we adopt an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
test using these variables. (See details in the Results section). Since there exist data limitations
at the institutional level, we could not include some potentially relevant variables such as the
number of authors per paper, full-time equivalents (FTEs), etc.6 As we mentioned before, generally, there are four different types of university knowledge outputs,
including: publication or release into the public domain, public-private collaborations, patent-
ing/licensing, and venture creation. However, in this study, we use only research publications,
which represent, by-in-large, the public domain mechanism. (See details in the Data section.)7 It is comprised of group-variant but time-invariant error term, , and both group and time-variant
as idiosyncratic error term, . We assume that they are mean zero, homoscedastic, and exhibit
no serial correlation.8 A type of data in which the observations can take only the non negative integer values {0, 1,
2, 3, …} and where these integers arise from counting rather than ranking.
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 71
where r is the dispersion parameter and Γ is the gamma function for the negative
binomial MLE. is the mean of the negative binomial MLE9, defined as an un-
known parameter.
Since the structure of the KPF model is based on the relationship between
research outputs and past research expenditures (Pakes and Griliches 1980 and
1984), so a number of previous studies of the KPF model (see above) have adopt-
ed a finite and ad hoc distributed lag model. However, following Crespi and
Geuna (2008) and Lee and Graff (2015 and 2017)10, the relationship between re-
search outputs and past or lagged research expenditures is more likely to follow
a polynomial pattern, rather than a geometrically declining (a.k.a. Koyck) pattern.
Thus, we adopt a polynomial distributed lag (PDL) structure for the main lag
scheme of the research expenditure inputs.
Adapted to equation (1), the PDL model assumes that β can be estimated
by a p=0,1,2,..,m degree of polynomial and a j=0,…,k lag length, see equation (3).
The corresponding equation of m-degree and k-lag length of the unrestricted PDL
model is equation (4).
(3) ∙ ∙ ⋯ ∙
∙
where ω is a constructed slope coefficient.
(4)
and Z is a constructed variable,
∙
∙ ⋯
∙ .
9 exp′ exp
10 Crespi and Geuna (2008) introduce the use of the polynomial distributed lag scheme in the
knowledge production function context, but they only adopt a linear functional form rather than
the count data form of analysis. Lee and Graff (2015 and 2017) combine the count data model
with the polynomial distributed lag scheme.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)72
The and values from equations (3) and (4) are not the true slope co-
efficients on the original variables. Rather, first, equation (4) is estimated by OLS,
and then the true values of the slope coefficients can are recovered by the fol-
lowing set of equations (5):
(5)
⋯
⋯
⋮
⋯
where the are generated from the OLS procedure, and the are the estimated
slope coefficients (For more details, see Gujarati, 2004: 687-691).
The unrestricted PDL model has no a priori restrictions, but a restricted
PDL model can be limited by restricting the k+1st and greater lagged coefficients
to equal zero, which is called a far endpoint restriction. This assumes that un-
observable inputs made beyond the kth lag year no longer impact current research
outputs, following equation (6):
(6) ⋯
Equation (6) is substituted into equation (4) and then the model can be
estimated by standard OLS procedures. Similarly, the true slope coefficients of the
restricted PDL model can be recovered by equation (5), as described above.
2. Data
Table 1 provides summary statistics of these research input and output variables
for the 114 U.S. research universities classified as Doctoral Universities-Highest
Research Activity in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education11, also known as “R1 research universities” (For a list of the uni-
versities and their rankings, see Appendix 1). The dataset of the research input and
output was mainly collected from open resources.
11 Except City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate School and University Center.
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 73
TABLE 1. Summary statistics of all research input and output variables at the 114 U.S.
research universities, 1993-2015
Mean S.D. Min Max Group Obs
Research expenditures
Life science research expenditures*, million $ 158.58 163.79 0.62 870.52 114 2,622
Ag & food related research publications**
All fields 136.83 177.52 0.00 1,129.00 114 2,622
Dairy & animal sciences 13.21 32.37 0.00 304.00 114 2,622
Biotechnology & applied microbiology 37.17 39.27 0.00 398.00 114 2,622
Crop, horticulture, & soil sciences 39.48 66.31 0.00 554.00 114 2,622
Food science and technology 32.29 44.59 0.00 273.00 114 2,622
Regional dummies***
Pacific (16) 0.14 0.35 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
Mountain (6) 0.05 0.22 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
Northern Plains (3) 0.03 0.16 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
Southern Plains (13) 0.11 0.32 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
Central (20) 0.18 0.38 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
Southeast (25) 0.22 0.41 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
Northeast (31) 0.27 0.45 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
Institutional dummies
Land-Grant public university (41) 0.36 0.48 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
Non Land-Grant public university (39) 0.34 0.47 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
Non Land-Grant private university (34) 0.29 0.46 0.00 1.00 114 2,622
* Three sub-fields: agricultural sciences, medical sciences, and biological sciences;
** Included in published journal articles, book chapters & reviews, conference paper &
proceedings, and scientific letters;
*** See Alston et al. (2010) page 283; Parentheses are the number of universities.
First, the data of university R&D expenditures classified as life sciences
as an input was obtained from the Higher Education Research and Development
(HERD) Survey of the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) from 1993 to 2015. The life science
research expenditures reported by NSF12 include three sub-fields: agricultural sci-
12 Because of the limited data reporting in the National Science Foundation, 18 universities’ life
science research expenditures between 1993 and 1997 were not reported. So, the missing data
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)74
ences, biological sciences, and medical sciences. In 2015, the life science research
expenditures for the R1 research universities accounted for $28 billion or almost
55 percent of total research expenditures. Within the R1 universities, the life sci-
ence research expenditures in the Land-Grant universities in 2015 was $10 billion.
The count data of annual research publications as an output was collected
from queries for the university affiliation of authors in the ISI Web of Science
(Thomson Reuters), covering 1993-2015. Research publications, in which the cate-
gories are characterized by published journal articles, book chapters & reviews,
conference paper & proceedings, and scientific letters, in agriculture and food re-
lated research fields are based on the Web of Science’s field categories, and in-
clude the following: agriculture dairy animal science, agricultural economic policy,
agricultural engineering, agronomy, biotechnology applied microbiology (including
bioenergy), crop & horticulture, food science technology, nutrition dietetics, plant
science, soil science, agricultural multidisciplinary.13 Since for some universities
there are very few observations in some of these Web of Science field categories,
the fields can be merged and classified according to five different research field
groups as well as the combination of all agriculturally related fields, as follows:
(1) all fields, (2) dairy and animal science, (3) biotechnology and applied micro-
biology, (4) crop, horticulture, and soil science, and (5) food science and
technology.
Finally, universities can be identified as falling within one of seven differ-
ent multi-state regions of the United States which are chosen, in part, because of
broad similarities in agricultural conditions and thus the profile of agricultural in-
dustry within each region.14 Within the 114 sample universities, 41 are Land-Grant
universities, which accounts for 36 percent of the total (For a list of the R1
Land-Grant universities, by region, see Appendix 3).
were “back cast” for that earlier period, based on those institutions’ total research expenditures
for those years, according to the average share that life sciences expenditures represented of total
research expenditures as observed for those 18 universities during the middle period of
1998-2002.13 Excluded in the natural resource related sub-fields such as forestry, fisheries, etc.14 See more detail information in Alston et al. (2010) p.283, but we treat Hawaii as Pacific region.
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 75
III. Results
There are two parts to the regression analysis conducted. The first is a panel data
analysis of the agricultural knowledge production function (KPF) for the output of
research publications in each of the food and agriculture-related research field
groups, essentially estimating the system of the universities’ production of knowl-
edge that is disseminated via the public domain. The second part involves the
analysis of variance (ANOVA), which provides a dummy variable test for the pro-
ductivity of knowledge production across the different food and agriculture-related
research field groups. The main objective of this second analysis is to ascertain
how the role of Land-Grant universities affects the production of food and ag re-
lated research publications in the various field groupings across the different geo-
graphic regions of the U.S.
1. Agricultural knowledge production function
The knowledge production function (KPF) can be defined as the technical relation-
ship between research inputs and outputs. In this analysis, the major knowledge
output metric being utilized is the count of food and ag related research pub-
lications and the main input measure is annual life sciences research expenditures
for 114 U.S. research universities from 1993 to 2015. In this section, we estimate
three different agricultural KPF models: (1) a log-log model with an unrestricted
polynomial distributed lag (PDL) scheme, (2) a negative binomial MLE model
with an unrestricted PDL scheme, and (3) a negative binomial MLE model with
a restricted PDL scheme. All three models assume a group fixed effect, prelimi-
narily ascertained by the Hausman test15, and the optimal degree of the lag struc-
ture’s polynomial and the lag length in each is chosen based on the information
criteria.16
15 ′
16 The Akaike information criterion (AIC), AIC=-2×ln(Likelihood Function)+2×P, and the Schwarz
Bayesian information criterion (SBIC), SBIC=-2×ln(Likelihood Function)+ln(N)×p , where p is
number of parameters estimated and N is number of observations. The model with the smaller
value of the information criterion has a better goodness of fit.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)76
In selecting these three models, we initially tested an ad hoc distributed
lag scheme of the life science research expenditures, rather than a PDL scheme,
across the all three agricultural KPF models. Preliminary test results indicated that,
using the ad hoc distributed lag scheme, almost all slope coefficients on all lagged
years’ research expenditures are statistically insignificant. The only significant co-
efficients were found in the first and last lagged time periods. These results are
similar to those found in previous studies (Pakes and Griliches 1980 and 1984;
Hausman et al. 1984; Hall et al. 1986; Parday 1989). Subsequent analyses have
established that the slope coefficients of the KPF follow a polynomial pattern, so
an ad hoc distributed lag scheme causes significant model misspecifications
(Crespi and Geuna 2008; Lee and Graff 2015 and 2017). Therefore, in this analy-
sis, the PDL is the only lag scheme utilized in the KPF estimations.
1.1. Log-log KPF model
Table 2 shows the results of the panel estimation of the log-log KPF model with
an unrestricted PDL scheme of life science research expenditures across the differ-
ent food and ag related research field groups. There are five different KPF models:
model 1 counts all research publications for all fields; model 2 estimates the KPF
for just the dairy and animal science publications; model 3 estimates the KPF for
biotechnology and applied microbiology publications; model 4, for crop, plant,
horticulture, and soil science publications; and, model 5, for the food science and
technology publications.
All five models assume a group fixed effect and follow a second degree
polynomial with six lagged years of life sciences research expenditures within the
PDL structure. Since all are log-log models, each slope coefficient indicates a mar-
ginal effect or a marginal product of the knowledge production function in the
short-run. Most of the slope coefficients in all five models are statistically sig-
nificant, except the coefficients on the middle range of lagged research ex-
penditures in model 5, from years 2 to 4. The slope coefficients of each model
also represent elasticity of output, which is defined as the percent change in cur-
rent research publications (the output) due to a one percent change in life science
research expenditures (the input).
The slope coefficients on lagged research expenditures for models 1, 3,
and 5, (all fields, biotechnology, and food science, respectively), follow U-shape
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 77
or convex patterns whereas for models 2 and 4 (animal science, and crop science,
respectively) follow inverted U-shape or concave patterns. We can interpret this
to mean that research expenditures have a maximum impact on dairy & animal
science publications in the second year and a maximum impact on crop, horti-
culture, and soil science related research publications in the fourth year.
In Table 2, the sum of the lags represents a long-run or total impact of
past and current research expenditures on current year publications. It measures
how the research publications at university i change in response to changes in life
science research expenditures in the long-run. All models have statistical sig-
nificance at the 1% level, except for model 2, the dairy and animal science field,
which has statistical significance at the 10% level. Moreover, the sum of the lags
also represents returns to scale of the knowledge production. If the sum of all
slope coefficients is less than one, this indicates decreasing returns to scale, when
the sum of the lags is equal to one, it indicates constant returns to scale, and a
sum greater than one indicates increasing returns to scale.
TABLE 2. Estimates of the log-log model with an unrestricted polynomial distributed lag
(PDL) scheme across the different agriculture-related research fields at 114 research uni-
versities, 1993-2015
Dependent variable: Research publications (log-log)
All fieldsDairy &
animal science
Biotechnology & applied
microbiology
Crop, horticulture, &
soil science
Food science & technology
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Group fixed effect Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Degree of PDL1 2 2 2 2 2
Expenditure_t-00.11964*** -0.08586 0.13656*** 0.01109 0.14205**
(0.02980) (0.16257) (0.03502) (0.03763) (0.05858)
_t-10.09641*** 0.24268*** 0.11938*** 0.05453*** 0.07121***
(0.01075) (0.05809) (0.01263) (0.01330) (0.02073)
_t-20.08292*** 0.39606*** 0.11041*** 0.08361*** 0.03112
(0.01606) (0.08049) (0.01883) (0.02095) (0.02982)
_t-30.07916*** 0.37427*** 0.10966*** 0.09833*** 0.02178
(0.01989) (0.10211) (0.02334) (0.02582) (0.03773)
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)78
Notes: 1. The number is the degree of polynomial; 2. Akaike Information Criterion;
3. Schwarz Bayesian Information Criterion; Parentheses are standard errors;
*** at 1%, ** at 5%, and * at 10% level of statistical significance.
The results of all five models suggest decreasing returns to scale, but with
rather different magnitudes of the coefficients. The field of biotechnology and ap-
plied microbiology (model 3) has the highest value, at 0.8828 for the sum of esti-
mated coefficients at 1 percent level of statistical significance. The field of dairy
and animal science (model 2) has the smallest value, at 0.1675 for the sum of esti-
mated coefficients at 10 percent level of statistically significance. This result in-
dicates that the production of publications in biotechnology and applied micro-
biology has greater cost advantages than the production of publications in other
research fields over the long run.
Dependent variable: Research publications (log-log)
All fieldsDairy &
animal science
Biotechnology & applied
microbiology
Crop, horticulture, &
soil science
Food science & technology
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
_t-40.08515*** 0.17731** 0.11714*** 0.09870*** 0.04320
(0.01527) (0.08041) (0.01792) (0.01954) (0.02964)
_t-50.10088*** -0.19482*** 0.13284*** 0.08472*** 0.09537***
(0.00991) (0.04901) (0.01161) (0.01281) (0.01828)
_t-60.12635*** -0.74212*** 0.15676*** 0.05638 0.17830***
(0.03070) (0.15033) (0.03599) (0.04062) (0.05570)
Sum of the lags0.69052*** 0.16752* 0.88274*** 0.48735*** 0.58303***
(0.01969) (0.10093) (0.02296) (0.02743) (0.03327)
Mean lag 3.04534 3.74749 3.10674 3.43364 3.29012
Constant1.18330*** 2.74698*** -0.62182*** 1.59235*** 0.68210***
(0.08909) (0.50200) (0.10476) (0.12375) (0.16238)
AIC2 753.88 889.89 1,322.64 418.97 1,184.57
SBIC3 776.14 906.83 1,344.86 438.92 1,205.39
Log-likelihood -372.94 -440.94 -657.32 -205.48 -588.29
Observations 1,930 510 1,911 1,083 1,346
Groups 114 114 114 114 114
(continued)
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 79
The mean lag17 is a weighted average of coefficient values over time and
thus represents the average “gestation period” between a research project’s in-
ception and completion (see Pakes and Griliches 1980 and 1984; Pardey 1989;
Crespi and Geuna 2008). However, in practice, actual expenditures generally begin
some time after project inception because of the time involved in applying for and
receiving funding (Lee and Graff 2017). The results from model 1 tell us that, for
all fields, on average, a university faculty member or research team18 spends 3.04
years generating a research publication: similarly, in dairy & animal science
(model 2), the mean lag is 3.74 years, in biotechnology and microbiology (model
3), it is 3.10 years; in crop, horticulture, and soil science (model 4), it is 3.43
years; and in food science (model 5) it is 3.29 years. Thus, the production of re-
search publications in dairy and animal science has a relatively longer average lag
between a research project’s inception and completion, while in biotechnology and
microbiology, research publications have a relatively shorter average lag.
1.2. Negative binomial MLE of KPF models
Similar to the log-linear KPF model, the panel estimation of the negative binomial
maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) of the KPF model PDL schemes of life
science research expenditures, but in this case with both unrestricted and restricted
versions, across each of the different research field groups (Table 3).
17 As calculated by this formula,
∙
. For more details, see Gujarati (2004), pg.
668.18 According to Wuchty et al. (2007), the traditional university ethos emphasized the role of in-
dividual genius in scientific discovery, but in recent developments, most academic research has
shifted from an individual model to a teamwork model.
TABLE3.EstimatesofthenegativebinomialMLEwiththeunrestrictedandrestrictedpolynomialdistributedlag(PDL)schemes
acrossthedifferentagriculture-relatedresearchfieldsat114researchuniversities,1993-2015
Dep
ende
nt v
aria
ble:
Res
earc
h pu
blic
atio
ns (
nega
tive
bino
mia
l M
LE
)
All
field
s [1
]D
airy
& a
nim
al s
cien
ces
[2]
Bio
tech
nolo
gy &
app
lied
mic
robi
olog
y [3
]C
rop,
hor
ticul
ture
, &
soi
l sc
ienc
es [
4]Fo
od a
nd n
utri
tiona
l sc
ienc
es [
5]U
nres
tric
ted
Res
tric
ted
Unr
estr
icte
dR
estr
icte
dU
nres
tric
ted
Res
tric
ted
Unr
estr
icte
dR
estr
icte
dU
nres
tric
ted
Res
tric
ted
Deg
ree
of P
DL
12
22
32
22
22
2E
xpen
ditu
re_t
-00.
0006
2***
0.00
052*
**0.
0002
2-0
.000
890.
0006
5***
0.00
041*
**0.
0002
90.
0000
10.
0010
8***
0.00
090*
**(0
.000
14)
(0.0
0011
)(0
.000
87)
(0.0
0109
)(0
.000
16)
(0.0
0013
)(0
.000
22)
(0.0
0016
)(0
.000
20)
(0.0
0016
)_t
-10.
0004
1***
0.00
044*
**0.
0022
6***
0.00
357*
**0.
0003
7***
0.00
044*
**0.
0000
90.
0001
7**
0.00
055*
**0.
0005
9***
(0.0
0006
)(0
.000
05)
(0.0
0029
)(0
.000
50)
(0.0
0006
)(0
.000
06)
(0.0
0008
)(0
.000
07)
(0.0
0008
)(0
.000
07)
_t-2
0.00
026*
**0.
0003
6***
0.00
303*
**0.
0039
3***
0.00
020*
*0.
0004
4***
0.00
001
0.00
028*
**0.
0001
70.
0003
4***
(0.0
0009
)(0
.000
01)
(0.0
0054
)(0
.000
80)
(0.0
0010
)(0
.000
01)
(0.0
0015
)(0
.000
02)
(0.0
0012
)(0
.000
02)
_t-3
0.00
017
0.00
029*
**0.
0025
0***
0.00
178*
**0.
0001
40.
0004
1***
0.00
003
0.00
034*
**-0
.000
040.
0001
5***
(0.0
0011
)(0
.000
03)
(0.0
0065
)(0
.000
59)
(0.0
0012
)(0
.000
04)
(0.0
0017
)(0
.000
05)
(0.0
0015
)(0
.000
05)
_t-4
0.00
014*
0.00
021*
**0.
0007
0-0
.001
28**
*0.
