The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the economic agents of the chain and their commercial and legal relationships; (2) identify the articulations between links, technological levels, indicators of efficiency, installed capacity (scale), and degrees of occupation; (3) characterize and estimate the costing and pricing structures, and the generation of value in different links of the chain; (4) identify those critical costs that can be modified through technological interventions, policy, or other activity; (5) determine the biological and economic risk factors throughout the chain; and (6) develop a methodology to identify and estimate the costs and benefits in each segment and evaluate the generation of value throughout the beef chain. Data at the farm level was obtained from a national livestock survey (CORFOGA 2005b), which provided data on production systems, inventories, productivity, culling, and labor. In addition, surveys were carried out in different segments: (1) auction houses, (2) slaughterhouses, (3) butcher shops, and (4) supermarkets. The aim of these surveys was to describe behavior, determine risks and costs, and identify problems. The weak dynamics of livestock production in Costa Rica are reflected in unsatisfactory productivity indicators. The annual gross income was estimated as US44/haforcow−calfoperations,126/ha for dual purpose (including income from milk sales), and 135/haforfatteningactivities.Suchincomeratesareconsideredextremelylow,ifoneusesasreferencethecommercialvalueoflandallocatedtolivestockproduction(rangingbetween1000 and 2000/ha).Theaforementionedbiologicalinefficiencies,combinedwithhighlandcosts,impedetherecoveryofopportunitycostsforthecapitalinvestedinland,thusmakingbeefproductionuncompetitive.Thecow−calfoperation,withitslowproductivity,remuneratesfamilylaborwithwagesbelowthelegalminimum.Ontheassumptionthattheonlycashcostisthatoflabor,cow−calffarmspayfamilyworkersatawagethatisequivalentto6032 and 66peranimal.Iftheestimatedunitcostsarecomparedwiththerateschargedperslaughteredanimal(between15 and 23),thenwehavetoconcludethatruralslaughterhousesworkatalossandthatindustrialslaughterhousescovertheiroperationalcostswithprocessingservicesandtheverysmallprofitmarginsfromsalesofbyproducts.Thebestperformanceintermsofefficiencyandprofitabilityisfoundintheretailsectorofbutchersandsupermarkets.Therateofprofits,expressedasthefractionofthefinalpricepaidbytheconsumerthatremainsinthebutcher’shandsasremunerationofhiswork,rangeswidelybetween30.28/animal per day for the breeder and $45.85/animal per day for the butcher. Thus, the highest proportion of the total added value concentrates on the final link of the chain. The butcher or supermarket obtains, on the basis of one animal in the same unit of time, 164 times more value that the breeder located in the first link of the chain. The latter has to confront biological and economic risks not covered by insurance policies, whereas retailers may mitigate risks through insurance policies for their raw materials, equipment, and infrastructure. The competitiveness of the beef chain is the aggregate of the efficiency and productivity of all the links that form it. In a situation where, in the final segment, the demand for beef is low and weakly dynamic, then economic signs of modernization and the technological change it promotes, are not being generated in other components of the chain, particularly in the first link of production. This, in turn, results in a vicious cycle, generating low productivity and lack of competitiveness. To promote technological change, efficiency, and competitiveness in the value chain for beef in Costa Rica, we propose the following six recommendations: 1. That successful experiences of other chains such as that of poultry be analyzed and learned from to identify strategies that would increase the efficiency of the beef chain as a whole. 2. That strategies for promoting the milk production of breeding cows be developed to increase family income, as remuneration of labor is currently below the minimum wage. This option would be viable only in localities where a milk market exists. That livestock producer funds [a livestock producer fund consists of granting livestock in company to produce meat, provided that the producer concerned has adequate pastures for this purpose on his farm] be created as mechanisms to develop social capital, reduce transaction costs, and help improve the chain’s productivity and profitability. These organizations would bring together the different classes of the chain and favor synergies in the interaction of public and private actors. 3. That incentives be created to promote the large-scale adoption of already available improved forage species, as most of the problem of low livestock productivity originates in poor and deficient feed. This strategy would emphasize feeding during dry seasons, thereby minimizing seasonal weight losses in the national herd and improving the profitability of farms. 4. That a carcass classification system be established, based on quality and price that would permit differentiating supplies for different segments of the market. 5. That consumer education be promoted on the health benefits of beef, forms of preparation, and differentiating between cuts, uses, and qualities of beef products