Ahearn, Mary Clare

English

Research Papers in Economics

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 29,1 (July 1997):11 3–116
O 1997 Southern Agricultural Economics Association
Why Economists Should Talk to Scientists
and What They Should Ask: Discussion
Mary C. Ahearn
Although interest in cross-disciplinary re-
search is not new, expressions of the impor-
tance of collaboration are increasing. A focus
on agricultural sustainability issues, which ex-
plicitly recognizes the links among agricultur-
al production activities, the environment, and
communities, is an example of this interest.
Among agricultural economists, a 1996 Coun-
cil on Food, Agriculture, and Resource Eco-
nomics (C-FARE) survey regarding profes-
sional priorities indicated that the profession
overwhelmingly (9290) believes there is a
need for more cross-disciplinary collaboration.
This view is common across all sciences
(physical and social), and not Iimited to the
agricultural sciences,
A major reason for the increasing interest
in cross-disciplinary work is because the ben-
eficiaries and major financial sponsors—the
general public—have demanded that science
focus on “real-world” problem-solving re-
search. Coupled with this pressure, and likely
not unrelated, is increased competition for re-
search dollars within and among our institu-
tions, Solutions to real-world problems gen-
erally benefit through contributions from a
variety of disciplines. Furthermore, there is a
recognition that science and technology ad-
vances commonly include secondary, and un-
wanted, impacts. These secondary impacts are
frequently the “domain” of disciplines other
than the original science speciality, often times
social science disciplines.
The authoris a branchchief in the EconomicResearch
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The views
are the author’sand do not necessarilyrepresentthose
of the EconomicResearchService or the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
The recently developed goals of the US-
DA’s Research, Extension, and Economics
mission area provide an example of an effort,
or at least a start, to respond to the public pres-
sure to be more responsive to real-world prob-
lems. Those five goals are: (a) a highly com-
petitive agricultural production system, (b) a
safe and secure food supply, (c) a healthy and
well-nourished population, (d) harmony be-
tween agriculture and the environment, and (e)
enhanced economic opportunity and quality of
life for all Americans. Although the agencies
of the mission area—the Agricultural Re-
search Service; the Economic Research Ser-
vice; the Cooperative State Research, Exten-
sion, and Education Service (CSREES); and
the National Agricultural Statistics Service—
are relatively homogeneous within individual
agencies in terms of the professional disci-
plines of internal staff, successfully supporting
the goals will require cooperation across these
agencies.
Rural development specialists in agricul-
tural economics generally have been more
problem-oriented and have a long history of
collaboration with rural sociologists. For ex-
ample, economists interested in understanding
why individuals do not migrate to regions with
greater job opportunities have employed so-
ciological principles to help explain behavior
that is seemingly irrational from a strictly eco-
nomic perspective. In fact, there are numerous
examples of where various subspecialities of
agricultural economics have been linked to
other disciplines. Young found that, out of a
sample of 82 agricultural economists who had
published cross-disciplinary articles over a
10-year period, 61% were production/farm114 Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, July 1997
management specialists and 20% were re-
source economists.
The three papers of this session are focused
on agro-environmental issues, clearl y a set of
“real-world problems” of interest to the gen-
eral public. A focus on the environment, in
contrast to some traditional areas of agricul-
tural economics (such as supply management),
requires greater cross-disciplinary collabora-
tion. Agriculture has a variety of negative im-
pacts on the environment, many of the pro-
cesses for which are not well understood by
physical scientists, let alone quantified. Some
of the most serious impacts include sheet and
rill erosion, which is likely a serious problem
on 2596 of U.S. cropland, plus other soil qual-
ity factors (such as soil compaction and de-
clining levels of organic matter) and surface
and groundwater quality effects (such as sed-
iments in waterways and, agriculture as the
major contributor to nonpoint sources of pol-
lution) (National Research Council). While the
session papers are focused on agro-environ-
mental issues, many of the implications for
cross-disciplinary collaboration are relevant to
collaboration in other issue areas and for other
activities, such as extension and teaching.
The Contribution of Economics
Perhaps the most significant contribution of
economics in a cross-disciplinary effort is the
overall assessment and integrative framework.
Economics is the link from natural science to
policy. For example, economics provides the
benefit-cost analysis framework for integrated
environmental assessments. The dollar as a
unit offers the ability to quantify and aggre-
gate over impacts, plus provides the link to the
incentives of private agents in the market-
place. And while the central focus is on the
market, economics provides concepts and
tools that address nonmarket activity and mar-
ket failures. The tools of economics are critical
for designing policy mechanisms that are con-
sistent with private incentives. On the other
hand, in real-world situations, getting the nat-
ural science perfected may be more important