0001
9**
0.00
035*
**0.
0001
60.
0003
4***
-0.0
0010
0.00
002
(0.0
0008
)(0
.000
05)
(0.0
0048
)(0
.000
28)
(0.0
0008
)(0
.000
06)
(0.0
0012
)(0
.000
07)
(0.0
0011
)(0
.000
07)
_t-5
0.00
018*
**0.
0001
4***
-0.0
0239
***
-0.0
0366
***
0.00
036*
**0.
0002
6***
0.00
039*
**0.
0002
8***
0.00
001
-0.0
0005
(0.0
0006
)(0
.000
05)
(0.0
0032
)(0
.000
54)
(0.0
0007
)(0
.000
06)
(0.0
0009
)(0
.000
07)
(0.0
0008
)(0
.000
07)
_t-6
0.00
028
0.00
060*
**-0
.006
77**
*0.
0110
5***
0.00
064*
**0.
0004
7***
0.00
073*
*0.
0002
3***
0.00
028
0.00
128*
**(0
.000
19)
(0.0
0019
)(0
.001
07)
(0.0
0367
)(0
.000
21)
(0.0
0004
)(0
.000
30)
(0.0
0005
)(0
.000
25)
(0.0
0027
)Su
m o
f th
e la
gs0.
0020
7***
0.00
255*
**-0
.000
450.
0145
1***
0.00
255*
**0.
0027
8***
0.00
169*
**0.
0016
5***
0.00
195*
**0.
0032
2***
(0.0
0007
)(0
.000
23)
(0.0
0034
)(0
.004
06)
(0.0
0008
)(0
.000
10)
(0.0
0011
)(0
.000
14)
(0.0
0010
)(0
.000
32)
Mea
n la
g2.
2327
62.
8018
43.
9829
64.
0701
02.
9735
02.
9000
04.
2227
43.
5662
91.
4027
02.
9173
1C
onst
ant
2.48
244*
**2.
4840
4***
0.91
585*
**0.
9118
9***
2.17
078*
**2.
1697
1***
2.84
366*
**2.
8491
6***
2.33
075*
**2.
3332
0***
(0.0
4724
)(0
.047
22)
(0.0
8742
)(0
.087
94)
(0.0
5337
)(0
.053
26)
(0.0
6956
)(0
.069
50)
(0.0
6533
)(0
.065
28)
AIC
215
,915
.79
15,9
15.1
64,
403.
314,
409.
5713
,079
.88
13,0
83.8
37,
851.
947,
853.
539,
405.
859,
405.
71SB
IC3
15,9
38.0
715
,931
.87
4,42
0.25
4,42
6.50
13,1
02.1
213
,100
.52
7,87
1.91
7,86
8.51
9,42
6.71
9,42
1.36
Log
-lik
elih
ood
-7,9
53.8
9-7
,954
.58
-2,1
97.6
5-2
,200
.78
-6,5
35.9
4-6
,538
.92
-3,9
21.9
7-3
,923
.77
-4,6
98.9
2-4
,699
.86
Obs
erva
tion
1,93
81,
938
510
510
1,92
11,
921
1,08
81,
088
1,36
01,
360
Gro
up11
411
411
411
411
411
411
411
411
411
4
Not
es:
1.
Th
e nu
mb
er
is
the
deg
ree
of
po
lyno
mia
l;
2.
Aka
ike
Info
rmat
ion
Cri
teri
on;
3.
Sch
war
z'
Bay
esia
n In
form
atio
n
Cri
teri
on;
A
ll
mod
el
assu
mes
th
e gr
oup
fi
xed
ef
fect
; P
aren
thes
es
are
stan
dard
er
rors
; *
**
at
1%
, *
* at
5%
, an
d *
at
10
%
lev
el
of
stat
isti
cal
sign
ific
ance
.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)80
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 81
In the unrestricted model, we use a second degree polynomial and the
maximum length of the lag is 6 years. Since the slope coefficients of the negative
binomial MLE do not directly reveal the marginal effect19, the values in Table 3
are much smaller than the coefficient values in the log-log KPF model in Table
2. An alternative is to use an incident rate ratio (IRR) for coefficients estimated
in the negative binomial MLE of the KPF model for indicating the marginal effect.
In Table 3, what is reported are true values of the slope coefficients from the neg-
ative binomial MLE regression, not IRR values.
In comparison to the statistical significance of the estimated coefficients
in the log-linear KPF model in Table 2, the slope coefficients of the negative bi-
nomial MLE in Table 3 are relatively less statistically significant, especially those
in models 4 and 5 for crop, horticulture, and soil sciences and food and nutritional
sciences respectively, as well as the sum of coefficients in model 2, for dairy and
animal sciences. Again, the mean lags in each model can be interpreted to repre-
sent the average lag between effective inputs and measured outputs, or the
so-called research “gestation” period. These values indicate that changes in life
science research expenditures affect research publications 2.23 years later in model
1: similarly, 3.98 years later in model 2; 2.97 years in model 3; 4.22 years in
model 4; and 1.40 years in model 5. The lags here are similar to the results of
the log-linear model in Table 2, except that here the mean lag for the food and
nutritional science research publications is much smaller than in the log linear
model, 1.40 years compared to 3.29 years.
In the restricted PDL negative binomial model in Table 3, the degree of
polynomial is second order and the maximum length of the lag is 6 years. but the
one exception is in model 2, dairy and animal sciences, in which a third order
polynomial provides the best fit. As shown in the Empirical Model Framework
section, the restricted PDL model known as the end-point restriction assumes that
there is no impact beyond 6 years of lagged research expenditures on current year
publications. Unlike the results of the unrestricted PDL model in Table 3, most
of the slope coefficients in the restricted model in Table 3, are statistically sig-
nificant, at least at the 5 percent level. Improvements are especially notable in
models 4 and 5 compared with the unrestricted models. Although, the restricted
PDL model may be too restrictive in some assumptions--it cuts off lag effects be-
yond 6 years--still, it has meaningful interpretations. One in particular is how re-
19 Because of the characteristics of log likelihood function and its mean, exp′ .
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)82
search expenditures of various lags effects current research publications by com-
paring the values (magnitudes, signs, statistical significance, etc.) of the slope co-
efficients between the unrestricted and the restricted PDL models. Another set of
meaningful interpretations can come from comparing mean lags between the two
sets of models.
In comparing between the unrestricted and restricted PDL models in Table
3, the results of models 4 and 5, the crop, horticulture, and soil sciences and the
food and nutritional sciences, respectively, have quite different magnitudes and
signs of the slope coefficients, as well as different statistical significance. Research
publications in these fields are more likely to be affected by six or more years
of lagged research expenditures. Moreover, in model 5, the mean lag of the unre-
stricted model is much shorter than the restricted model. Finally, we note that the
mean lags in the restricted PDL model in Table 3 do not differ from the mean
lags in Table 2. Therefore, the mean lags in the negative binomial MLE with a
restricted PDL structure can be useful for evaluating the average lag between re-
search project’s inception and completion (its gestation period) across the different
research fields.
2. The role of Land-Grant universities in agricultural knowledge
production and commercial innovation
The main purposes for adopting the analysis of variance (ANOVA) are to explore
one of our main research questions, how the Land-Grant status of a university—
and therefore its focus on regional economic development—affects its output of
research in fields affecting the agricultural industry, and to avoid a multi-
collinearity problem with a fixed effect model in the panel data analysis. Using
a dummy variable regression, called an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, we
can incorporate the concept of interaction between a quantitative dependent varia-
ble and a number of qualitative explanatory variables. The ANOVA can be used
to test differences among two or more groups’ mean values. The null hypothesis
is that the mean values of all group are the same, i.e. that they are not statistically
independent.
In this section, there are two different types of ANOVA models: (1) a
model with just one qualitative explanatory variable (whether or not a university
is a Land-Grant institution) and (2) a model with two qualitative explanatory vari-
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 83
ables that allows for interaction effects (whether or not a university is a
Land-Grant institution, and the geographic region of the university). Equation (7)
describes the first ANOVA test, which is based on the pooled-OLS data from
1993 to 2015, with a dummy variable for Land-Grant university status, which is
then related to publication output counts across different food and ag related re-
search categories:
(7)
Where Y = count of research publications related to food and agriculture by
authors at university i in research field j
L = 1 if the university is a Land-Grant university
0 if otherwise: non Land-Grant universities (both public and private)
Public = 1 if the university is public, but non Land-Grant
0 if otherwise
Table 4 displays the results of the ANOVA test on the number of research
publications by the 114 U.S. research universities in each of the different research
field groups, from 1993 to 2015. The test results indicate how the mean number
of research publications for each field by authors at Land-Grant universities differ
from the mean number of research publications for the same field in the non
Land-Grant universities.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)84
TABLE 4. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with one qualitative variable for
Land-Grant universities, across the different agriculture-related research fields at 114 re-
search universities, 1993-2015
Dependent variable: Research publications
All fieldsAg dairy
animal science
Biotechnology & applied
microbiology
Crop, plant,
horticulture, and soil science
Food and nutritional
science
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Land Grant222.434*** 36.046*** 12.281*** 91.604*** 41.939***
(6.658) (1.329) (1.813) (2.447) (1.851)
non Land-Grant (public)-19.884*** 0.710 -15.735*** 4.366* -9.543***
(6.735) (1.345) (1.834) (2.475) (1.873)
Constant63.637*** 0.000 38.132*** 5.037*** 20.468***
(4.923) (0.983) (1.341) (1.809) (1.369)
R-squared 0.3991 0.2797 0.0895 0.4183 0.2637
Adjusted R-squared 0.3986 0.2792 0.0888 0.4179 0.2631
F-statistics 869.65*** 508.57*** 128.74*** 941.64*** 469.01***
Observation 2,622 2,622 2,622 2,622 2,622
Notes: In order to prevent a dummy variable trap, we are treating the private universities
as the benchmark category; Parentheses are standard errors; *** at 1%, ** at 5%,
and * at 10% level of statistical significance.
In Table 4, the mean annual number of research publications for all agri-
culturally related publications from a Land-Grant university is 286.07 per year,
which is calculated E(Y_i│L_i=1,〖public〗_i=0)= β_0+β_1. Similarly, the mean
number of total agriculturally-related publications from a public non Land-Grant
university is 43.75 per year and the mean number of publications from a private
university is 63.64 per year, which can be calculated by E(Y_i│L_i=0,〖public〗
_i=1)=β_0+β_2 and the intercept itself, β_0, respectively. Following these for-
mulae, in the dairy and animal sciences, the mean annual number of research pub-
lications by a Land-Grant university is 36.05, but public non Land-Grant and pri-
vate universities have almost zero. In biotechnology and microbiology, the
Land-Grant university’s mean annual number of research publications is 50.41, and
the public non Land-Grant and private universities’ mean annual number of re-
search publications are 22.40 and 38.13, respectively. In the crop, horticulture, and
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 85
soil sciences, the means are 96.64, 9.40, and 5.04 per year, respectively, and in
food and nutritional sciences, they are 62.41, 10.93, and 20.47 per year,
respectively.
Overall, the mean number of research publications by the Land-Grant uni-
versities is significantly greater than the mean number of research publications in
the non Land-Grant universities in these agriculturally related research fields.
Particularly, however, in the traditional research fields in agriculture, such as in
the dairy and animal sciences or in the crop, horticulture, and soil sciences, the
production of research publications by the Land-Grant universities is significantly
higher than by the non Land-Grant universities (both public and private). In the
biotechnology and microbiology as well as the food and nutritional sciences, the
private universities have a remarkably high output of research publications, likely
due to the presence of medical schools within many of them.
FIGURE 1. The location of all 114 top-tier (R1) universities in the United States, by
Land-Grant and non Land-Grant institutions, broken out into seven geographic regions
In order to consider the importance and influence of geographic location
on the relative specialization in agricultural research, the ANOVA test can be ex-
tended to include two qualitative variables: (1) the Land-Grant and (2) regional
dummy variables. Again, the test is based on the pooled-OLS20 data from 1993
to 2015. In Figure 1, the universities are classified into seven different multi-state
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)86
regions—including Pacific, Mountain, Northern Plains, Southern Plains, Central,
Southeast, and Northeast—following Alston et al. (2010), recognizing that each re-
gion shares broadly similar climactic and agroecological characteristics, and there-
fore similar profiles of the agricultural industry within the states of that region.
Equation (8) represents the interaction effects between the Land-Grant and regional
variables.
(8) ≠
⋯ ≠
Where Y= count of research publications related to food and agriculture by au-
thors at university i in research field j
L = 1 if the university is a Land-Grant university, 0 a non Land-Grant university
M = 1 if the university is in the Mountain region, 0 otherwise
NP = 1 if the university is in the Northern Plains, 0 otherwise
SP = 1 if the university is in the Southern Plains, 0 otherwise
C = 1 if the university is in the Central region, 0 otherwise
SE = 1 if the university is in the Southeast, 0 otherwise
NE = 1 if the university is in the Northeast, 0 otherwise
Table 5 displays the results of the estimation of the interaction effects be-
tween the Land-Grant university variable and the regional variables for the mean
annual numbers of research publications by all 114 U.S. R1 research universities,
across the different research field groups and geographic regions, from 1993 to
2015. The total number of the Land-Grant universities is 41 in our data sample
of 114 universities, (see more details on which regions the Land-Grant universities
fall within in Appendix 3 and Figure 1). Similar to the results in Table 4, the
mean annual number of research publications across all fields are significantly
greater in the Land-Grant universities than the non Land-Grant universities.
20 Pooled-OLS data can be treated by combining both time series (23 years) and cross-sectional
(114 universities) data. Although it is somewhat distinguished from the panel data, the main data
set is same in both approaches.
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 87
TABLE 5. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with two qualitative variables,
Land-Grant universities and geographic regions, across various agriculturally-related re-
search fields at 114 U.S. research universities, 1993-2015
Dependent variable: Research publications
All fields
Ag dairy
animal science
Biotechnology
& applied
microbiology
Crop, plant,
horticulture, &
soil science
Food and
nutritional
science
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Land-grant 136.249*** 10.194*** -6.422 76.421*** 26.519***
(14.597) (2.731) (4.104) (5.537) (4.003)
Mountain -31.228* 0.000 -35.220*** 9.080 -5.089
(18.155) (3.397) (5.104) (6.886) (4.978)
Northern Plains -22.087 0.000 -40.209*** 13.157 4.965
(29.647) (5.547) (8.336) (11.246) (8.129)
Southern Plains -39.013*** 2.770 -41.896*** 4.835 -5.957
(14.824) (2.774) (4.168) (5.623) (4.065)
Central -25.330* 0.000 -24.999*** 0.008 -0.339
(14.406) (2.695) (4.050) (5.464) (3.950)
Southeast -30.665** 0.000 -32.094*** -1.010 2.438
(13.769) (2.576) (3.871) (5.223) (3.775)
Northeast -7.199 0.000 -17.013*** -4.409 14.222***
(13.305) (2.489) (3.741) (5.047) (3.648)
Land×Mountain -4.890 9.524* 20.324*** -19.910* -4.095
(27.612) (5.166) (7.763) (10.474) (7.571)
Land×Northern Plains 144.403*** 44.437*** 22.118*** -7.334 22.308**
(36.218) (6.777) (10.183) (13.738) (9.931)
Land×Southern Plains 137.779*** 45.935*** 33.211*** -4.303 44.852***
(23.032) (4.309) (6.476) (8.736) (6.315)
Land×Central 225.651*** 55.372*** 44.576*** 34.847*** 59.498***
(19.123) (3.578) (5.377) (7.253) (5.243)
Land×Southeast 137.019*** 34.812*** 28.742*** 39.060*** 13.872***
(18.647) (3.489) (5.243) (7.073) (5.113)
Land×Northeast 33.602* 12.061*** 21.649*** -4.452 22.243***
(18.661) (3.492) (5.247) (7.078) (5.117)
Constant 74.043*** 0.000 55.122*** 7.713* 11.209***
(12.103) (2.265) (3.403) (4.591) (3.319)
R-squared 0.4681 0.4400 0.1408 0.4514 0.3660
Adjusted R-squared 0.4654 0.4372 0.1365 0.4487 0.3629
F-statistics 176.54*** 157.65*** 32.88*** 165.10*** 115.82***
Observation 2,622 2,622 2,622 2,622 2,622
Notes: In order to avoid a dummy variable trap, we are treating the non land-grant
universities (both public and private) and Pacific region as the benchmark
category; Parentheses are standard errors; *** at 1%, ** at 5%, and * at 10%
level of statistical significance.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)88
For all fields of agricultural research, the Land-Grant universities in the
Central region stand out for having a relatively higher production of research pub-
lications than other regions, at 410.61 per university per year.21 In the field of dai-
ry and animal sciences, the mean number of research publications by Land-Grant
universities in the Central region is 65.57 per year, in the Northern Plains, 54.63
per year, and in the Southern Plains, 58.90 per year.
In contrast, it is much lower in the Pacific region, at 10.19 per year; in
the Mountain region, at 19.72 per year, and in the Northeast region, at 22.25 per
year. However, as noted in the previous ANOVA, the mean number of research
publications in dairy and animal sciences by non Land-Grant universities are al-
most zero, and the current analysis shows that this holds across all regions.
In biotechnology and applied microbiology, the Land-Grant universities in
the Central region, again, have the highest production of research publications, at
68.28 per year. In this field, the non Land-Grant universities in the Pacific region
have a slightly higher mean number of research publications, at 55.12 per year,
than the Land-Grant universities in the Pacific region, 48.70 per year. This can
be explained by the fact that this group includes a broad range of biology related
topics, such as applied genetics, molecular biotechnology, genomics and proteo-
mics, cell biology, enzymes and proteins, etc., many of which can also be pursued
in the medical sciences, and more general biology departments. There has long
been overlap between the agricultural life sciences and medicine. In agriculture,
biotechnology has long focused on breeding techniques, genetic modification of
crops, microorganisms for foods and agricultural products, and bioenergy. Some
of the large non Land-Grant universities are on the Pacific coast.
In the field of crop, horticulture, and soil sciences, the mean number of
research publications is greatest from Land-Grant universities in the Southeast, at
122.18 per year, but very closely followed, again, by the Land-Grant universities
in the Central region, at 118.99 research publications per year. In the Southeast,
specialty horticultural crops, such as citrus in Florida and peanuts or peaches in
Georgia, are particularly important to agricultural industries of those states.
Finally, in the food and nutritional sciences, it is again the Land-Grant universities
in the Central region that have the highest mean number of research publications,
at 96.89 per year, followed by the Land-Grant universities in the Southern Plains,
21 It can be calculated by
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 89
at 76.62 per year, and in the Northeast, at 74.19 per year.
In sum, the two ANOVA models establish that Land-Grant universities
certainly do produce farm more research in the agricultural and food sciences than
non Land-Grant universities, and among the Land-Grant universities there is some
evidence of further specialization within fields of agriculture. We also see that in
the Central region, characterized by the “Corn Belt” wherein agriculture is rela-
tively strongest in the United States, the Land-Grant universities there are the larg-
est and therefore tend to dominate the production of research publications across
the full range of topics related to agriculture and food.
IV. Discussion and Implications
In this study, we focus on the mission and role of the Land-Grant universities and
their sub-institutions—the state agricultural experimental stations (SAESs) and co-
operative extension services—in agriculture. The system of the Land-Grant uni-
versities and its corresponding policies in the United States are quite unique in the
production of agricultural knowledge and dissemination activities. Indeed, the U.S.
public and private sectors have been performing the most food and agricultural
R&D in the world. Thus, understanding the system and management of knowledge
production in the U.S. Land-Grant universities would be significantly meaningful
in any country. Indeed, we expect the main context and results of this paper could
be applied to the study of the system of food and agricultural R&D and commer-
cial innovation in Korea.
The Korean government has been expanding R&D spending to revitalize
the economy in the agricultural sector, encouraging food and agricultural in-
novation for sustainable growth. However, the system and structures of innovation
have been driven by government-led models. According to Lee et al. (2016), pub-
lic sector agencies and institutions, such as the Rural Development Administration
(RDA), Province Agricultural Research & Extension Services (PARES), and
Agricultural Technology Center (ATC), are the dominant players in the food and
agriculture-related research networks, and they play a central role in the agricul-
tural technology innovation system (ATIS), whereas the private sector industries
exhibit only a weak network in the ATIS even though their roles are crucial for
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)90
introducing commercial innovations in agriculture. Thus, most of the research net-
work is bound up in the public sector, and the structure of the network is more
likely to exhibit a hierarchical structure.
The main reasons behind this situation seem to be the different per-
spectives between public and private sectors. In fact, the public sector most often
pursues publicly-oriented objectives, whereas the private sector or industry is a
profit maximizer and more often pursues knowledge denominated and dis-
seminated via an intellectual property (IP) based mechanism. Thus, the public sec-
tors’ direct collaborations with private sector actors can be somewhat difficult.
Interestingly, a university can be a good mediator between public sector and pri-
vate sector entities, because the research team formations in the modern research
universities run like small businesses, or “quasi-firms,” optimizing their collective
behavior albeit without being directly profit making (Etzkowitz 2003). They do
much more research collaboration with private sector R&D than the public sector
does, and conversely, they collaborate more with public sector researchers than in-
dustry does. Beyond the traditional dyadic relationships, university research teams
often exhibit triadic relationship involving university, industry, and government
(a.k.a. the “triple helix”), which is characterized as a dynamic network (Etzkowitz
1993; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1995 and 2000). This conceptualization of the
R&D system may suggest an important alternative for the system of agricultural
innovation in Korea, in which the system tends to be mostly a one-way or a hier-
archical, government-driven network.
Furthermore, universities also provide a good venue for engagement with
industry stakeholders, in creating new knowledge that can lead to commercial
innovations. While the public sector has played a leading role in Korean agricul-
tural R&D, in the U.S. the private sector has been the largest funder and perform-
er of agricultural R&D. Following Clancy et al. (2016), in 2013, the food and ag-
ricultural R&D funding sources from the federal and state governments accounted
for $3.8 billion (23.7 percent) of a total of $16.3 billion. R&D funding from pri-
vate sector sources, such as private companies, foundations, and farmer organ-
izations, accounted for $12.5 billion (76.3 percent). And, while almost all of the
private sector R&D funding ($11.8 billion or about 94 percent) supported R&D
performed by private sector organizations themselves, a small but significant por-
tion of private sector R&D funding supported R&D performed by the Land-Grant
universities ($0.7 billion or about 6%). The private sector R&D sponsorship of
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 91
R&D in the Land-Grant universities is increasing significantly, even though a large
share of the food and agricultural R&D funding still comes from public sponsors
in the state and Federal governments (including the USDA, NSF, NIH, etc.), ac-
counting for $2.35 billion of the total $3.04 billion of R&D performed by
universities.
Of particular importance in this regard is the potential of university
knowledge production activities to affect commercial innovation through various
forms of spillovers and collaborations between university, industry, and
government. Thus, a deeper understanding of the U.S. Land-Grant system and its
R&D activities may have many implications for the system of Korean agricultural
innovation in terms of transitioning from government-centered or supplier-led
models toward more user-led or network-based models.
Finally, the trends of knowledge production by research field in the U.S.
research universities, and especially in the Land-Grant universities, provide im-
portant indicators of global trends in food and agriculture-related research for cre-
ating a new knowledge and preparing for new directions in industrial innovation.
Following the empirical results of this paper, it is clear that the traditional research
fields in agriculture, such as dairy or animal science, crop science, horticulture,
and soil science have quantitatively a greater volume of output than other research
fields. However, in terms of knowledge convergence, these fields show less oppor-
tunities for collaborating with non Land-Grant universities, which have the poten-
tial to bring new research topics and funding sources, fields such as computer sci-
ence and data analysis for precision agriculture.
In particular, the biotechnology and applied microbiology research field
appears to have greater cost advantages in the long run than other research fields
and a shorter mean lag between research project inception and completion. The
results indicate that the biotechnology and applied microbiology research field, as
related to agriculture and food, is generally overlapping with similar application
of the biological sciences in other fields, such as medical sciences and bioenergy.
The top-tier private universities as well as a range of industries in the United
States are paying attention to these research fields, including technologies like
CRISPR-mediated genome editing and analysis of the agricultural microbiome (see
more Egelie et al. 2016; Graff and Zilberman 2017). Thus, in terms of opportunity
for the creation of new knowledge and commercial innovations in agriculture, the
research areas of biotechnology and applied microbiology are more likely to pro-
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)92
vide potential for sustainable growth in agriculture. Therefore, we expect that these
results are a meaningful indicator of where Korean R&D should go and what it
should focus on in creating new knowledge and commercial innovations in
agriculture.
V. Conclusions
This paper analyzes the knowledge production and dissemination activities of the
largest research universities in the United States, specifically in the fields related
to agriculture and food, and explores the special role of the Land-Grant
universities. In the economy overall, universities conduct 14 percent of total R&D,
but in the agricultural and food industries, universities conduct almost 30 percent
of R&D. And, considering R&D in just the agricultural sector alone, the share of
university R&D is even higher, closer to 50 percent. A large portion of this is due
to the role of the Land-Grant universities, which historically have specialized in
agricultural and food related research, and the dissemination of that research to
stakeholders within their respective regions. Of the 114 Carnegie R1 research uni-
versities in the United States, 36 percent are Land-Grant institutions; these
Land-Grant universities account for 38 percent of the life sciences research ex-
penditures, but fully 75 percent of the agricultural and food related research pub-
lications produced. Yet, we must look at the Land-Grant universities within the
context of the larger set of research universities, because the other 25 percent of
research publications come from them and because the Land-Grant universities
collaborate with and apply scientific discoveries from other universities as peer
institutions. We seek to understand how the knowledge production activities of the
U.S. university system work together to create a huge repository of new knowl-
edge that is available to enable commercial innovation and technological change
within the agricultural and food industries.
The first empirical analysis characterizes the technical relationship be-
tween life science research expenditures as an input and agricultural and food re-
lated research publications as an output in a knowledge production function (KPF)
of all of the 114 top-tier U.S. research universities over 23 years. We utilize three
different agricultural KPF models: a log-linear model with an unrestricted poly-
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 93
nomial distributed lag (PDL) scheme; a negative binomial maximum likelihood es-
timation (MLE) with an unrestricted PDL; and a negative binomial MLE with a
restricted PDL. Adopting the analysis of neoclassical production theory like returns
to scale can be useful for understanding university research productivity. The re-
sults of this analysis show that the production of research publications for all food
and ag related fields exhibits decreasing returns to scale (DRTS) and among the
different fields, biotechnology and applied microbiology appear to have greater
cost advantages in the long run. This perhaps follows from the greater overlap,
and thus potential spillovers, with medical research and other biological sciences.
The mean lag between research expenditure inputs and research pub-
lication outputs indicate the gestation period between a research project’s inception
and completion. Across the three KPF models, we find the log-linear model and
the negative binomial MLE with a restricted PDL are most similar: with the mean
lags ranging from 2.90 years for biotechnology and applied microbiology as the
shortest, to 4.07 years, for the dairy and animal sciences as the longest. It is clear
that the gestation periods or project cycle times vary significantly across field. But,
it is also clear that there is a significant lag between changes in research inputs
and detectible changes in outputs. One of the major reasons regarding the different
nature of the mean gestation lags across sub-fields might be the level of the partic-
ipation rate of non Land-Grant universities, especially top-tier private universities,
which have the potential to bring new funding sources. Moreover, the mean lags
can be slightly affected by the journal environments such as the duration and qual-
ity of the peer review process across the different journals.
The second empirical analysis focuses on the role of the Land-Grant uni-
versities in food and ag related research activities by an analysis of variance
(ANOVA). We find that in our sample of the 114 top research universities in the
U.S., the Land-Grant universities produce a higher mean number of research pub-
lications across all food and ag related fields of research than do the public non
Land-Grant universities or the private non Land-Grant universities. Particularly in
such traditional agricultural research fields as animal sciences or soil and crop sci-
ences, the mean number of research publications by the Land-Grant universities
are much greater than those by non Land-Grant public and private universities.
Finally, looking at the relationship between the geographic locations of
universities by region and their profiles of agricultural research we see that the
Land-Grant universities in the Central region of the United States or the “Corn
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)94
Belt”, where agriculture is a relatively more important industry for the region’s
economy, produce the most food and ag related research publications, averaging
410.61 papers per year. Specifically, for the research field of crop, horticulture,
and soil sciences, the Land-Grant universities in Southeast produce slightly more
than the Land-Grant universities in the Central region, 122.18 papers per year and
118.99 papers per year, respectively. However, in Pacific region, on average, the
non Land-Grant universities produce more research publications for the bio-
technology and applied microbiology related fields than the Land-Grant
universities. Thus, we interpret this result that the research topics for the bio-
technology and applied microbiology can be covered by a variety of research
areas, such as medical science, agricultural science, bioengineering and bioenergy,
etc., so the non Land-Grant universities, especially private universities, are also
highly engaged in these research topics.
At the industry level of agriculture and food, we thus see the interesting
dynamic of university R&D and how it contributes to innovation within such a
highly regionalized and diffused industry. By having a set of top-tier general re-
search universities with specialized programs in agricultural R&D, namely the
Land-Grant universities, the U.S. system achieves three things: (1) The agricultural
sciences are maintained as fields of top-tier research, rather than being delegated
to a second tier of more vocationally oriented or field work, within the national
educational system; (2) Those Land-Grant institutions that are specialized in agri-
cultural sciences and that have the institutional capacity for disseminating new ag-
ricultural knowledge dominate in the field, producing the majority of agricultural
research publications; (3) Also, as top-tier institutions doing high level research in
interesting life sciences and related fields—such as genomics, pathology, epidemi-
ology, population dynamics, etc.—scientists at the Land-Grant universities play a
key role of collaborating with scientific colleagues at other non Land-Grant uni-
versities, thus enabling the Land-Grant universities to capture spillovers from their
peer institutions, the other 64 percent of universities, and applying that knowledge
to agricultural problems within their particular regional contexts.
Further, the results of this paper would suggest some insights and im-
plications for the agricultural R&D in Korea: (1) to understand the importance of
the Land-Grant system and its corresponding policies for creating a new knowl-
edge and inducing commercial innovation, (2) to realize a university as a good
venue for engagement with industry stakeholders, who can lead to commercial in-
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 95
novation, and a good mediator between public and private sectors for achieving
collaborative research and triadic research network, and (3) to find potentially
commercializable research topics such as the biotechnology and applied micro-
biology for attaining sustainable growth in agriculture. Thus, these factors would
provide some important implications to the system of Korean agricultural in-
novations for transitioning from government-centered or supplier-led models to
user-led or network based models, and suggest a new vision for where the future
Korean agriculture should go and what to focus on for creating a new knowledge
in agriculture.
In further study, such analysis should take into account other types of uni-
versity knowledge outputs, such as informally disseminated “tacit” knowledge, for-
mally licensed patents, and startup companies founded by research universities. We
expect that the measurement and inclusion of additional research outputs will en-
able the analysis of them as co-products of the university knowledge production
function. Other directions of analysis can explore how private funding affects the
productivity of university knowledge production and which knowledge outputs are
more highly response to the industry grants and contracts across the different food
and ag related research fields.
REFERENCES
Adams, J.D. and Z. Griliches. 1998. “Research Productivity in a System of Universities.”
Annales d'Economie et de Statistique 49/50: 127-162. doi:10.2307/20076113
Adams, J.D. 2002. “Comparative Localization of Academic and Industry Spillovers.”
Journal of Economic Geography 2(3): 253-278. doi:10.1093/jeg/2.3.253
Agrawal, A. and R. Henderson. 2002. “Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge
Transfer from MIT.” Management Science 48(1): 44-60. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.1.44.14279
Almon, S. 1965. “The Distributed Lag Between Capital Appropriations and Expenditures.”
Econometrica 33: 178-196. doi:10.2307/1911894
Alston, J.M., M.A. Andersen, J.S. James, and P.G. Pardey. 2010. Persistence Pays: US
Agricultural Productivity Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending.
Springer: Science and Business.
Anselin, L., A. Varga, and Z. Acs. 2000. “Geographical Spillovers and University
Research: A Spatial Econometric Perspective.” Growth and Change 31(4): 501-515.
doi:10.1111/0017-4815.00142
Audretsch, D.B. and M.P. Feldman. 1996 “R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation
and Production.” American Economic Review 86(3): 630-640.
Belenzon, S. and M. Schankerman. 2010. “Spreading the Word: Geography, Policy, and
University Knowledge Diffusion.” LSE STICERD Research Paper 50.
Bonaccorsi, A., C. Daraio, and L. Simar. 2006. “Advanced Indicators of Productivity of
Universities: An Application of Robust Nonparametric Methods to Italian data.”
Scientometrics 66(2): 389-410. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0028-x
Boschma, R.A. 2005. “Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment.” Regional Studies
39(1): 61-74. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320887
Buenstorf, G., and A. Schacht. 2013. “We Need to Talk – or Do We? Geographic
Distance and the Commercialization of Technologies from Public Research.” Research
Policy 42(2): 465-480. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.010
Clancy, M., K. Fuglie, and P. Heisey. 2016. “US Agricultural R&D in an Era of Falling
Public Funding.” Amber Waves 10.
Clark, B.Y. 2011. “Influences and Conflicts of Federal Policies in Academic–industrial
Scientific Collaboration.” Journal of Technology Transfer 36(5): 514-545.
Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson and J.P. Walsh. 2002. “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public
Research on Industrial R&D.” Management Science 48(1): 1-23. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273
Cohn, E., S.L.W. Rhine, and M.C. Santos. 1989. “Institutions of Higher Education as
Multi-Product Firms: Economies of Scale and Scope.” Review of Economics and
Statistics: 284-290. doi:10.2307/1926974
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 97
Colyvas, J., M. Crow, A. Gelijns, R. Mazzoleni, R.R. Nelson, N. Rosenberg, and B.N.
Sampat. 2002. “How Do University Inventions Get into Practice?” Management Science
48 (1): 61-72. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.1.61.14272
Cote, L.S. and M.K. Cote. 1993. “Economic Development Activity among Land-Grant
Institutions.” Journal of Higher Education 64(1): 55-73. doi:10.2307/2959977
Coupe, T. 2003. “Science is Golden: Academic R&D and University Patents.” Journal of
Technology Transfer 28(1): 31-46.
Cowan, R. 2005. “Universities and the Knowledge Economy.” MERIT Research
Memorandum, No. 2005-07.
Crespi, G.A., and A. Geuna. 2008. “An Empirical Study of Scientific Production: A Cross
Country Analysis, 1981-2002.” Research Policy 37(4): 565-579. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.
12.007
Egelie, K.J., G.D. Graff, S.P. Strand, and B. Johansen. 2016. “The Emerging Patent
Landscape of CRISPR-Cas Gene Editing Technology.” Nature biotechnology 34(10):
1025-1031. doi:10.1038/nbt.3692
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1995. “The Triple Helix—University-Industry-
Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development.”
EASST Review 14(1): 14-19.
______. 2000. “The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a
Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations.” Research Policy 29(2):
109-123. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00055-4
Etzkowitz, H. 1993. “Enterprises from science: The Origins of Science-based Regional
Economic Development.” Minerva 31(3): 326-360. doi:10.1007/bf01098626
______. 2003. “Research Groups as ‘Quasi-firms’: the Invention of the Entrepreneurial
University.” Research Policy 32(1): 109-121. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00009-4
Foltz, J.D., B.L. Barham, and K. Kim. 2007. “Synergies or Trade-offs in University Life
Sciences Research.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(2): 353-367.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01014.x
Graff, G.D., A. Berklund, and K. Rennels. 2014. “The Emergence of an Innovation
Cluster in the Agricultural Value Chain along Colorado's Front Range.” Colorado State
University.
Graff, G.D., and D. Zilberman. 2017. “Intellectual Property and Regulatory Issues of Gene
Editing in Agriculture and Food: The Lessons of GMOs for CRISPR.” 2017
Agricultural and Applied Economics Annual Meeting.
Griliches, Z. 1979. “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of R&D to Productivity Growth.”
Bell Journal of Economics 10(1): 92-116.
Gujarati, D. N. 2004. Basic Econometrics, McGraw Hill.
Hall, B.H., Z. Griliches, and J.A. Hausman. 1986. “Patents and R and D: Is There a
Lag?” International Economic Review 27(2): 265-283. doi:10.2307/2526504
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)98
Hausman, J.A., B.H. Hall, and Z. Griliches. 1984. “Econometric Models for Count Data
with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship.” Econometrica 52(4): 909-938.
doi:10.2307/1911191
Henderson, R., A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 1998. “Universities as a Source of
Commercial technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965-1988.”
Review of Economics and Statistics 80(1): 119-127. doi:10.1162/003465398557221
Heher, A.D. 2007. “Benchmarking of Technology Transfer Offices and What It Means for
Developing Countries.” Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural
Innovation: a Handbook of Best Practices 1: 207-228.
Jaffe, A.B. 1989. “Real Effects of Academic Research.” American Economic Review 79(5):
957-970.
Jaffe, A.B., M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson. 1993. “Geographic Localization of
Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations.” Quarterly Journal of
Economics 108(3): 577-598.
Laursen, K., and A. Salter. 2004. “Searching high and low: what types of firms use
universities as a source of innovation?” Research Policy 33(8): 1201-1215.
Lee, M., S. Kim, J. Park, S. Yoon, and H. Kim. 2016. Measures to Improve Agricultural
R&D Governance Efficiency and Expand Private Investment (Year 2 of 2). Korea
Rural Economic Institute Research Report.
Lee, Y.H., and G.D. Graff. 2015. “University Research Productivity and its Impact on the
Regional Agricultural Economy: The Case of Colorado State University and the
Colorado Economy.” 2015 AAEA and WAEA Annual Joint Meeting, Agricultural and
Applied Economics Association, No. 205443.
______. 2017. “Empirical Estimation of University Knowledge Production Functions for
Knowledge Outputs Disseminated via Publications, via Direct Industry Collaboration,
and via Technology Transfer Mechanisms.” Paper presented at NC-1034 Conference:
Food, Energy, Environment, & Economics Workshop, Tucson, AZ.
Link, A.N., D.S. Siegel, and B. Bozeman. 2007. “An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity
of Academics to Engage in Informal University Technology Transfer.” Industrial and
Corporate Change 16(4): 641-655.
Liu, S. 2015. “Spillovers from Universities: Evidence from the Land-Grant Program.”
Journal of Urban Economics 87: 25-41.
Mansfield, E. 1991. “Academic Research and Industrial Innovation.” Research Policy 20(1):
1-12.
______. 1995. “Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources,
Characteristics, and Financing.” Review of Economics and Statistics 77(1): 55-65.
Meyer-Krahmer, F., and U. Schmoch. 1998. “Science-based Technologies: University–
Industry Interactions in Four Fields.” Research Policy 27(8): 835-851.
National Science Foundation. 2016. Science and Engineering Indicators,
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 99
Pakes, A., and Z. Griliches. 1980. “Patents and R&D at the Firm Level: A First Report.”
Economics Letters 5 (1980), 377-381.
______. “Patents and R&D at the Firm Level: A First Look,” in Zvi Griliches (Ed.),
R&D, Patents, and Productivity, University of Chicago Press for NBER: 55-72.
Pardey, P.G. 1989. “The Agricultural Knowledge Production Function: An Empirical
Look.” Review of Economics and Statistics 71(3): 453-461.
Payne, A., and A. Siow. 2003. “Does Federal Research Funding Increase University
Research Output?” Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 3(1): 1-46.
Ponds, R., F.V. Oort, and K. Frenken. 2010. “Innovation, Spillovers and
University-Industry Collaboration: an Extended Knowledge Production Function
Approach” Journal of Economic Geography 10 (2): 231-255.
Sampat, B.N. 2006. “Patenting and US Academic Research in the 20th Century: The
World Before and After Bayh-Dole.” Research Policy 35(6): 772-789.
Scherer, F.M., and D. Harhoff. 2000. “Technology Policy for a World of Skew-distributed
Outcomes.” Research Policy 29(4): 599-566.
Shane, S. 2004. “Encouraging University Entrepreneurship? The Effect of the Bayh-Dole
Act on University Patenting in the United States.” Journal of Business Venturing 19(1):
127-151.
Thursby, J.G., and M.C. Thursby. 2011. “Faculty Participation in Licensing: Implications
for Research.” Research Policy 40(1): 20-29.
Wuchty, S, B.F. Jones, and B. Uzzi. 2007. “The Increasing Dominance of Teams in
Production of Knowledge.” Science 316(5827): 1036-1039.
Zucker, L. G., M. R. Darby, and J. S. Armstrong. “Commercializing Knowledge:
University Science, Knowledge Capture, and Firm Performance in Biotechnology.”
Management Science 48(1): 138-153.
Date Submitted: Jun. 23, 2017
Period of Review: Jul. 13~Dec. 15, 2017
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)100
APPENDIX 1. The top 114 U.S. universities in the Doctoral Universities-Highest Research
Activity in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education by recent 7 years
of average number of food and agriculture-related publications (except biotech-related
field), covering 2009-2015
University name (rank)
Average number
of publications
per year
University name (rank)
Average number
of publications
per year
U. California, Davis (1) 823.0 U. Hawaii, Manoa (48) 56.0
U. Florida (2) 701.6 Emory U. (49) 55.1
Cornell U. (3) 621.9 Duke U. (50) 54.9
Iowa State U. (4) 484.0 U. California, Los Angeles (51) 53.4
North Carolina State U. (5) 468.4 U. Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (52) 53.3
Washington State U. (6) 465.1 U. Kansas (53) 51.6
U. Georgia (7) 464.7 Boston U. (54) 44.7
U. Minnesota, Twin Cities (8) 433.1 U. California, San Diego (55) 41.1
Michigan State U. (9) 424.7 U. Utah (56) 39.9
U. Wisconsin-Madison (10) 408.1 Florida State U. (57) 37.7
Ohio State U. (11) 377.1 U. South Carolina, Columbia (58) 37.3
Kansas State U. (12) 356.7 West Virginia U. (59) 36.9
U. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (13) 351.1 U. Texas, Austin (60) 34.6
Texas A&M U., College Station (14) 337.4 Vanderbilt U. (61) 33.4
Purdue U. (15) 334.4 Northwestern U. (62) 30.7
Oregon State U. (16) 319.4 U. Colorado Boulder (63) 28.3
Harvard U. (17) 302.3 U. Southern California (64) 27.4
U. Nebraska, Lincoln (18) 278.3 SUNY, U. Buffalo (65) 26.9
Penn State U. (19) 276.6 Arizona State U. (66) 25.9
U. Arkansas, Fayetteville (20) 267.0 Indiana U., Bloomington (67) 25.7
Virginia Tech U. (21) 252.3 Florida International U. (68) 25.4
Louisiana State U. (22) 249.9 U. Cincinnati (69) 24.3
Colorado State U. (23) 208.9 Brown U. (70) 24.0
U. Missouri, Columbia (24) 200.9 U. Iowa (71) 18.6
U. Tennessee, Knoxville (25) 181.3 U. Oklahoma, Norman (72) 18.3
Rutgers U. (26) 176.4 U. California, Santa Cruz (73) 16.4
U. California, Riverside (27) 167.7 Case Western Reserve University (74) 16.1
U. Kentucky (28) 159.7 U. North Texas, Denton (75) 16.0
U. Massachusetts, Amherst (29) 155.3 George Washington U. (76) 14.7
U. California, Berkeley (30) 139.3 Temple U. (77) 14.1
U. North Carolina, Chapel Hill (31) 136.7 U. Louisville (78) 13.6
Tufts U. (32) 130.9 U. California, Santa Barbara (79) 12.6
Clemson U. (33) 126.3 Georgetown U. (80) 12.6
U. Maryland, College Park (34) 116.4 U. New Mexico (81) 11.6
University of Mississippi (35) 101.9 Northeastern U. (82) 11.6
U. Connecticut (36) 100.0 Wayne State University (83) 11.4
U. Arizona (37) 98.7 Tulane U. (84) 11.0
Texas Tech U. (38) 98.4 U. Miami (85) 10.7
U. Washington, Seattle (39) 97.4 Syracuse U. (86) 10.1
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 101
APPENDIX 2. The top 114 U.S. universities in the Doctoral Universities-Highest Research
Activity in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education by 2015 life sci-
ence R&D expenditures
University name (rank)
Average number
of publications
per year
University name (rank)
Average number
of publications
per year
Johns Hopkins U. (40) 96.6 U. Wisconsin-Milwaukee (87) 10.0
U. Pennsylvania (41) 95.3 Virginia Commonwealth U. (88) 9.6
U. Illinois, Chicago (42) 74.6 Rice U. (89) 8.7
Yale U. (43) 71.1 Georgia State U. (90) 7.7
Washington U., Saint Louis (44) 68.7 U. Oregon (91) 5.1
Columbia U. (45) 67.7 Boston C. (92) 3.9
U. Delaware (46) 62.9 U. Central Florida (93) 2.0
U. Alabama, Birmingham (47) 57.1 Brandeis U. (94) 1.9
U. Texas, Dallas (95) 1.0 SUNY, U. Albany (105) 0.0
California Institute of Technology (96) 0.0 U. California, Irvine (106) 0.0
Carnegie Mellon U. (97) 0.0 U. Chicago (107) 0.0
George Mason U. (98) 0.0 U. Houston (108) 0.0
Georgia Institute of Technology (99) 0.0 U. Michigan, Ann Arbor (109) 0.0
MIT (100) 0.0 U. Notre Dame (110) 0.0
New York U. (101) 0.0 U. Rochester (111) 0.0
Princeton U. (102) 0.0 U. South Florida, Tampa (112) 0.0
Stanford U. (103) 0.0 U. Texas, Arlington (113) 0.0
SUNY, Stony Brook U. (104) 0.0 U. Virginia, Charlottesville (114) 0.0
University name (rank)
2015 life science
expenditures
(million $)
University name (rank)
2015 life science
expenditures
(million $)
Johns Hopkins U. (1) 867.72 U. South Florida, Tampa (34) 295.10
Duke U. (2) 855.98 U. Arizona (35) 289.95
U. Michigan, Ann Arbor (3) 779.92 U. Nebraska, Lincoln (36) 286.06
U. Washington, Seattle (4) 764.57 U. Chicago (37) 276.13
U. Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (5) 733.93 U. Miami (38) 268.07
U. California, Los Angeles (6) 718.66 Michigan State U. (39) 259.65
U. North Carolina, Chapel Hill (7) 716.71 U. Illinois, Chicago (40) 258.07
U. Pennsylvania (8) 680.07 Boston U. (41) 251.83
Yale U. (9) 665.28 Penn State U. (42) 241.22
Stanford U. (10) 647.80 SUNY, U. Buffalo (43) 238.68
U. California, San Diego (11) 642.37 U. Kentucky (44) 232.83
Cornell U. (12) 631.73 U. Georgia (45) 232.59
Washington U., Saint Louis (13) 617.66 U. Rochester (46) 231.10
U. Wisconsin-Madison (14) 589.65 U. Virginia, Charlottesville (47) 227.65
U. Minnesota, Twin Cities (15) 581.58 Louisiana State U. (48) 225.67
Columbia U. (16) 573.06 U. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (49) 220.03
U. Florida (17) 539.65 U. California, Berkeley (50) 211.29
Harvard U. (18) 533.23 Purdue U. (51) 209.98
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)102
University name (rank)
2015 life science
expenditures
(million $)
University name (rank)
2015 life science
expenditures
(million $)
Emory U. (19) 530.68 Virginia Tech U. (52) 209.68
U. California, Davis (20) 512.47 North Carolina State U. (53) 208.85
Vanderbilt U. (21) 489.53 U. California, Irvine (54) 195.40
Ohio State U. (22) 473.75 U. Kansas (55) 192.92
U. Alabama, Birmingham (23) 455.48 U. Missouri, Columbia (56) 181.70
Northwestern U. (24) 451.94 Temple U. (57) 169.01
U. Southern California (25) 411.99 Washington State U. (58) 166.58
New York U. (26) 407.73 Virginia Commonwealth U. (59) 164.14
Rutgers U. (27) 366.18 George Washington U. (60) 159.22
U. Cincinnati (28) 347.13 Wayne State University (61) 157.21
Case Western Reserve University (29) 340.04 Iowa State U. (62) 149.39
U. Utah (30) 326.55 U. Connecticut (63) 143.53
Indiana U., Bloomington (31) 323.49 U. New Mexico (64) 141.88
U. Iowa (32) 322.02 U. Louisville (65) 135.97
Texas A&M U., College Station (33) 320.56 Brown U. (66) 135.23
MIT (67) 129.16 Princeton U. (91) 41.46
Georgetown U. (68) 128.58 Georgia State U. (92) 40.30
U. Oklahoma, Norman (69) 127.53 Clemson U. (93) 39.59
Oregon State U. (70) 122.70 Texas Tech U. (94) 36.13
Kansas State U. (71) 122.68 Northeastern U. (95) 34.16
Colorado State U. (72) 122.50 Florida State U. (96) 34.01
U. Hawaii, Manoa (73) 121.74 Brandeis U. (97) 30.61
Tulane U. (74) 117.78 U. Oregon (98) 30.39
U. Maryland, College Park (75) 115.90 U. Notre Dame (99) 26.99
U. South Carolina, Columbia (76) 111.13 U. Central Florida (100) 26.90
Tufts U. (77) 110.86 U. Colorado Boulder (101) 26.76
West Virginia U. (78) 96.10 U. Houston (102) 24.34
SUNY, Stony Brook U. (79) 88.61 U. California, Santa Barbara (103) 24.09
U. Massachusetts, Amherst (80) 81.17 U. California, Santa Cruz (104) 22.71
Arizona State U. (81) 77.87 U. Texas, Dallas (105) 21.14
SUNY, U. Albany (82) 75.67 Georgia Institute of Technology (106) 19.88
U. California, Riverside (83) 75.62 George Mason U. (107) 18.43
U. Arkansas, Fayetteville (84) 75.20 U. Texas, Arlington (108) 16.08
U. Texas, Austin (85) 74.07 Rice U. (109) 11.82
U. Tennessee, Knoxville (86) 66.44 Carnegie Mellon U. (110) 11.21
U. Mississippi (87) 64.63 U. Wisconsin-Milwaukee (111) 11.08
California Institute of Technology (88) 63.91 U. North Texas, Denton (112) 8.88
U. Delaware (89) 58.33 Boston C. (113) 7.09
Florida International U. (90) 41.71 Syracuse U. (114) 6.96
(continued)
The Production and Dissemination of Agricultural Knowledge at U.S. Research Universities 103
APPENDIX 3. The location of 41 Land-Grant universities ranked as R1 Doctoral
Universities-Highest Research Activity in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of
Higher Education, by region of the United States
U.S. Regions Universities
Pacific (11) Oregon State U.; U. California; Berkeley; U. California; Davis; U. California; Irvine; U. California; Los Angeles; U. California; Riverside; U. California; San Diego; U. California; Santa Barbara; U. California; Santa Cruz; U. Hawaii, Manoa; Washington State U.
Mountain (2) Colorado State U.; U. Arizona
Northern Plains (2) Kansas State U.; U. Nebraska, Lincoln
Southern Plains (3) Louisiana State U.; Texas A&M U.; U. Arkansas, Fayetteville
Central (8) Iowa State U.; Michigan State U.; Ohio State U.; Purdue U.; U. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; U. Minnesota, Twin Cities; U. Missouri, Columbia; U. Wisconsin-Madison
Southeast (8) Clemson U.; North Carolina State U.; U. Florida; U. Georgia; U. Kentucky; U. Tennessee, Knoxville; Virginia Tech U.; West Virginia U.
Northeast (7) Cornell U.; Penn State U.; Rutgers U.; U. Connecticut; U. Delaware; U. Maryland, College Park; U. Massachusetts, Amherst
Note: Parentheses are the number of universities.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue): 105~123 105
IMPACT OF INCREASED IMPORTS OFAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS DUE TO FTAS ONDOMESTIC PRICE DECLINE*
JEONG MIN-KOOK**
MOON HAN-PIL***
SONG WOO-JIN****
Keywords
import contribution rate, equilibrium displacement model, price elasticity,
direct payment for damage
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to propose a method of estimating the im-
port contribution rate. The import contribution is a factor that should be
considered in calculating the direct payment for damage. The decline
in prices is caused by the combination of various factors. In this case,
the decomposition of various factors can confirm the price drop due to
the increase in imports. To this end, we set up a partial equilibrium mod-
el for individual markets and decompose various factors contributing to
the price decline using the equilibrium displacement model.
Various types of elasticities are needed to calculate the import con-
tribution rate derived from EDM. Because elasticity has a wide spectrum
depending on the purpose of the study or the data used, a cautious
approach is needed to obtain objective figures.
* This paper contains the contents of Annual Reports on Agricultural Products Subject to FTA
Direct Payment in 2013 and 2014.** Senior Research Fellow, Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, Korea.*** Research Fellow, Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, Korea.**** Research Fellow, Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, Korea.
Corresponding author. e-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)106
I. Introduction
Since the Korea-Chile FTA entered into force in 2004, Korea has been continuing
FTA negotiations and so far 15 FTAs have been in effect. If FTAs takes effect,
imports will increase due to tariff cuts and TRQ increase effects, which will re-
duce demand for domestic products. Demand declines lead to price declines in do-
mestic products and damage to domestic producers.
The government expected that the damage caused by FTAs would be con-
centrated in the agricultural sector. For this reason, the Special Act on Assistance
to Farmers, Fishermen, Etc. Following the Conclusion of Free Trade Agreements
(hereinafter referred to as the Special Act) was enacted and operated in response
to the expansion of agricultural product market opening from the Korea-Chile
FTA. The Special Act aims to compensate farmers and to improve the com-
petitiveness of agriculture.
The direct payment program for compensating damage was introduced
based on the Special Act as part of strengthening compensation for damage caused
by FTAs. The government pays direct payments to farmers and fishermen who are
hurt by the increase in agricultural imports due to the FTAs, to compensate for
the decrease in income due to the price drop. The direct payment is a compensa-
tion system that makes up for price difference due to the rapid increase of import
caused by FTA implementation.
Price support programs and direct payment programs for the income sta-
bility of farmers and fishermen are being implemented not only in Korea but also
in many countries. However, it is difficult to find cases in which the government
is compensating for the damage to farmers and fishermen due to the progress of
trade liberalization such as FTAs. However, in foreign countries, the U.S. Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is similar to Korea’s FTA measures. In Korea, the
‘Trade Adjustment Support System’, which is applied to the manufacturing sector,
is a similar case.
Compared with the previous measures (the income compensation direct
payment program introduced in 2004 as a measure to the Korea-Chile FTA), the
direct payment program for compensating damage is aimed at improving the qual-
ity of farmers and fishermen’s life by expanding the range of target items and im-
proving the level of compensation. The target item selection method has been
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline 107
changed from the pre-designation to the post-designation method. The post-desig-
nation includes virtually all agricultural products in a manner that is selected for
support in case of damage to the agricultural product. The triggering requirement
was relaxed from an ‘80% decline’ to a ‘90% decline’ in the average price1 for
that year. The compensation rate was raised from ‘80%’ to ‘90%’ of the base
price and the year difference. In 2012, the payment limit was newly entered when
supplementary measures were established. The limit is 50 million won for corpo-
rations and 35 million won for individuals. The implementation period of the pro-
gram is sequentially extended to 10 years (2015.12 ~ 2025.12) after the entry into
force of the Korea-China FTA.
Article 7 (1) and Article 8 (3) of the Special Act shall apply the adjust-
ment factor in the calculation of direct payment so that the payment can be paid
within the range permitted by the Marrakesh Agreement. The adjustment co-
efficient has been determined to be applied in the calculation of direct payments
at the “Committee for Supporting Farmers and Fishermen” (Feb. 28, 2012) so that
the actual payment can be paid within the limits of the domestic agricultural and
fishery subsidy specified in the WTO rules. Since then, the Committee for
Supporting Farmers and Fishermen (Jan. 13, 2013) decided to reflect the additional
import contribution rate to the adjustment coefficient for accurate compensation of
actual import damages in addition to complying with WTO rules.2 The adjustment
coefficient and the import contribution rate have the following structure.
×
According to WTO regulations, direct payment for damage compensation
is classified as AMS, which must be reduced. However, in the case of developing
countries, it is possible to spend within 10% of the production value of a certain
item, which is the limit for de-minimis support. According to the U.R. agreement,
the ceiling of AMS in Korea is 1.4 trillion won since 2004, and the de-minimis
of the commodity is 10% of the production value in the developing countries, 5%
1 the average price over the past five years excluding the highest and the lowest.2 In accordance with Article 6 (1) of the Special Act, the direct payment is paid to the damaged
commodities due to increase in imports from FTA partner countries.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)108
of the production value in the advanced countries. The DDA has agreed to reduce
the allowable limits of AMS and de-minimis, but the agreement was not
concluded. Therefore, the adjustment coefficient can not exceed 1, and if the total
amount applied is equal to or less than the allowable payment amount, the import
contribution rate is to be the adjustment coefficient.
The effects of the opening of the agricultural market have long been a ma-
jor research topic for economists. Early studies aimed at verifying the social effi-
ciency of trade by measuring the loss of related interest parties due to opening of
imports using the partial equilibrium model (Arzac and Wikinson 1979; Freebairn
and Rausser 1975; Kulshreshtha and Wilson 1972; Brester and Marsh 1983).
However, it has been pointed out that the use of partial equilibrium analy-
sis has a limited impact on the spillover effects of market opening in certain
industries. Since the late 1980s, general equilibrium analysis has been spotlighted,
studies have been actively conducted to estimate the spillover effect of policy
changes including trade liberalization in the agricultural sector on the overall econ-
omy using the computable general equilibrium (CGE) model (Kenny 1990;
Robinson et al. 1989; Hertel and Tsigas 1988; Shoven and Whalley 1984).
In Korea, there has been an attempt to analyze the impacts of agricultural
market opening such as UR, DDA, and FTA through general equilibrium analysis
led by national research institutes. However, since the share of agriculture in the
whole economy is small, it is difficult to measure the effect of individual com-
modities caused by trade liberalization. Park et al. (2000) used the CGE model to
measure the impact of domestic livestock industry on market opening. However,
it pointed out the difficulty in measuring the effects with subdivided production-in-
put coefficients of livestock industries with a small share in the overall economy.
Domestic researches carried out in the meantime can be divided into
pre-FTA and post-FTA studies. Pre-FTA studies are approaching from the supply
side assuming that imports and domestic products are homogeneous (Eor et al.
2004; Kim et al. 2004). On the other hand, post-hoc analyzes are evaluating the
effects of market opening by identifying alternatives in terms of demand based on
the heterogeneity of domestic and imported goods, which are more realistic as-
sumptions (Kim 2006; Kim, Yoon-Sik and Choi, Seo-gyun 2007; Choi et al. 2009;
Ahn and Im, 2011; Moon et al., 2013). However, in order to quantitatively meas-
ure the impact on domestic price declines due to import increase, it is necessary
to establish a partial equilibrium model for each item and to estimate demand and
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline 109
supply on domestic goods and demand on imported goods. Based on these esti-
mates, the relationship between increased imports from FTA-contracting countries
and domestic price declines can be identified.
Ⅱ. Mechanism of price decrease due to increase in imports
When analyzing the impact of FTAs on a particular commodity market, there are
two main points of view of domestic changes caused by tariff cut. There is a way
to approach from the supply side that imports directly increase the domestic supply,
and there is a way to approach from the demand side that replaces some of the
domestic demand (Choi and Kim 2007). From the former point of view, imports
and domestic products are regarded as homogeneous commodities, so if tariffs are
lowered and imports increase, this directly leads to an increase in domestic supply.
Under this approach, the impact on the domestic market is highly dependent on the
price difference between domestic goods and imports.
On the other hand, the approach on the demand side is that imported
goods and domestic goods are not the same goods, and imported goods are consid-
ered as substitutes for domestic goods. If imports increase due to tariff cuts, do-
mestic supply will not increase but replace some of domestic demand. The degree
of substitution depends on the size of the cross-price elasticity. Under this ap-
proach, the increase in imports of foreign agricultural products is interpreted as re-
placing some of the demand for domestic agricultural products, so the demand
function shifts to the left. Therefore, the effect of the domestic industry depends
on the degree of substitution between imported goods and domestic products, so
that the price difference between imported and domestic agricultural products is
less important than the former approach.
The increase in imports of agricultural products due to FTAs and the re-
sulting impact of the domestic market will generally follow the process as shown
in Figure 1. The most important factor in moving the graph in Figure 1 is the size
of substitution effects between imported and domestic goods. If we can see these
movement in real life, only the imports increase caused by FTAs would affect the
market and all other exogenous factors affecting the market have not changed.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)110
FIGURE 1. Impact of FTA on the domestic market
Consider beef as an example. If domestic consumers perceive imported
beef and domestic beef as perfectly homogeneous goods, and Korea’s import de-
mand for beef is so small that it does not affect international prices, the FTA ef-
fects of tariff reductions can be expressed as in Figure 2.
As shown in the left graph of Figure 2, Korea is a small country and
therefore has a fixed, fully elastic global supply function () at the price of im-
ported beef (). Since domestic and imported goods are perfectly substitutes in
domestic market, equilibrium quantity and price are determined in the market un-
less they are separated. Therefore, before the FTA takes effect, the import price
() of beef, which is subject to higher tariff, becomes the equilibrium price of
the domestic beef market (). The domestic production is determined at the inter-
section of this price and the supply function () of domestic beef, and the import
quantity () is determined at the intersection of this price and the ED function.
FIGURE 2. Tariff reduction effects (assuming perfect substitute and small country)
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline 111
Let's look at the changes in the supply-demand when the FTA is con-
cluded and tariffs are reduced (or abolished). First, if the tariff is reduced as much
as , the import price of imported beef will fall from to
, and the price
of domestic beef will fall as much as the drop in import price. If the other con-
ditions are stable, the import volume will increase to on the fixed excess de-
mand function, and the domestic beef production will decrease to .
However, the reality of domestic beef market is different from this assumption.
First, since the import portion of beef is not negligible, it can not be said that the im-
port quantity of beef does not affect the price change of the global beef market.
Therefore, assuming Korea as a small country in the global market for beef could lead
to errors that would make the tariff reduction effect more significant than actual.
Unless Korea is a small country in the international market, the supply func-
tion of international beef () becomes upward-sloping as shown in the left graph in
Figure 3. If Korea increases beef from the global market, the price of beef in the
global market will also rise. As a result, the increase in imports due to tariff cuts
is reduced compared to the case of the small country assumption. The greater the
share of imports of beef in Korea, the steeper the slope of the supply function. As
a result, the effect of imports increase caused by tariff reduction becomes smaller.
The unrealistic assumption that imported and domestic beef are perfect
substitutes can lead to even greater errors in assessing the effects of tariff cuts.
In the domestic market, imported beef and Korean beef (Hanwoo) are in an in-
complete substitute relationship rather than a perfect substitute. In other words, do-
mestic consumers are somewhat heterogeneous in recognizing two different types
of beef in terms of taste, meat quality, marbling, and food safety. As a result,
there are separate markets for two beef. In the case of imported and domestic in-
complete substitutes, the impact of tariff cuts will be smaller than that of perfect
substitutes. Even though imports are increased, demand for domestic products does
not decrease accordingly. The weaker the substitute relationship between imported
and domestic products, the weaker the impact of the tariff cut.
The graph on the right side of Figure 3 shows that the demand curve of
imported beef in the incomplete substitute relationship is shifted to the left side,
but the movement is smaller than that of perfect substitute. As the demand curve
shifts slightly down compared to the case of complete substitute, the market price
of domestic beef also declines. Likewise, the decrease in domestic production will
be smaller than the increase in beef imports due to tariff cuts ( ≻ ).
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)112
FIGURE 3. Tariff reduction effects (assuming incomplete substitute and large country)
As a result, it is important to consider the degree of substitution in the
analysis of the impact of the tariff cut on beef. This can be seen through the
cross-elasticity of domestic and imported beef. Therefore, if the main purpose of
the study is to estimate the changes in the price and quantity of the individual
market and examine the changes in welfare of economic entities, rather than meas-
uring the effects on specific industries such as agriculture and livestock industry,
applying the partial equilibrium model considering the supply and demand factors
of the products can lead to more persuasive analysis results.
Ⅲ. Equilibrium displacement model
Considering the fact that the condition required for the direct payment of damages
is specified in Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Special Act, a comparative static anal-
ysis is appropriate which can explain the factors that change the market equili-
brium between two specific item points.
It is necessary to establish the concept of “import contribution rate” as the
ratio between “price drop rate caused by increase of import due to FTA” and “real
price drop rate of agricultural product between two time points”. The definition
of “import contribution rate” described in this paper is the relative share of con-
tribution of the increase in imports from the FTA partner countries to the fall of
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline 113
domestic prices.
We set up a partial equilibrium model that takes into account the supply
and demand system for each good to measure the imports contribution. As men-
tioned above, the partial equilibrium model is easy to quantitatively measure the
relationship between FTA implementation and price decline by identifying not on-
ly increased imports but also various other factors affecting the market price of
individual goods.
The equilibrium displacement model (EDM) is often used in empirical
studies to analyze policy effects because it is suitable for comparative static
analysis. EDM has the advantage of simulating changes in endogenous variables,
such as price and quantity, by changing exogenous factors of demand and supply
in individual markets. The theoretical model of the effects of increased imports on
domestic market prices following FTA implementation can be expressed as an
equation system composed of four functions as follows.
(1) : demand for imported good
(2) : demand for domestic good
(3) : supply for domestic good
(4) : market clearance condition
TABLE 1. Variables
variables description variables description
price of an imported good price of imported substitute
demand for domestic good income
price of a domestic good supply for domestic good
price of domestic substitute factor affecting demand other than price
factor affecting supply other than price price of input
demand for imported good
Using the rate of change of variables (
), we can rewrite equa-
tions (1) to (4) as follows.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)114
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
The following is obtained by summarizing the equations (5) to (8) with
respect to .
(9)
The left side of the above equation represents the rate of change in do-
mestic prices. The first term on the right hand side indicates the degree to which
the change in imports contributed to the domestic price fluctuation. The second
term on the right side indicates the degree of change in income attributable to do-
mestic price fluctuations and the third term indicates the degree to which domestic
substitute price contribute to domestic price fluctuations. The remaining terms also
indicate the extent to which each variable contributed to domestic price volatility.
The equation above decomposes domestic price fluctuations by factors.
The imports contribution that this paper is interested in is the portion of the fluctu-
ation of imports to domestic price fluctuations. The extent to which fluctuations
in imports contribute to domestic price fluctuations are shown in the first term of
the right-hand side of Equation (9). Therefore, the ratio between actual change of
the domestic price and the first term of the right side is the import contribution
rate. This can be expressed as follows.
(10)
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline 115
Figure 4 graphically illustrates the theoretical framework for measuring
the imports contribution of the individual market when various elasticity values are
given proactively. The graph shows the situation in which the equilibrium price
and the quantity fluctuate as the demand curve and the supply curve move in the
domestic market.
Let us first assume that imported goods (imperfect substitutes) are sold at
lower prices due to tariff cuts caused by the effects of FTAs. Demand for domes-
tic goods is reduced from to due to the fall in price of imported
commodity. As the demand declines, the equilibrium point shifts from to
in the domestic commodity market, and the market price of domestic commodity
falls from to . In the end, domestic production and consumption will also
decrease as import price drops due to tariff cuts.
However, as mentioned above, in addition to the direct effects such as tar-
iff cuts, implementation of the FTA also requires various investments to strengthen
marketing capabilities such as expansion of the domestic distribution network of
import-export companies and promotion and discounts of imported goods. In addi-
tion, as the consumption experience of imported products increases and the percep-
tion of domestic consumers increases, the market share of imported products may
gradually increase. In addition to the tariff reduction effect, the effect of this in-
direct FTA implementation can be ascertained through the increase in imports
from FTA partner countries.
FIGURE 4. Decomposition of price decrease
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)116
The elasticities derived from the import demand function suggest how
much the demand for domestic products decreases due to the increase in imports
from the FTA partner countries. That is, due to the increase in the volume of im-
ports, the domestic demand curve shifts from to . As the demand dimin-
ishes, the equilibrium of domestic market shifts from to , and the market
price of domestic commodities drops from to . After the FTA im-
plementation, the equilibrium quantity will also decrease due to the decrease in de-
mand for domestic products due to the increase in import volume.
However, this may not be a visible equilibrium in the actual market after
FTA implementation. This is because, besides the FTA implementation, there are
various factors that can change the demand and supply of the relevant commodity
market. Figure 4 shows an example where the supply curve shifts to the right-side.
This assumes that FTA implementation and supply increases only. If the crop of
the product is improved, or if the cultivation technique to increase productivity or
the introduction of new seed, the supply of domestic products increases, and the
equilibrium observed in reality becomes ′ . Therefore, the degree of contribution
of increase in imports from FTA partner countries to market price decline can be
estimated as .
Ⅳ. Empirical analysis
Using the import contribution rate formula, we estimate the contribution of US
beef to Hanwoo price decline in 2012. With the entry into force of the Korea-US
FTA in 2012, US beef imports as well as total beef imports have increased.
Reflecting the impact of increased beef imports, domestic beef prices and Korean
cattle prices have fallen to less than 90% of five year average. The US beef im-
port growth rate was 11.59% and the Korean beef price decline rate was 11.17%.
As a result, it met the criteria for direct payment program in 2013.
In order to measure the import contribution rate, we need values of
and in the equation (10) and the rate of the beef price
change. The above characters represent the own-price elasticity of import demand,
the cross-price elasticity of import demand, the own-price elasticity of domestic
demand, the cross-price elasticity of domestic demand, the price elasticity of do-
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline 117
mestic supply, and change rate in beef import volume respectively.
To obtain the above parameters, we specify the following demand and
supply functions.
(11) ln ln ln ln
variables sources periods
domestic beef demand/populationNational Agricultural Cooperative FederationKOSTAT
1996~2012yearly
domestic beef consumer price/CPINational Agricultural Cooperative FederationBank of Korea
1996~2012yearly
US beef consumer price/CPIKorea International Trade AssociationBank of Korea
1996~2012yearly
GDP(real)/population
Bank of KoreaKOSTAT
1996~2012yearly
(12) ln ln ln ln ln
variables sources periods
US beef demand/populationKorea International Trade AssociationKOSTAT
2008~2012quarterly
US beef consumer price/CPIKorea International Trade AssociationBank of Korea
2008~2012quarterly
Hanwoo price/CPINational Agricultural Cooperative FederationBank of Korea
2008~2012quarterly
imported beef consumer price/CPIKorea International Trade AssociationBank of Korea
2008~2012quarterly
GDP(real)/population
Bank of KoreaKOSTAT
2008~2012quarterly
(13) ln ln ln
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)118
variables sources periods
Hanwoo beef supplyNational Agricultural Cooperative Federation
1996~2012yearly
wholesale price of domestic beef/CPINational Agricultural Cooperative FederationBank of Korea
1996~2012yearly
production cost/PPI
KOSTATBank of Korea
1996~2012yearly
The above equations are estimated to obtain the coefficients necessary for
the measurement of the import contribution rate. In the estimation process, the au-
tocorrelation detected and the problem was solved by using the AR process. The
estimation results are summarized below.
TABLE 2. Estimation results
coefficients values standard errors
-1.33 0.074
0.28 0.060
-0.65 0.146
0.32 0.120
0.64 0.051
Table 3 shows the estimates related to demand and supply elasticities
from the previous research carried out since 2000. There have been a number of
studies dealing with the domestic demand elasticities but few studies have esti-
mated the import demand elasticities.
TABLE 3. Elasticities from previous research
domestic demand import demand supply
own-price elasticities
cross-price elasticities
own-price elasticities
cross-price elasticities
price elasticities
Jeong et al. (2006) -0.67 0.4~0.6 0.60
Choi et al. (2006) -1.06 0.47 0.49
Jeong et al. (2011) -1.06 1.11
Livestock Office of Agricultural Outlook Center
-0.87 0.52
this study -1.33 0.28 -0.65 0.32 0.64
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline 119
Jeong et al. (2006) estimates the elasticities of demand for domestic beef
using yearly data from 1970 to 2004. Choi et al. (2006) estimates the elasticities
of the main items in the process of studying the effects of the Korea-US FTA on
the domestic industry. The Livestock Office of Agricultural Outlook Center esti-
mates them using quarterly data from 1993 to 2003.
The estimates above have meanings of some random variables. Therefore,
by calculating the import contribution rate using properties of the distribution of
the elasticities, the interval of the results can be obtained and the probability that
the actual value is within the interval can be calculated. In the previous studies,
we do not have all the elements needed to calculate the import contribution rate.
Therefore, we estimated the 90% confidence interval of the import contribution
rate using the elasticities estimated in this study.
Using the elasticities and standard errors shown in Table 2, 10,000 ran-
dom elasticity combinations are extracted randomly by assuming a normal
distribution. Figure 5 shows the asymmetric distribution with a mean of 24.4. This
is because the import contribution rate formula is a nonlinear combination of the
elasticities. Using this result, we find that the mean of the import contribution rate
is 24.4% and the 90% confidence interval of the rate is 14.0% ~ 45.1%.
FIGURE 5. Distribution of the import contribution rate
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue)120
Ⅴ. Conclusion and discussion
15 FTAs are currently in effect in Korea. The FTA implementation has the effect
of increasing the welfare of consumers by promoting international trade. It also
contributes to industrial development by increasing demand for highly competitive
industries. However, less competitive industries are exposed to intense competition
and face price declines and reduced output. Korea's agriculture is considered as
an industry with low competitiveness.
Various policies have been proposed to mitigate the damage faced by
agriculture. Among them, the Special Act was enacted on the basis of a
Korea-Chile FTA, aiming at improving the competitiveness of agriculture and
compensating the damage. The direct payment for damage is a program that com-
pensates a portion of the price drop if the price declines due to increased imports.
In the process of calculating the amount of compensation, the portion of the price
fall due to increase in imports is considered to be important. In 2013, it was de-
cided to reflect this part by the Committee for Supporting Farmers and Fishermen,
in the form of the import contribution rate in the calculation of direct payments.
The import contribution rate is defined as the portion of the impact of the
increase in imports to the price drop. To do this, it is necessary to disaggregate
the various components that make up the price decrease to identify the impact of
import increase. This paper uses EDM to decompose the elements that constitute
the price decline and measure the impact of the increase in imports. We propose
the method of estimating the import contribution rate as
In order to actually use the above income contribution derived from EDM,
various elasticity values are needed. Price elasticity of demand, cross-price elas-
ticity of demand, import price elasticity of demand, price elasticity of supply and
so on. There are two ways to obtain such elasticity. First, utilizing the results of
previous studies and second, estimating elasticity from the equations directly.
Concerns may arise from the fact that previous research results are based
on relatively old data, and there is concern that researchers’ subjectivity may be
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline 121
involved in selecting various results. Direct estimation may raise doubts about the
lack of understanding of the commodity and the lack of objectivity of the result.
It is difficult to obtain satisfactory results by any methods.
Therefore, it is necessary to be careful in determining the elasticity to cal-
culate the import contribution rate. This is because the elasticity value can vary
greatly depending on the subject of the researcher. Therefore, the value should be
estimated by using updated data, but care should be taken to obtain reasonable es-
timates by consulting the relevant commodity experts.
REFERENCES
Arzac, E. R. and M. Wilkinson. 1979. “A Quarterly Econometric Model of United States
Livestock and Feed Grain Markets and Some of Its Policy Implications.” American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, pp. 297-308. doi:10.2307/1239734
Brester, G. W. and J. M. Marsh. 1983. “A Statistical Model of the Primary and Derived
Market Levels in the U.S. Beef Industry.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics.
pp. 34-49.
Choi, Sei-kyun, Yun-ski Kim. 2006. Evaluation of Impact of a Korea-Chile FTA on Korea
Agriculture. Korea Rural Economic Institute.
Choi, Sei-kyun, Yun-shik Kim, Yong-sun Lee, Joo-ho Song, Min-kuk Jeong, Gyu-dae Cho,
Young-su Cho, Dong-kyu Park, Byung-ryul Kim, Kyung-phil Kim, 2006. Korea-U.S.
FTA: Effects and Strategies in the Agricultural Sector. Korea Rural Economic Institute.
