Public Funding for Research into Specialty Crops

Replaced with revised version of paper 08/14/07.Crop Production/Industries,

Adjudicating Constitutional Priorities in a Transnational Context: A Comment on Soobramoney’s Legacy and Grootboom’s Promise

This article discusses the first two social rights cases to go to the Constitutional Court under the 1996 Constitution. Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 (I) SA 765 (CC) involved a claim ofa breach of the right to health care brought by one person pursuant to s 27 of the Bill of Rights. Grootboom v Oostenburg Municipality 2000 (3) BCLR 277 (C) involves a claim of breaches of rights to housing or shelter brought by some 900 persons under ss 26 and 28. The article seeks to demonstrate why the Court\u27s judgment in Soobramoney would be problematic if replicated in future cases, most immediately in the appeal decision in Grootboom. The authors argue that the result in Soobramoney may have been correct, but that its reasoning on several fronts should not be treated as a dispositive precedent in the face of better understandings that will evolve as the courts, and the Constitutional Court itself, gradually feel their way forward in the adjudication of social rights. Similarly, the judgment in Grootboom is found wanting for having been far too deferential to government justifications as to why the failure to meet even the core shelter needs of the applicant adults was not a violation of s 26. At the same time, the High Court in Grootboom was too ready to interpret children\u27s rights to shelter under s 28 as absolute priorities without locating that interpretation in a discussion of the concept of core minimum entitlements, a concept which should have been equally applicable to the s 26 claims of the applicant adults as to the s 28 claims of the children. The doctrinal analysis of the two cases is situated within an interpretative account of the relationship between the South African Bill of Rights and both international human rights law and foreign constitutional law

Shifting ground: agricultural R&D worldwide

This brief summarizes the book, Agricultural R&D in the Developing World: Too Little, Too Late?, edited by Philip G. Pardey, Julian M. Alston, and Roley R. Piggott. The authors of the brief look at topics such as: International spillovers of public agricultural R&D; patterns of worldwide public investments in agricultural research; pervasive underfunding of agricultural research; divergent research agendas. The brief examines policy implications and concludes that "The issues are large scale and long term and demand serious attention, including further, more specific analysis. The national governments of developing countries can take some initiative, as indicated by the analysis of case studies in the book, in areas of national agricultural research policy such as: (1) enhancing IPR and tailoring the institutional and policy details of intellectual property to best fit local circumstances, (2) increasing the total amount of government funding for their national agricultural research systems, (3) introducing institutional arrangements and incentives for private and joint public–private funding, such as matching grants and check-off funds, and (4) improving the processes by which agricultural research resources are administered and allocated." From textAgricultural R&D, Public investments, Agricultural economics and policies, Agricultural innovations, Agricultural policy, Government spending policy, intellectual property,

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT IN OECD AGRICULTURE: GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CHANGE

Agricultural and Food Policy, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Financing agricultural research and development in rich countries: what's happening and why

Governments around the globe are trimming their support for agricultural R&D, giving greater scrutiny to the support that they do provide, and reforming the public agencies that fund, oversee, and carry out the research. These contemporary developments represent a break from previous patterns, which, since WWII, had seen a significant and steady expansion in the public funds provided for agricultural R&D. The growth rate of private-sector spending on agricultural research has slowed along with the growth of public spending in recent years, but the balance continues to shift toward the private sector. This paper presents a quantitative review of these funding trends and the considerable institutional changes that have accompanied them. We present and discuss new data for 22 OECD countries, provide additional data and institutional details for five of these countries, namely Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States, and conclude the paper with an assessment of these policy developments.Agricultural research., Government spending policy., OECD countries., Australia., Netherlands., New Zealand., United Kingdom., United States., Assessment,

Agricultural science policy

Technological advances developed through R&D have supplied the world with not only more food, but better food. This report looks at issues raised by this changing environment for agricultural productivity, agricultural R&D, and natural resource management.Agriculture and state ,

Capital Use Intensity and Productivity Biases

This is a substantially revised version of “Capital Use Intensity and Productivity Biases.” Andersen, Matt A.; Alston, Julian M.; Pardey, Philip G., St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics; University of Minnesota, International Science and Technology Practice and Policy (InSTePP), 2007. (Staff paper P07-06; InSTePP paper 07-02)U.S. agriculture, pro-cyclical productivity, capital utilization, primal productivity bias, Productivity Analysis, D24, C51, Q1, O4, O47,