in terms of solutions than further refinement
of economic models. Or a social issue, such
as inequality concerns, may be more important
than maximizing economic surplus.
The motivation for this invited paper ses-
sion was spawned by the 1995 Antle-Wagenet
paper (jointly commissioned by the AAEA-
ERSAJSDA). That paper was directed toward
the physical scientist audience and described
what economics can contribute to a scientific
project. (Their target audience likely explains
why the paper’s title implies that economists
are not scientists.) They emphasized the con-
tribution of economics in research administra-
tion, such as in setting research priorities and
assessing returns to research investments, by
translating physical relationships into the
things people care about. Traditional collabo-
ration from a physical scientist’s perspective
has been to consult with economists at the end
of a physical science endeavor—for example,
to determine the economic impact on farmers
of a technology assuming it will be adopted,
or of a potential regulation assuming it will be
made into law [e.g., National Agricultural Pes-
ticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP)
analysis]. There has been little interest in un-
derstanding potential social benefits and costs,
or in identifying optimal policies for adoption
of more sustainable practices, for example.
Critical Questions
The three studies in this session are excellent
examples of useful cross-disciplinary collabo-
ration addressing real-world, public policy is-
sues. They differ in how they link the physical
sciences with the social science of economics.
All three of the presenters have not let their
base of knowledge in economics prevent them
from understanding what other disciplines have
to contribute to the problem. They have clearly
invested in learning from other disciplines.
What did we learn from the experiences of
the three sets of authors about the cross-dis-
ciplinary process, and in particular, about the
questions that an economist should address in
planning cross-disciplinary research? First,
economists should be clear on several ques-
tions about the objectives of the research: How
will economic processes affect environmental
externalities? How important is precision inAhearn: Why Economists Should Talk to Scientists: Discussion 115
physical results to the overall results? What is
the appropriate scale and spatial disaggrega-
tion of the project, e.g., farm-level, a geopo-
litical boundary, or an ecological-relevant
boundary, such as a watershed?
Questions economists should ask natural
scientists include: How advanced is the state
of the science? Is the science sufficiently de-
veloped to contribute to the objective of the
research? Can the science be generalized to
meet the scale and spatial disaggregation of
the project? Will the assumptions employed
withstand scrutiny from other natural scientist
peers, i.e., how controversial is the science to
be integrated? Is a particular method for de-
veloping environmental indicators accepted by
peers? When is a complex model necessary to
develop environmental indicators and when
will approximations be acceptable? How do
environmental indicators (loadings or fate and
transpotiprocess models results or objective
environmental monitoring) translate into
things people care about?
The Level of Scientific Integration
The three session papers offer an interesting
contrast in the degree to which physical sci-
ence and social science are integrated to ad-
dress issues. The objectives of the research
will dictate the appropriate level of scientific
integration. While the term “multidisciplinary
research” is commonly used to characterize all
research efforts involving more than one dis-
cipline, a set of terms has evolved which
makes distinctions among the research based
on the extent of the integration of the disci-
plines. These terms are multidisciplinary, in-
terdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. In this
new terminology, multidisciplinary research is
used to characterize separate, parallel research.
The Kellogg-Goss paper is an example of mul-
tidisciplinary research. The Kellogg-Goss pa-
per describes a physical science effort to use
the GLEAMS model to develop pesticide
mass loss indicators. The indicators will be
useful, aside from economic anaIysis, for ex-
ample, in targeting vulnerable areas. For ap-
plication in adjusting the U.S. agricultural pro-
ductivity measures, the results will be used as
a data set from which shadow values for the
externality will be measured based on eco-
nomic theory. The relative lack of integration
across disciplines in this study is appropriate
because the goal was not to predict producer
behavior as a result of a change in policy or
other stimulant to the system. It was simply to
estimate the environmental effects of known
historical pesticide use.
The Ribaudo-Hurley paper is an example
of interdisciplinary research. In this example,
integration of the disciplines and discussion of
the goals are necessary from the outset, but
distinct frameworks of disciplines are main-
tained. The purpose of this analysis was to
measure the adjustments of producers to reg-
ulation, and the ensuing environmental quality
effects. Therefore, it was essential that eco-
nomic optimization be integrated with the
physical process models.
Transdisciplinary research implies a syn-
ergistic alliance between and across discipli-
nary y boundaries; it is more participatory; it fo-
cuses on stakeholders; and it uses an inductive
approach, which is orientated to learning rath-
er than predicting (Constanza, Daly, and Bar-
tholomew). This means that details of cause
and effect will remain unknown, but the un-
certainty is acknowledged. An important con-