Choi, Sei-kyun, Tae-hun Kim, Dae-hee Chung. 2009. Evaluation of Compensation
Measures and Impacts of Implemented FTAs on Agricultural Sector. Korea Rural
Economic Institute.
Eor, Myoung-keun, Chung, Chung-gil, Kim, Bae-sung, Heo, Joo-nyung. 2004. Effects of
CJK FTA on Korean Agriculture. Korea Rural Economic Institute.
Farmer Service Center for FTA Implementation. 2013. “Annual Report on Agricultural
Products Subject to FTA Direct Payment.” Korea Rural Economic Institute.
Farmer Service Center for FTA Implementation, 2014, “Annual Report on Agricultural
Products Subject to FTA Direct Payment.” Korea Rural Economic Institute.
Freebairn, J. W. and G. C Rausser, 1975, “Effects of Changes in the Level of U.S Beef
Imports.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 57, pp. 676-688. doi:10.2307/
1238886
Hertel, Thomas and M. Tsigas, 1988, “Tax Policy and U.S Agriculture: A General
Equilibrium Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 70, pp. 289-302.
Jeong, Kyung-su, Byung-oh Lee, Jong-in Lee. 2006. “The Effect of Korea-US Free Trade
Agreement on Hanwoo Industry.” Korean Journal of Agricultural Management and
Policy. Vol. 33 No. 4: 1085-1095.
Jeoug, Min-kook, Duk Huh, Byung-joon Woo, Myoung-ki Lee, Hyun-joong Kim,
Hyung-woo Lee, Won-tae Kim. 2011. A Study on Improving a Livestock
Product-Distribution System for Stabilizing Inflation (Year 1 of 4). Korea Rural
Economic Institute.
Kenny, M. 1990. “CGE Modeling of Agricultural Policies.” Working Paper, Department of
Economics, Pennsylvanis State University.
Kim, Han-ho, 2004, “Analysis of the Impact of Korea-Canada FTA on Agricultural
Sector.” Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Impact of Increased Imports of Agricultural Products due to FTAs on Domestic Price Decline 123
Kim, Yun-shik. 2006. “Measuring an FTA Impact in a Partial Equilibrium Model
Considering Substitution Effects: Application to Korea Beef Industry.” Korean Journal
of Agricultural Economics. 47(3), pp. 31-51.
Kulshreshtha, S. B. and A. G. Wilson. 1972. “An Open Econometric Model of the
Canadian Beef Cattle Sector.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 54, pp.
84-91. doi:10.2307/1237737
Park, Chang-won, Kyeong-soo Cheong, Suk-jin Cho. 2000. “Economic Effects of Market
Liberalization in Korean Livestock Industry.” Korean Journal of Agricultural
Economics. 41(3), 57-77.
Robinson, S., Kilkenny M., and Adelman I. 1989. “The Effect of Trade Liberalization in
Agriculture on the U.S. Economy: Projections to 1991.” In A. Stoeckel and D.
Vincent, eds. Macroeconomic Consequences of Farm Support Policies. Durhams, NC :
Duke University Press.
Shoven, John B., John Whalley. 1984. “Applied General Equilibrium Models of Taxation
and International Trade: An Introduction and Survey.” Journal of Economics Literature.
22, pp. 1007-1051.
Bank of Korea <http://www.bok.or.kr>.
Korea International Trade Association <http://www.kita.net>.
KOSTAT. <http://www.kostat.go.kr>.
National Agricultural Cooperative Federation <http://livestock.nonghyup.com>.
Date Submitted: Oct. 16, 2017
Period of Review: Oct. 26~Dec. 15, 2017
Journal of Rural Development 40(Special Issue): 125~144 125
TRENDS IN SOUTH KOREA’S GRANTS-BASED AIDFOR AGRICULTURAL SECTORIN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
LEE HYEJIN*
Keywords
agriculture, food security, official development assistance, Korea, ca-
pacity building
Abstract
Agriculture is the major income source in many developing countries.
Official development assistance (ODA) contributes to agricultural devel-
opment in those countries to alleviate poverty and hunger. Among the
significant ODA donors, the Republic of Korea holds a unique position
with its transformation from a recipient to a donor. The main objective of
this article is to examine Korea’s grants-based ODA disbursements to ag-
ricultural sectors for its contribution to agricultural development and food
security in its recipients. The data for analysis were collected from the
KOICA Statistics Service and OECD DAC Query Wizard for International
Development Statistics for agricultural sectors. Results showed Korea con-
tinued disbursing the largest share of its agricultural grants to Asia while
gradually shifting its investment to Africa. Other regions received rela-
tively small amounts of agricultural aid. However, within regional disburse-
ments to agricultural sectors, each region received distinct shares by aid
type, based on their needs and Korea’s national interest or aid policy.
For agricultural capacity-building, the analysis identified evolution of the
training program’s main focus over the last 25 years. This shift from tech-
nical capacity improvement to software one indicated Korea’s efforts to
better align its aid policy with international norms for aid effectiveness.
* Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Institute for International Development Cooperation, KonkukUniversity, Seoul, South Korea. e-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Rural Development 40(Speical Issue)126
I. Introduction
Rapid economic growth and increased agricultural productivity have contributed to
the decreasing global poverty and hunger. However, 767 million people or 10.7
% of the global population were estimated in extreme poverty, and 795 million
or 10.9 % undernourished in 2013 (FAO IFAD 2016; World Bank 2016). The ma-
jority of those in poverty and hunger live in developing countries. Across the
globe, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are the two regions that suffer from the
severest poverty and hunger (IFPRI 2017). The extreme poverty rate, expressed as
the percentage of the population living below USD 1.90 per day in 2011 purchas-
ing power parity, was assessed 15.1 % in South Asia and 41.0 % in Sub-Saharan
Africa in 2013 (World Bank 2016). The two regions also recorded the highest
scores of Global Hunger Index (GHI) in 2016: 29.0 for South Asia and 30.1 for
Sub-Saharan Africa. The GHI scores between 20.0 and 34.9 indicate a serious lev-
el of hunger on a 100-point severity scale. The 2016 GHI score averaged across
the developing countries was 21.3 (IFPRI 2016).
To help mitigate poverty and hunger in developing countries, various
forms of global efforts have been made. Of them, food aid is one of the most
well-known forms of these efforts. It intends to improve food security and stim-
ulate economies of developing countries (Awokuse 2011; Murphy & McAfee
2005). According to the World Food Programme (WFP), Asia and Sub-Saharan
Africa received approximately 86 % of the total food aid in 2012, 23 % for Asia
and 63 % for Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively (World Food Programme n.d.). At
a national level, food aid enables developing countries to substitute for normal
spending on food imports, and generate extra foreign exchange. This extra foreign
exchange in turn can be used for non-food imports or repay foreign debts. At a
household level, it helps households sustain short-term food security, protect their
assets as a safety net, and insure against economic shocks (Tusiime, Renard, &
Smets 2013). However, its critics have raised questions about its contribution to
food security and economic growth in developing countries (Awokuse 2011; FAO
2006). The critics argue food aid subsidizes donors’ domestic interests rather than
assists recipient countries to improve their food security (FAO 2006). One reason
for this criticism comes from tied food aid, on which a donor places restrictions.
The restrictions may require the food to be obtained from the donor’s domestic
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries 127
market, and the use of transportation and distributional services of the donor coun-
try contractors. With such arrangements, the donor country could capture a third
of all food aid resources (Awokuse 2011). Food aid, like other forms of foreign
aid, potentially encourages recipient governments to depend on the aid.
Consequently, this may discourage necessary policy reforms and create dis-
incentives for their agricultural development. Corrupt institutions also allow local
elites to benefit from food aid, instead of channelling it to the intended beneficia-
ries (FAO 2006). Given those issues of food aid, a more reliable option to im-
prove food security is to assist developing countries for building self-sufficient
agriculture.
Agriculture is the largest employer and major source of income for the
poor rural households in developing countries (FAO IFAD 2016). Growth in agri-
culture not only favours the poor directly but expands the poverty-reducing effects
to other sectors; it generates demands for other agricultural inputs and services,
and employs the landless poor (Kaya, Kaya, & Gunter 2013; Lynam, Beintema,
Roseboom, & Badiane 2016). Yet, developing countries face obstacles to invest
in agriculture, including budget shortage, government priorities shifted to other
sectors, unfavourable agricultural policies, changing global market, and depend-
ency on food imports and aid (Murphy & McAfee 2005).
Recognizing the obstacles and potential of agriculture, international donors
have invested their resources in agricultural sectors through the official develop-
ment assistance or ODA, which is bilateral and multilateral aid to promote eco-
nomic development and welfare of developing countries (OECD 2008). The collec-
tive ODA contributions to agricultural sectors peaked around from 1983 to 1986,
and stagnated through 2000. This downward trend in agricultural ODA was attrib-
utable to multiple reasons: high global food surpluses, low commodity prices, agri-
cultural aid fatigue, opposition from farm lobby groups, and changes in donor pol-
icies to social-sector investments (Kaya et al. 2013; Lynam et al. 2016). However,
beginning 2000, donors’ interest in agricultural development for food security
re-emerged due to the rising food prices and high-profile political commitment
with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (Lynam et al. 2016).
As of September 2017, there are 30 members of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) (OECD n.d.-a). Of the 30 donor members, the Republic of
Korea (hereafter Korea) holds a unique position as the first country that success-
Journal of Rural Development 40(Speical Issue)128
fully transitioned from an aid recipient to donor. The country became a member
of the OECD in 1996 and the OECD DAC in 2009 to be recognized as a sig-
nificant donor country (Chun, Munyi, & Lee 2010). Quantitatively, Korea in-
creased its ODA contribution to 0.14 % of gross national income or GNI in 2016
from 0.10 % in 2009. Qualitatively, Korea introduced a comprehensive ODA bill
in 2009 for a legal framework to guide the country’s ODA (Chun et al. 2010).
The Korea ODA comprises multilateral assistance, bilateral loans and grants. Of
the three, the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), established in
1991, provides grants that include transfers of cash, goods, and technical services
(KOICA 2011).
With the exceptional emergence of Korea as a new donor, many studies
have analysed the time-series data of the country’s overall ODA to compare it to
other major donor countries, identify determining factors of Korea ODA, or draw
policy implications among other research objectives (Choi 2010; Kim & Oh 2012;
Marx & Soares 2013). However, specific sectors and types of Korea ODA have
not been sufficiently explored. For this reason, the current article aims to examine
KOICA ODA with a particular focus on agriculture, forestry and fisheries (AFF)
as an aid sector, and AFF training programs as an aid type since the agency’s
establishment. To examine the sector and aid type, the data for analysis were col-
lected from the KOICA and OECD DAC statistics. This analysis intends to reflect
trends in Korea’s grants-based contribution to agricultural development in its recip-
ient countries.
II. Data Sources and Analysis
To investigate historical trends of Korea’s grants-based ODA to AFF, the time-ser-
ies data were collected from the KOICA Statistics Service, KOICA Annual
Reports and OECD DAC Query Wizard for International Development Statistics
(KOICA 2016, n.d.; OECD n.d.-b). The time period for the current study was set
from 1991 through 2015; KOICA was established in 1991, and the latest year for
the available data was 2015. The KOICA Statistics Service provided data on
KOICA ODA disbursements by region, aid type, sector, and other details. The
OECD data provided total Korea ODA to AFF including grants, loans and other
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries 129
assistances. The OECD data for Korea ODA are assumed to share the same data
source as KOICA; Korea reports and submits its overall ODA data to OECD as
a member country (OECD n.d.-c). All KOICA and OECD data were analysed in
USD. Additionally, the AFF training programs were categorized into three based
on their main goal. This categorization allowed for the examination of thematic
and directional changes in those training programs during the past 25 years. The
findings from the data analysis are reported in the following section.
III. Results and Discussions
1. Overall trends of KOICA ODA disbursement since its establishment
For the regional KOICA ODA disbursement, Asia received the largest ODA or
40.9 % averaged across the years, followed by Africa (Figure 1).
Figure 1. KOICA’s ODA disbursements by region and year
Journal of Rural Development 40(Speical Issue)130
In 1991 and 1992 however, Africa received larger shares than Asia did;
Africa received 24 % in 1991 and 22 % in 1992 while Asia 20 % and 18 %,
respectively. Interestingly, the category, others (for multi-county programs) re-
ceived the largest shares from 1991 to 1993. It is probable that KOICA disbursed
larger shares to the multi-county programs such as humanitarian aid while identi-
fying its strategic regions during the first years of its establishment.
Since 1994, Asia’s dominance has continued, as reflected in KOICA’s
2016 budget. The largest share or 45.6 % of KOICA’s 2016 budget was allocated
to Asia and Pacific Ocean (KOICA 2016). In comparison, Africa was allocated
with 31.7 %, Latin America and the Caribbean 11.5%, and Middle East Central
Asia 11.2 % (KOICA 2016). Although the geopolitical importance of Asia to
Korea remains strong, KOICA has gradually increased its ODA to Africa in recent
years. This increase resonates changes in Korean aid policies and its recognition
of greater aid needs to Africa (KOICA 2016). In line with this trend, Kalinowski
and Cho argue that the expansion to Africa reflects Korea’s resource diplomacy
to gain greater access to the continent’s natural resources, and follow China’s in-
crease in aid to Africa (Kalinowski & Cho 2012). Kim (2012) also makes a sim-
ilar argument that achieving resource security and promoting soft power are some
of the key factors for Korea’s Africa strategy (Kim 2012).
Between 2003 and 2007, Middle-East Asia received considerable shares of
KOICA disbursement, ranging from 21 % in 2007 to 39 % in 2004 (Figure 1).
These drastic increases coincided with the United States (US) invasion of Iraq in
2003. This suggested a temporary shift of Korean foreign policies in Middle-East
Asia as a close ally of the US in order to help stabilize the region. With increasing
efforts for reconstruction and peace-building in Middle-East Asia, the remaining
regions showed inverse trends with KOICA disbursements between 2003 and 2007
(Figure 1).
KOICA distributes its disbursement across seven aid sectors; health, edu-
cation, public administration, technology, environment and energy, AFF, emer-
gency relief, and others. Of those aid sectors, education received the largest share
followed by public administration and health, averaged across the years (Table 1).
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries 131
Table 1. KOICA ODA disbursements by aid sector as % averaged from 1991 to 2015
Aidsector
Health EducationPublic
administrationTEE
§AFF ǂ
Emergency relief
Others #
Total
% 16.1 23.5 18.9 13.2 10.6 4.2 13.6 100
§: Technology, environment and energy, ǂ: Agriculture, forestry and fisheries, #: unclassified
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries received 10.6 %, only followed by
emergency relief (Table 1). Among the sub-sectors of AFF, agriculture received
averaged 83.7 %, fisheries 8.7 % and forestry 7.6 % (KOICA 2017). The Korean
agency continues prioritizing education, public administration and health as re-
flected in its 2016 budget allocations; public administration received 24 % of
KOICA total budget, education 22 % and health 20.4 % in 2016 (KOICA 2017).
2. Korea ODA to agriculture, forestry and fisheries
As partly shown in KOICA’s AFF ODA (Table 1), Korea did not distribute large
ODA disbursements to agricultural sectors. Of the total Korea ODA including
loans, subscriptions as well as grants, the AFF ODA ranged from the lowest 1.0
% in 2000 to the highest 15.3 % in 2012 (Table 2).
Table 2. Korea total ODA disbursements, Korea AFF-specific ODA disbursements and
shares of AFF sub-sectors as % of AFF ODA disbursements from 1991 to 2015
YearKorea total
ODA §Korea AFF
ODA §
% of AFF in Korea
total ODA
Sub-sectors of agriculture, forestry and fisheries (AFF)
% of agriculture in Korea AFF
ODA
% of forestry in Korea AFF
ODA
% of fisheries in Korea AFF
ODA
1991 136.0 1.6 1.2 - ǂ - -
1992 95.7 2.8 2.9 - - -
1993 59.8 3.4 5.7 - - -
1994 - - - - - -
1995 232.4 2.5 1.1 - - -
1996 - - - - - -
1997 220.0 6.3 2.9 - - -
1998 283.8 22.3 7.8 30.4 3.1 66.5
Journal of Rural Development 40(Speical Issue)132
§: ODA disbursement in USD millions from the data source, OECD DAC Query Wizard
ǂ: Data unavailable
#: Average among available data
Two values for 1994 and 1996 in Table 3 were missing from the OECD
DAC Query Wizard. In 2003 and 2007, there was a drastic increase in Korea AFF
ODA compared to each 2002 and 2006 (Table 2). This might be Korea’s response,
either voluntary or peer-pressured, to the global food price crises around those
years, which affected many of the rural poor in developing countries (FAO 2009).
The segregated data for the three sub-sectors were only available from 1998 to
2015 (Table 2). Among the three sub-sectors, agriculture, forestry and fisheries,
agriculture received the largest share ranging from 30.4 % in 1998 to 96.8 % in
2012. The same trend was mentioned with KOICA’s grants-based ODA above. On
YearKorea total
ODA §Korea AFF
ODA §
% of AFF in Korea
total ODA
Sub-sectors of agriculture, forestry and fisheries (AFF)
% of agriculture in Korea AFF
ODA
% of forestry in Korea AFF
ODA
% of fisheries in Korea AFF
ODA
1999 365.7 4.2 1.1 61.6 14.6 23.7
2000 353.7 3.6 1.0 90.0 6.1 4.2
2001 264.3 5.2 2.0 69.8 13.9 16.2
2002 362.4 6.9 1.9 51.7 35.6 12.6
2003 415.0 47.2 11.4 74.0 4.3 21.7
2004 591.8 15.1 2.6 75.5 22.0 2.6
2005 712.8 44.7 6.3 88.2 10.4 1.3
2006 681.2 11.9 1.7 83.2 12.8 4.0
2007 1013.0 102.8 10.1 89.9 9.0 1.0
2008 1623.2 53.3 3.3 64.1 22.0 13.9
2009 1793.1 46.6 2.6 89.7 6.4 3.8
2010 1967.3 99.7 5.1 82.6 8.9 8.5
2011 1665.2 132.1 7.9 95.4 2.8 1.7
2012 1809.2 277.4 15.3 96.8 2.2 1.0
2013 2226.8 115.4 5.2 81.8 12.1 6.1
2014 2262.8 208.5 9.2 85.0 5.0 10.1
2015 2311.7 98.2 4.2 81.8 7.9 10.2
Average # 4.9 % 77.3 % 11.1 % 11.6 %
(continued)
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries 133
average, agriculture received 77.3 %, forestry 11.1 % and fisheries 11.6 % of the
Korea total AFF ODA. Therefore, the grants, loans and multilateral assistances for
AFF mainly supported agriculture over forestry and fisheries. The dominance of
agriculture could be a result from the combination of the demands of the recipient
countries and Korean aid policies. Compared to agriculture in general, it can be
due to the lower appreciation of the two sectors for their contribution to food se-
curity, and smaller population sizes engaged in forestry and fisheries.
3. KOICA ODA to agriculture, forestry and fisheries
For KOICA’s AFF disbursements by region, Asia was a leading recipient with
50.5 % averaged across the years, followed by Africa with 29.4 % (Table 3).
Table 3. Shares of KOICA AFF disbursements by region as % averaged from 1991 to 2015
Region Asia AfricaLatin
AmericaMiddle-East
AsiaEastern Europe
and CIS §Oceania
Multilateral ǂ
Others Total
% 50.5 29.4 8.0 1.1 2.3 1.2 7.5 0 100
§: Commonwealth of Independent States, ǂ: UN agencies and other international organizations
In total, these two regions received about 80 % of KOICA AFF
disbursements. While Asia continued receiving larger AFF disbursements than
Africa, the gap between the two regions was closing in the recent two years.
Africa received 92 % of Asia’s AFF disbursement in 2014 and 90 % in 2015
(Figure 2). This trend may continue as the 2017 Korea ODA policy explicitly
mentions an overall ODA increase in Africa (Korea Official Development
Assistance 2016).
Journal of Rural Development 40(Speical Issue)134
Figure 2. Disbursements to AFF as KOICA total, Asia and Africa from 1991 to 2015
The AFF disbursements were further dissected by aid type and region (Table 4).
Table 4. Shares by aid type and region as % of KOICA AFF disbursement averaged from
1991 to 2015
Aid typeRegion
Projecttype
Development consulting
Volunteer dispatch
Invitedtraining
Small grants §
Expert dispatch
PPP ǂ HA ǂ Total
Asia 60.5 5.0 15.6 9.3 0.3 1.0 8.1 0 100
Africa 52.2 4.8 18.1 16.5 1.4 0.5 6.5 0 100
Latin America
52.3 0 25.3 16.2 1.8 2.0 2.4 0 100
Middle-East Asia
13.3 0 2.0 35.1 47.3 0.9 1.4 0 100
Eastern Europe and
CIS #53.8 0 12.5 17.8 4.2 2.0 9.7 0 100
Oceania 28.7 0 19.6 36.7 14.2 0.8 0 0 100
Average ∫
43.5 1.6 15.5 21.9 11.5 1.2 4.7 0.0 100
§: Not exceeding USD 0.2 million per year
ǂ: PPP: Public-Private Partnership, HA: Humanitarian aid
#: Commonwealth of Independent States
∫: Average across region among available data
Multilateral cooperation was excluded as only applicable to multilateral organisations.
By aid type in AFF, the project type cooperation received the largest dis-
bursement on average, followed by the training programs and volunteer dispatch,
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries 135
respectively. These distributions across the aid types in AFF were different from
the overall KOICA’s spending; across all aid types, KOICA as a whole disbursed
its funds in the order of project type (45.2 %), volunteer dispatch (17.6 %), and
training programs (10.5 %) averaged from 1991 to 2015 (Data not shown). Thus,
a noticeable difference in AFF was the higher shares of the AFF training
programs. Since a transfer of appropriate technology to the right targets can in-
crease agricultural productivity in a relatively short-term, the training programs
may be regarded more effective in agricultural growth and food security.
By region and aid type, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern
Europe and CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) received the largest
AFF disbursement, or over 50 % for their project type cooperation (Table 4).
The project type cooperation is more comprehensive under a multiyear plan. It
may involve construction of agricultural infrastructure such as irrigation systems,
dams and roads, provide agricultural machinery, equipment and other inputs, and
deploy experts for consultancy. The project type as such requires substantial
funding compared to other aid types. Additionally, it produces tangible outcomes
comparatively in a short term. This can help convince the public for the ODA
expenditure, and increase international coordination with similar programs in the
same region.
In Middle-East Asia, small grants (not exceeding USD 0.2 million) re-
ceived the largest share of AFF ODA, and in Oceania the training programs.
While most of the regions received the considerable disbursements for the vol-
unteer dispatch ranging from 12.5 % to 25.3 %, Middle-East Asia did only 2
% (Table 4). This low level of the volunteer dispatch to Middle-East Asia was
likely due to the safety concerns and entry restrictions in some parts of this re-
gion compared to the others. Instead, Middle-East Asia received the large dis-
bursements for the small grants and training programs in AFF. Given that
Middle-East Asia received only 1.1 % of KOICA AFF on average by region
(Table 3), these two aid types were likely considered more cost-effective with-
out dispatching AFF experts or volunteers for safety concerns.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Speical Issue)136
4. KOICA training programs for capacity-building in agriculture,
forestry and fisheries
The AFF training programs are designed to transfer appropriate AFF technology,
improve AFF research capacity in a short or medium term, and cultivate human
resources for agricultural growth in a long term. The training programs build
strong networks between a participating country and Korea as well.
On average, the AFF training programs in Oceania received the largest
share against its own regional AFF disbursement, 36.7 % whereas Asia did the
smallest, 9.3 % against Asia’s own (Table 4). Despite the smallest allocation to the
training programs, Asia was given the largest or second largest disbursement in the
absolute amount for the training programs, competing only with Africa (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Disbursements of AFF training programs by region from 1991 to 2015
Until 2006, Asia received the largest disbursement for the AFF training
programs. However, starting 2007 but 2008, Africa advanced Asia in the AFF
training funds. In 2012, KOICA spent almost twice on AFF training programs in
Africa against Asia (Table 5).
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries 137
Table 5. Percentage of Africa’s AFF training program disbursement against Asia’s
Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
% 84.0 42.4 32.4 58.9 49.4 21.7 29.0 19.7 37.3 19.0 33.3 25.8 51.0
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
% 25.4 12.9 45.3 107.1 84.8 146.3 146.5 134.5 199.6 139.5 131.3 128.7
Source: KOICA Statistics Service.
This trend is notable because the total AFF disbursement in Asia was always
larger than Africa. It indicates KOICA supported greater local needs or demands
for capacity improvement for agricultural growth in Africa. Or from a political angle,
the increase in the AFF training for Africa reflects Korea’s national interest in gaining
better access to export markets and natural resources in Africa. The training programs
invite trainees whom the recipient country and KOICA jointly select. Thus, inviting
high-level government officials from agricultural line ministries can initiate or
strengthen political ties between them. This is a reason some critics question effec-
tiveness of training programs, often one-off, short-term and mixed with political
intentions (de Rosa, Nadeau, Hernandez, Kafeero, & Zahiga 2016).
From 1991 to 2015, KOICA implemented total 501 AFF training pro-
grams (Figure 4). The AFF training programs were categorized based on their
main objective. This categorization allowed for the examination of changes in the
AFF training programs over the years. The first category is the management and
policy-oriented approach. Training programs that fell into this category emphasize
soft skills in policy formulation, management, leadership, or system building for
agricultural growth and food security. This category tends to invite policy-makers,
and high-ranking government officers and community leaders. The second category
is the production and technique-oriented approach. This category prioritizes im-
provement in agricultural skills and technology for production or processing. The
training programs in this category train working-level officers, technicians and
field researchers who are actually involved in technical operations of agriculture
and food. The third category covers the comprehensive and inclusive approach.
This category offers training programs for a broad rural development. These pro-
grams provide more comprehensive courses for rural community and social
development. As such, they cover a wide range of stakeholders including officials
at local or central governments, high or working levels, and community leaders
or members in rural communities.
Journal of Rural Development 40(Speical Issue)138
Figure 4. Categorization of AFF training programs by three approaches and by two periods
Of the 501 AFF training programs, 220 programs fell into the managerial
and leadership-oriented approach, 160 into the production and technique-oriented
approach, and 121 into the comprehensive and inclusive approach (Figure 4).
Among the explanations for this distribution are; the managerial and leader-
ship-oriented programs had greater demands from the recipient countries; KOICA
considered capacity improvement in this area more critical than the other two; im-
planting the training programs in this category was more cost-effective; and it pro-
vided better opportunities for political networking.
To examine chronological changes in the main focus, the years were fur-
ther divided into the two periods, 1991 to 2006, and 2007 to 2015. The year of
2006 was selected for the two reasons: first, the 2005 Paris Declaration with em-
phasis on aid effectiveness and capacity building and second, KOICA’s 15th anni-
versary with its self-reflection and strategic rearrangement. For the first period, the
agency directed the training programs towards the production and technique-ori-
ented approach. Of the total 189 training programs during the first 15 years, 92
programs or 48.7 % covered the production and technique-oriented approach, 62
programs or 32.8 % the managerial and leadership-oriented approach, and 35 pro-
grams or 18.5 % the comprehensive and inclusive approach (Figure 4). The agri-
cultural sectors require hardware skills that increase productivity, decrease inputs
and operational costs, and improve market quality of produce. Those outcomes
from the technical training make a result-based evaluation of a training program
clearer. Therefore, when KOICA was pressured to show its aid effectiveness dur-
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries 139
ing its early years, investment in the technical fields could appear more rewarding
than investment in longer-term impacts from improved software skills.
During the second period, or 2007 to 2015, total 312 training programs
were implemented. And the programs for the management and policy skills were
noticeably increased to 50.6 %. For the technical-skill, its share was 21.8 %, and
for the comprehensive and inclusive 27.6 % (Figure 4). This indicated a shift to-
ward software-skills building for agricultural development and food security. In a
short term, training for software skills can assist the trainees and their organ-
izations to better design and manage AFF programs. In a long term, they can
strengthen national AFF capacity through favorable policies and institution.
The number of the training programs with the comprehensive and in-
clusive approach increased during this second period. Integration of the ‘Saemaul
Undong’ or new village movement to the agency’s AFF program possibly con-
tributed to this increase. Saemaul Undong is the Korean rural development pro-
gram during the 1970s and 1980s. This program led to the successful increase in
agricultural productivity and reduction in the income gap between the urban and
rural areas of Korea. Accordingly, the model was promoted as an AFF training
program component. Although widely successful in Korea, introducing its own ru-
ral development model runs the risk; Korea’s own development model may fail
to consider contextual factors and challenges that are unique to rural regions in
developing countries (Chun et al. 2010). For instance, Lee and Lee (2014) and
Abafita et al. (2013) each identified differences in factors between Rwanda and
Korea, and Ethiopia and Korea for the successful implementation of the Korean
model from the social, political, economic, and cultural perspectives (Lee & Lee
2014; Abafita, Mitiku & Kim 2013). For Saemaul Undong to provide a useful
guideline over time, the model itself needs a transformation to be more relevant
to the current era and target areas (Kwon 2010).
Journal of Rural Development 40(Speical Issue)140
Ⅳ. Conclusions
The ODA by nature is temporary and volatile. Yet, the international donor com-
munities continue evolving for better aid programs to mitigate poverty and hunger.
Of the different aid sectors, agriculture can be the engine of growth especially at
the early stages of economic development, and in the regions where reliance on
agriculture is high in economic terms. Thus, agricultural growth assisted by inter-
national aid provides an effective way to reduce poverty, enhance food security,
and accelerate social development. At the same time, donor aid policies are often
political choices, thus their aid policies may not mirror the needs and demands of
recipient countries for agricultural development and food security.
Of the new donors, Korea outstands for its unique development
experience. Many developing countries benchmark Korea for its transformation,
from a recipient to a donor, and from an agriculture-based to a knowledge-based
economy. For this reason, Korea ODA became the subject of this study to reflect
the historical trend and reality of Korea’s grants-based ODA to agricultural sectors
during the past 25 years.
While Asia was a leading recipient of KOICA’s AFF grants, the details
of AFF disbursements were distinct by region and aid type probably from the mix-
ture of agricultural needs and demands of different regions, and Korea’s national
interests. For the AFF training programs, their main objective appeared evolving
from the technical-oriented to software-oriented approach. This evolution indicates
that software capacity for good agricultural policies, effective leadership and man-
agement skills became as important as technical capacity for agricultural growth.
This shift may better align with Korea’s goal to sustain aid impacts in the long
run. Capacity development through training programs can be effective. But power
imbalance and political interests have a potential to abuse training programs partic-
ularly at the trainee selection stage. Besides, it is challenging to evaluate effective-
ness of the training programs, given the one-off and short-term nature of many
AFF training programs.
The current study explored part of Korea AFF ODA executed by KOICA
and its agricultural training programs. The results offer some valuable insights on
the trends of the specific sector and type of Korea’s grants-based ODA as many
studies have been carried out with the overall Korea ODA. Nevertheless, for a
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries 141
comprehensive understanding of Korea AFF ODA, this study has limitations. First,
it did not fully analyze causes or relations of the trend changes made over time.
For instance, specifics of the investment increase in Africa need be identified with
such questions as; whether this increase in disbursements is concentrated only in
a few African countries, or simply more African countries are included; if then,
what the causes or criteria of the changes are; and how relevant the changes are
to their agricultural development. To investigate these questions, the AFF disburse-
ments could be dissected by each recipient country, its AFF status in economic
terms, or national AFF policies. Second, the AFF training programs can be further
analyzed by program duration, or gender ratio of participants. Such information
captures additional characteristics of the AFF training programs. Third, any
changes in bilateral loans and multilateral assistances for AFF should be examined
for a fuller picture of Korea’s contribution to agricultural development in its recip-
ient countries. If a country received smaller AFF grants from KOICA, yet larger
bilateral loans for its AFF sectors, an exclusive look at the grants can under-
estimate Korea’s contribution. Further research therefore would provide deeper in-
sights on Korea AFF ODA to better assist its recipient countries and conform to
international aid norms.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author sincerely thanks Lee Haneul for the technical assistance for the data
collection and sorting at the KU Institute for International Development
Cooperation at Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea.
CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
The author declares no conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
Abafita, J., Mitiku, F., & Ryang, K. K. 2013. “Korea’s Saemaul Undong (New Village
Movement): A Model for Rural Development in Ethiopia?” Journal of the Korean
Society of International Agriculture, 25(3), 217-230. doi:10.12719/ksia.2013.25.3.217
Awokuse, T. O. 2011. “Food aid impacts on recipient developing countries: A review of
empirical methods and evidence.” Journal of International Development 23(4): 493-514.
doi:10.1002/jid.1680
Choi, J. W. 2010. “From a recipient to a donor state: Achievements and challenges of
Korea’s ODA.” International Review of Public Administration 15(3): 37-51.
doi:10.1080/12294659.2011.10805178
Chun, H. M., Munyi, E. N., & Lee, H. 2010. “South Korea as an emerging donor:
challenges and changes on its entering OECD/DAC.” Journal of International
Development 22(6): 788-802. doi:10.1002/jid.1723
de Rosa, C., Nadeau, A., Hernandez, E., Kafeero, F., & Zahiga, J. 2016. “Delivery
strategies to enhance the sustainability of training: lessons from the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.” International Journal of Training and
Development 20(2): 164-176. doi:10.1111/ijtd.12074
FAO. 2006. The State of Food and Agriculture, 2006: Food Aid for Food Security? :
Food & Agriculture Org.
FAO. 2009. The state of food insecurity in the world: Economic crises-impacts and
lessons learned. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0876e/i0876e00.htm
FAO IFAD. 2016. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015
international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Food and Agriculture
Organization Publications, Rome.
Trends in South Korea’s Grants-Based Aid for Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries 143
IFPRI. 2016. 2016 Glober Hunger Index. Retrieved from http://ghi.ifpri.org/
IFPRI. 2017. 2017 Global Food Policy Report. Retrieved from
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/2017-global-food-policy-report
Kalinowski, T., & Cho, H. 2012. “Korea's search for a global role between hard economic
interests and soft power.” The European Journal of Development Research 24(2):
242-260. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2012.7
Kaya, O., Kaya, I., & Gunter, L. 2013. “Foreign aid and the quest for poverty reduction:
Is aid to agriculture effective?” Journal of Agricultural Economics 64(3): 583-596.
doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12023
Kim, E. M., & Oh, J. 2012. “Determinants of foreign aid: The case of South Korea.”
Journal of East Asian Studies 12(2): 251-274. doi:10.1017/s1598240800007852
Kim, S. 2013. Korea in Africa: a missing piece of the puzzle?. Korea. 13(15): 22.
KOICA. 2011. Korea International Cooperation Agency: 20 Years of KOICA. Retrieved
from http://www.koica.go.kr/upload/pr/annual/20anniversary_eng.pdf
KOICA. 2016. KOICA Brochure 2016. In Korea International Cooperation Agency (Ed.),
(pp. 7). Seongnam-si, South Korea: Korea International Cooperation Agency.
KOICA. 2017. KOICA's Mid-Term Sectoral Strategy 2016-2020. Retrieved from
http://www.koica.go.kr/
KOICA. n.d.. KOICA Statistics Service. Retrieved from http://stat.koica.go.kr
Korea Official Development Assistance. 2016. 2017 Korean Policies for International
Development Cooperation (In Korean). Retrieved from The Office for Government
Policy Coordination and Prime Minister's Secretariat of Korea
Kwon, H. J. 2010. Implications of Korea’s Saemaul Undong for International Development
Policy: A Structural Perspective.
Lee, E., & Lee, S. C. 2014. “Challenges of Saemaul ODA in African region.” The
Korean Journal of Local Government Studies. 18(2).
Lynam, J., Beintema, N. M., Roseboom, J., & Badiane, O. 2016. Agricultural research in
Africa: Investing in future harvests: Intl Food Policy Res Inst. doi:10.2499/97808962
92123
Marx, A., & Soares, J. 2013. “South Korea’s transition from recipient to DAC donor:
Assessing Korea’s development cooperation policy.” International Development Policy|
Revue internationale de politique de développement. 4(4.2): 107-142. doi:10.4000/pol
dev.1535
Murphy, S., & McAfee, K. 2005. US food aid: Time to get it right.
OECD. 2008. Is It ODA? Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload
/IsitODA.pdf
OECD. n.d.-a. Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD-DAC): DAC members.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/dacmembers.htm
OECD. n.d.-b. OECD Query Wizard for International Development Statistics. Retrieved
from https://stats.oecd.org/qwids/
Journal of Rural Development 40(Speical Issue)144
OECD. n.d.-c. OECD Development finance statistics: Frequently Asked Questions.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/faq.htm
Tusiime, H. A., Renard, R., & Smets, L. 2013. “Food aid and household food security in
a conflict situation: Empirical evidence from Northern Uganda.” Food Policy. 43:
14-22. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.07.005
World Bank. 2016. Poverty and Shared Prosperity: Taking on Inequality. Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity
World Food Programme. n.d.. Food Aid Information System: Quantity Reporting.
Retrieved from http://www.wfp.org/fais/quantity-reporting
Date Submitted: Oct. 16, 2017
Period of Review: Oct. 26~Dec. 15, 2017
145
Guidelines for Operating the Journal of Rural Development (Extract)
Established in November 2016
Amended in April 2017
Chapter 1. General Rules
Article 1 (Purpose) These guidelines aim to provide the details regarding the publication and
management of an academic journal, the Journal of Rural Development (hereafter JRD),
according to the Rules for Issuing Publications of the Korea Rural Economic Institute
(hereafter ‘Institute’).
Article 2 (Purpose of Publication) The JRD is published to achieve the following objectives.
1. Contribute to the academic development in the economy of agriculture, forestry, and
food and the rural sector in Korea
2. Promote the development and exchange of knowledge and information related to pol-
icies for the economy of agriculture, forestry, and food and the rural sector
3. Establish an academic foundation for the development of the economy of agriculture,
forestry, and food and the rural sector
Chapter 2. Operation of the Editorial Board
Article 3 (Purpose) The Editorial Board is established and operated to be in charge of all the
matters necessary to publish the JRD.
Article 4 (Composition and Term of Office) ① The Editorial Board consists of 10-20 mem-
bers in and outside the Institute, including the chairperson, and a secretary. The Director
of Planning & Coordination is an ex officio member.
② The President of the Institute appoints the chairperson among research directors or
outside experts, and can designate a distinguished overseas scholar in the related
field as co-chairperson.
③ The President of the Institute appoints employees of the Institute or outside experts as
board members, and appoints one of the people in charge of publishing as secretary.
④ The term of the chairperson and board members is two years, and they can be
reappointed. If they cannot perform their duties due to unavoidable circumstances,
146
they can be replaced during their term of office.
Article 5 (Roles of Editorial Board) The following are major roles of the Editorial Board:
1. Review of the rules for submission and examination of papers
2. Receipt of submitted papers
3. Decision as to whether a submitted paper is worthy of examination
4. Selection of referees and request for examination
5. Decision as to whether a submitted paper will be published
6. Matters related to editing and publication
7. Other matters necessary for publication and matters for which the President of the
Institute recognizes the necessity.
Chapter 3. Publication
Article 7 (Publication) The JRD is published in Korean four times a year, on March 21, June
21, September 21, and December 21. If many papers in English are submitted, a special
issue in English can be published once or twice a year.
Article 8 (Submission and Examination of Manuscript) ① A submitted manuscript should
comply with the examination guidelines of the JRD, and the Editorial Board decides
whether the manuscript will be published, according to the procedure specified in the
guidelines.
② The office in charge of publication performs other related tasks through discussion.
Article 9 (Manuscript Fees and Review Fees) ① If a manuscript submitted by an outside
author is approved for publication, the author can be paid a manuscript fee which the
Institute decided.
② If an outside referee reviews a submitted paper, he or she can be paid a review fee
which the Institute decided.
Article 10 (Publication Rights and Profit) The Institute holds the publication rights of a pa-
per published in the JRD, and the paper cannot be reproduced or reprinted in any lan-
guages without prior approval of the President of the Institute. Matters regarding the
transfer and lending of publication rights are decided by the JRD Editorial Board.
Article 14 (Order of Publication of Papers) ① The Editorial Board decides the order of pub-
lication of selected papers.
② If papers accepted for publication are too many to be published in one issue, some of
147
them can be published in the next issue.
Article 15 (Certificate of Acceptance) If a submitted paper is accepted for publication
through the final examination and the author requests its certification before publication,
a Certificate of Acceptance can be issued.
Chapter 4. Manuscript Submission
Article 16 (Qualifications for Manuscript Submission and Contents of Manuscript) ①
Anyone can submit his or her manuscript.
② Submitted manuscripts should be academic papers in Korean or English on topics in-
cluding the economy of agriculture, forestry, and food, rural society and welfare, re-
gional development, and international trade policy.
Article 17 (Length of Manuscript) ① The length of a manuscript should not exceed 20
A4-size pages (40 characters, 25 lines in Korean; 80 characters, 26 lines in English), in-
cluding an abstract and references, according to the format specified in the Manuscript
Preparation Instruction.
② Manuscripts should be prepared according to the attached Guidelines for Manuscript
Submission to the JRD.
Article 18 (Prohibition of Redundant Submission and Publication) A paper which was pub-
lished or is under examination in another academic journal at home or abroad should not
be submitted to the JRD. A manuscript which was disapproved for publication in the JRD
cannot be resubmitted to the journal. Also, a paper published in the JRD cannot be re-
produced in another publication discretionally.
Article 19 (Indication of Authorship) If a paper is written by two or more authors, the first
author should be indicated first among the authors, and the other authors should be list-
ed in order of their contribution to the writing of the paper.
Article 20 (Receipt of Manuscript) ① Manuscripts for the JRD are received all year round.
② The file of a manuscript should be sent to the following e-mail address: journal@
krei.re.kr.
③ Submitted manuscripts will not be returned.
Article 21 (Transfer of Copyright) The copyright of a manuscript accepted for publication is
transferred to the Institute, and the author of the manuscript shall sign and submit a
form. The Institute holds the rights to publish, distribute, or print the manuscript in an-
148
other medium.
Chapter 5. Examination
Article 23 (Appointment of Referees and Sending of Manuscript) ① Every submitted
manuscript should be checked through “Copy Killer,” the plagiarism checking system
operated by the Institute, and through “Paper Similarity Check” operated by the National
Research Foundation of Korea. Then, for every submitted manuscript, the chairperson
of the Editorial Board appoints three referees among the candidates recommended by
board members. The candidate referees must be experts in the field concerned
(amended April 2017).
② In selecting the referees, high regard should be given to fully consider the academic
speciality concerned. And to secure fairness in the examination process, an expert at
the same institution as the submitter must not be selected as a referee (amended
April 2017).
③ The personal information of the author cannot be disclosed in the manuscript under
examination.
Article 24 (Examination of Manuscript) ① The referee should disclose his or her assess-
ment of a submitted manuscript by marking it with one of the following four grades:
‘approve,’ ‘approve after revision,’ ‘reexamination after revision,’ or ‘disapprove.’ In ad-
dition, the referee must prepare a referee report and submit it to the Editorial Board by
a given date.
② If there arises a need to advise a revision of the manuscript, the referee must specifi-
cally state the contents to be revised.
③ If the referee wishes to grade the manuscript as ‘disapprove,’ he or she must state
the reason in detail.
Article 25 (Examination Criteria) ① The referee should review the manuscript according to
the following criteria:
1. Originality: Is the research topic or the method of analysis and approach new and orig-
inal?
2. Suitability of Research Method: Are the topic, methods of analysis, and approaches
appropriate?
3. Logic and Consistency of Reasoning: Are the composition and reasoning logical and
appropriate?
149
4. Feasibility and Objectivity of Analysis and Assessment: Is the analysis valid and based
on reliable and objective data?
5. Academic Contribution: Is the research expected to contribute to academic progress?
6. Accurateness: Are bibliographical materials and data correctly quoted and refer-
enced?
7. Completeness of Composition Elements: Does the manuscript have all the necessary
composition elements, such as keywords, abstract in Korean or English, introduction,
body, conclusion, and references?
8. Adherence to the Code of Ethics: Did the author observe the research ethics specified
in Chapter 6?
Article 26 (Management of Examination Results) ① If the referee’s assessment turns out
to be ‘reexamination after revision,’ then the Editorial Board should request the author
to amend the manuscript and submit a reply in response to the referee report. The Board
should ask for reexamination when it receives the reply and the revised manuscript.
② If the referee's assessment is ‘approve after revision,’ then the Board should request
the author to revise the manuscript and submit a reply in response to the referee report.
In this case, the revised manuscript shall be reviewed by the same referee.
③ If the referee gives a ‘disapprove’ grade, then the same referee should be exempt
from the reexamination task.
Article 27 (Appraisal of Examination Results) ① Referees should examine the manuscript
and grade the initial examination result into one of the following four categories:
1. Approve: good to be published as it is.
2. Approve after revision: needs a partial revision for publication.
3. Reexamination after revision: the same referee needs to reexamine after revision.
4. Disapprove: not suitable for publication.
② The final assessment of a manuscript should be made according to the grade table as
shown below. If the assessment falls into the category of ‘approve’ or ‘approve after
revision,’ then the manuscript will be published in the journal. However, if the ap-
praisal is ‘disapprove,’ then the Editorial Board should inform the author of the deci-
sion and the reason for the decision.
③ If the result of the first comprehensive examination is ‘reexamination after revision,’
then reexamination must proceed.
④ If the author of a manuscript rejects revision of his or her manuscript or a reply in re-
150
sponse to referees' opinions or does not submit a revised paper within 30 days for re-
examination, the reexamination result is 'disapprove.'
⑤ The result of a reexamination shall be classified into either one of the following
grades: ‘approve,’ ‘approve after revision,’ or ‘disapprove.’ Once the appraisal grade
is given at this stage, the decision will be final.
⑥ The Editorial Board makes a decision on publication of a manuscript by considering all
three referees' reports. The manuscripts to be considered for publication are the ones
whose total grade is marked as ‘approve’ or ‘approve after revision' as shown in the
grade table below.
⑦ If the comprehensive assessment of a manuscript is 'approve' or 'approve after re-
vision' but one referee grades the manuscript as 'disapprove,' then the Editorial Board
can request the author to make revisions to the manuscript. The Editorial Board can
also place the manuscript on the waiting list for the next issue.
⑧ If the manuscript that has passed the screening is found to have plagiarized all or part
of another person's manuscript, or has already been published in another academic
journal, then the Board should revoke the decision to publish the manuscript and han-
dle the matter according to Chapter 6.
※ Grade Table
Referee 1 Referee 2 Referee 3 Final Grade
Approve Approve Approve
ApproveApprove Approve Approve after revision
Approve Approve Reexam after revision
Approve Approve Disapprove
Approve after revision Approve after revision Approve
Approve
after revision
Approve after revision Approve after revision Approve after revision
Approve after revision Approve after revision Reexam after revision
Approve after revision Approve after revision Disapprove
Approve after revision Approve Reexam after revision
Approve after revision Approve Disapprove
Reexam after revision Reexam after revision Approve
Reexam
after revision
Reexam after revision Reexam after revision Approve after revision
Reexam after revision Reexam after revision Reexam after revision
Reexam after revision Reexam after revision Disapprove
Reexam after revision Approve Disapprove
Reexam after revision Approve after revision Disapprove
Disapprove Disapprove Disapprove
DisapproveDisapprove Disapprove Approve
Disapprove Disapprove Approve after revision
Disapprove Disapprove Reexam after revision
151
Article 28 (Presentation of Dissenting Opinion) ① The author who does not agree with the
referee report, including the request for revision and the reason for reexamination, can
express a dissenting opinion in writing to the Editorial Board. In doing so, the author has
to present sufficient reasons for the argument or empirical cases.
② The Editorial Board must review and deal with the author's contention. Also, the
Board can act as an anonymous mediator between the referee and the author. If the
gap between the differing views of the two remains unresolved, the Board shall
make a final decision as to the validity of the arguments.
③ The Editorial Board holds the right to dismiss any additional contention once the fi-
nal decision is made.
Article 29 (Protection of Personal Information) The personal information obtained from the
examination cannot be disclosed to anybody except the Editorial Board.
Article 30 (Other Issues of Concern) Decisions on issues that have not been touched upon
in the guidelines shall be made by the Editorial Board.
Chapter 6. Research Ethics
Article 31 (Purpose) This chapter aims to establish the standards of research ethics, which
authors who want to publish their papers, Editorial Board members, referees, and
Research Ethics Committee members should comply with, concerning the publication
of the JRD, the academic journal published by the Institute.
Article 32 (Subjects of Application) This chapter shall apply to an author who wants to pub-
lish his or her paper in the JRD (hereafter 'submitter'), Editorial Board members, refer-
ees, and Research Ethics Committee members.
Article 33 (Definition of Research Misconduct and Scope of Application) ① Research mis-
conduct (hereafter 'misconduct') includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unrigh-
teous indication of authorship, and redundant publication as follows in proposing, per-
forming, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Misconduct does not in-
clude error, a minor mistake, or differences of opinion.
1. ‘Fabrication’ means making up data or research results and recording or reporting
them.
2. ‘Falsification’ refers to distorting research contents or results by manipulating research
materials, equipment, or processes, or by changing or omitting data or research results.
152
3. ‘Plagiarism’ means the appropriation of another person's ideas, logic, unique terms,
data, analytic systems and so on that are not general knowledge without appropriately
indicating the source, whether intentionally or not.
4. ‘Unrighteous indication of authorship’ refers to not bestowing, without good cause,
the authorship on a person who has made an academic or technical contribution to re-
search contents or results, or giving the authorship for the simple reason of showing
gratitude or courtesy to a person who has not done so.
5. ‘Redundant publication’ or ‘self-plagiarism’ means reusing all or part of one's pre-
vious work in a new work without adequate indication of the source, or using one's
past work beyond the amount socially accepted even with indication of the source.
6. Misconduct includes other actions far beyond the scope commonly permissible in
academia.
Article 34 (Standards of Research Ethics) ① Submitters should comply with the following
ethical standards.
1. Submitters should not commit research misconduct specified in Article 33.
2. (Quotation and Referencing) When citing a published academic material, submitters
should exactly indicate the fact according to the Guidelines for Manuscript
Submission to the JRD. An unpublished academic material can be cited only with con-
sent of the researcher who provided the information.
3. (Revision of Paper) Submitters should revise their papers according to the regulations
of the Editorial Board and submit the contents reflecting referees' opinions to the
Board.
4. Submitters should respect the opinion and examination result of the Editorial Board.
② The Editorial Board should comply with the following ethical standards.
1. (Board Members' Basic Duty) The Editorial Board should respect a submitter's per-
sonality and independence.
2. (Prohibition on Discrimination) The Editorial Board should fairly treat a paper sub-
mitted to the JRD based only on its quality and the rules for submission and examina-
tion of manuscripts, regardless of the submitter's gender, age, institution, and any
prejudice or private acquaintance.
3. Fair Request for Examination
a. The Editorial Board should request a referee with expertise in the field concerned
who can make a fair judgment to review a submitted paper.
153
b. When requesting the examination of the submitted paper, the Editorial Board
should provide the referee only with the content of the paper without the in-
formation that reveals the submitter's identity.
4. (Confidentiality) Editorial Board members should not disclose the information related
to a submitter or the content of a submitted paper to a person other than the referee,
nor should they use the content. However, the following cases are exceptions: with
the submitter's consent; for dealing with affairs regarding the assessment of the aca-
demic journal by the National Research Foundation of Korea; and according to the reg-
ulations of other legislations.
③ Referees should comply with the following ethical standards.
1. Sincere Examination
a. The referee should faithfully assess the paper which the Editorial Board sends,
within a period of time specified by the examination rules, and should notify the
Board of the assessment result.
b. If the referee cannot assess the content of the paper due to differences in specialty
or other personal reasons, he or she should immediately notify the Editorial Board
(or a board member) of the fact.
2. Fair Examination
a. The referee should fairly assess the paper according to the Examination Criteria of
Article 25.
b. If the referee grades the paper as ‘disapprove,’ he or she must state the reason
clearly.
3. Respect for the Submitter
a. The referee should respect the personality and independence of the submitter as
a professional intellectual.
b. Preparing a referee report, the referee should use respectful and polite expressions
and clarify his or her judgment on the paper. If the referee thinks that the paper
needs revision, he or she should also explain the reason.
4. (Confidentiality) The referee should keep confidentiality about the paper for
examination. The referee should not show or discuss it to or with another person ex-
cept when advice is essential for the appropriate assessment of the paper, and should
not disclose the content of the paper before its publication in the journal.
154
Article 35 (Bringing Up Violation of Regulations of Research Ethics) ① Concerning the
publication of the JRD, if doubt exists as to the violation of these regulations, anyone can
report the related matters to the chairperson or secretary of the Editorial Board.
Article 36 (Composition and Decision-making of Research Ethics Committee) ① If an is-
sue is raised according to the regulations of Section 1, Article 35, the chairperson shall
organize the Research Ethics Committee with five or more related experts recom-
mended by the Editorial Board.
Article 37 (Responsibilities and Rights of Research Ethics Committee) ① The Research
Ethics Committee has a responsibility to prove whether the regulations have been vio-
lated, and the author in question has a responsibility to prove his or her compliance with
the regulations.
Article 41 (Confidentiality about Subject of Investigation) People who participate in inves-
tigation and deliberation on whether the regulations have been violated, including
Research Ethics Committee members, should not reveal the content of the investigation
or the personal information of the author in question to the outside.
Article 42 (Disciplinary Measures) If the Research Ethics Committee judges the author to
have violated the regulations, the following disciplinary measures shall be applied.
① The author of the paper which was judged as plagiarism cannot submit a manuscript
to the JRD alone or jointly for a certain period of time.
② If plagiarism is judged after the publication of the paper, the paper will be officially re-
moved from the list of articles of the JRD.
③ The chairperson of the Editorial Board who received the report of the Ethics
Committee shall notify the author who violated the regulations of the facts of Sections
1 and 2. At the same time, the paper will be removed from the website of the
Institute, and this fact will be open to the public on the website.
④ Within 30 days after the completion of the work of Section 3, the chairperson of the
Editorial Board shall notify the National Research Foundation of Korea of the details
on the judgment of plagiarism and disciplinary measures.
⑤ Concerning the judgment of the violation of the regulations other than plagiarism,
disciplinary measures decided by the Research Ethics Committee will be applied.
155
Supplementary Rules
(Other Regulations) The President of the Institute decides matters not included in these
guidelines and the establishment and amendment of the guidelines through the deliber-
ation of the JRD Editorial Board.
Supplementary Rules (April 2017)
(Enforcement Date) These guidelines shall enter into force on the date of its approval from
the President of the Institute.
(Enforcement Date) These guidelines shall enter into force on the date of its approval from
the President of the Institute.
156
Guidelines for Manuscript Submission to JRD
1. The Journal of Rural Development (JRD) is an academic journal published by the Korea
Rural Economic Institute. The journal was officially registered to the Korea Research
Foundation (KRF) in 2005.
∙ Publication Frequency and Dates
- Four times a year (21st day of the following months: March, June, September,
December)
2. Submission Conditions, Topic, and Eligible Entries
∙ Submission Conditions: Anyone who agrees with the following terms and conditions
can submit his or her manuscript.
- The manuscript should not have been published in any other publication.
- The applicant should abide by the ethics code of the Institute.
- The manuscript can be open to the public in the form of a publication.
- The manuscript and the author’s profile can be registered to the KRF.
- The manuscript can be posted on the Institute’s website for public viewing in the form of a
PDF file.
∙ Topic: research and survey on agro-forestry economy and rural socio-economy.
∙ Eligible Entries: manuscripts which the Editorial Committee judges to have met 11s
examination criteria.
3. Manuscript Format and Style
∙ Length: less than 20 pages/A4, (12 pt., 80 columns × 25 lines)
∙ Please type your manuscript on MS-Word/Hancom office Hangul.
∙ Style: please refer to our website at http://www.krei.re.kr/web/eng in the order of
“Publication” → “Journal of Rural Development” → “Submission” → “JRD Style
Manual.”
∙ Annotation: When identifying the source of a quoted statement, please state the
source according to the Harvard (author-date) style of referencing. No comma is nec-
essary between the name of author and year.
<Example> (Fox et al. 1989; Choi 2004, 63-65).
157
∙ Bibliography Format
- The bibliography should be identified in the order of author’s name, year, title,
page/volume no./name of journal, publisher
- Double quotation is used to identify theses, booklets, seminar materials, and work-
ing papers.
- Book titles should be italicized.
<Example>
Fox, W.F., H.W. Herzog and A. M. Schlottman. 1989. “Metropolitan Fiscal Structure and
Migration.” Journal of Regional Science 29(2): 523-536.
∙ The following abbreviations should be avoided: ibid., loc cit., op. cit.
4. Submission
∙ Submissions are received all year round.
∙ Please submit your manuscript (or inquiries) to the person below.
JRD Editorial Office
Library and Publishing Team
Korea Rural Economic Institute
Telephone: 82-61-820-2215
E-mail: [email protected]
∙ Manuscript Content Requirements
- Keywords
- Abstract: approximately 10 lines
The contents should include research purpose and method (2~3 lines), research re-
sults (4~5 lines), and implications or improvement suggestions (2~3 lines)
- Manuscript Title and Author’s Name(s)
- Correspondence: email address and telephone number