ceptual tool is a system picture of possible
causes and effects. The Milon-Kiker-Lee pa-
per is an example of transdisciplinary re-
search. Their paper describes how social sci-
entists can contribute in this highly parti-
cipatory process of restoring a unique ecosys-
tem—what they call adaptive management.
Economics will not, nor will any other disci-
pline, dominate the analysis.
Barriers and Facilitators to Collaboration
In reviewing barriers to cross-disciplinary col-
laboration, Zilberman includes technical dis-
ciplinary journals as a barrier. The technical
approach makes it difficult for scientists in
other disciplines to comprehend the discipli-
nary journals. Other barriers to cross-discipli-
nary collaboration commonly identified in-
clude the reward system of research insti-
tutions and competition among scientists. In116 Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, July 1997
the case of cross-disciplinary work, it is likely
very important to have an institutional struc-
ture that allows for bottom-up, as well as top-
down direction. The “bottom-up” approach is
important because, whether or not collabora-
tion is critical (and if so, how that collabora-
tion should be structured) is a technical issue
that must be evaluated by technical subject
matter experts. The “top-down” approach is
important because incentives and resources
must be provided to facilitate collaboration.
A significant barrier to cross-disciplinary
collaboration in the agro-environmental arena
is the extent of scientific uncertainty in the
physical sciences. The USDA-Land Grant
System has invested in fate and transport mod-
els of the physical process of agricultural pro-
duction, such as transport of pesticides and nu-
trients, and soil erosion. Two of the papers in
this session employed these types of models,
i.e., GLEAMS and EPIC. But the science of
how these physical processes relate to ecolog-
ical health is very undeveloped, Many of the
ecological impacts are, at this stage, limited to
conceptual ideas, and have yet to be validated.
A review of ecological concepts by Saterson
includes the following: (a) ecosystems change
abruptly, not smoothly; (b) the processes that
influence ecosystem structure do so at differ-
ent scales; (c) feedback cycles exist; (~
changes are often irreversible; and (e) diver-
sity buffers and provides resilience. However,
these concepts are often too general to be use-
ful in applied cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Several institutional incentives exist to fos-
ter cross-disciplinary collaboration. First of
all, the basic organizational structures of Col-
leges of Agriculture and the Research, Exten-
sion, and Economics mission area of the
USDA offer an umbrella organization for ag-
ricultural sciences that helps to lower the
transactions costs of cross-disciplinary efforts
by providing the information infrastructure
within which scientists interact. A very recent
competitive grants initiative includes funds to
foster cross-disciplinary collaboration, the
Fund for Rural America. The Fund for Rural
America gives priority to studies that include
a systems-based approach (which takes a
broad rather than a reductionist view), and
to inter- or cross-disciplinary approaches
(USDA/CSREES). Another recent institution-
al initiative that may foster cross-disciplinary
collaboration is the Government Performance
and Results Act which requires accountability
for public dollars spent. The accountability in-
centive likely will lead to an increase in the
demand for the contributions of economists.
References
Antle, J.M., and R.J. Wagenet. “Why Scientists
Should Talkto Economists:The Role of Econom-
ics in Enhancing the Value of Publicly Funded
Agricultural Research.” AAEA Occas. Pap., joint-
ly commissioned by the AAEA and the USDA/
Economic Research Service, March 1995.
Costanza, R., H. Daly, and J. Bartholomew.
“Goals, Agenda, and Policy Recommendations
for Ecological Economics. ” In Ecological Eco-
nomics: The Science and Management of Sus-
tainability, cd., R. Costanza, Chap. 1. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
National Research Council. Soil and Water Quality:
An Agenda for Agriculture. Board on Agricul-
ture, Committee on Long-Range Soil and Water
Conservation. Washington DC: National Acad-
emy Press, 1993.
Saterson, K. “Ecological Principles as Informed by
Economics.” In Developing Indicators for En-
vironmental Sustainability: The Nuts and Bolts,
ed. S.S. Batie. Proceedings of the Resource Pol-
icy Consortium Symposium, Washington DC,
12–13 June 1995. Special Rep. No. 89, Dept. of
Agr. Econ, Michigan State University, East Lan-
sing, 1996.
U.S. Department of Agriculture/Cooperative State
Research, Extension, and Education Service.
USDA web site, “RFP, Fund for Rural Ameri-
ca. ” Online, Available http:liwww.reeusda. govl
new/funding/fund. htm. December 1996,
Young, D.L. “Agricultural Economics and Multi-
disciplinary Research. ” Rev. Agr. Econ.
17(1995): 119–29.
Zilberman, D. “Economics and Interdisciplinary
Collaborative Efforts. ” J. Agr. and AppL Econ.
26, l(July 1994):35–42.

Ecological Principles as Informed by Economics.” In Developing Indicators for Environmental Sustainability: The Nuts and Bolts,

Economics and Interdisciplinary Collaborative Efforts.

Fund for Rural America. ” Online, Available http:liwww.reeusda. govl new/funding/fund.

Goals, Agenda, and Policy Recommendations for Ecological Economics. ”

Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture. Board on Agriculture,

Why Scientists Should Talkto Economists:The Role

WHY ECONOMISTS SHOULD TALK TO SCIENTISTS AND WHAT THEY SHOULD ASK: DISCUSSION

WHY ECONOMISTS SHOULD TALK TO SCIENTISTS AND WHAT THEY SHOULD ASK: DISCUSSION

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics