Abstract
The question of how to allocate scarce agricultural research and development dollars is significant for developing countries. Historically, benefit/cost analysis has been the standard for comparing the relative benefits of alternative investments. We examine the potential of shifting the implicit equal weights approach to benefit/cost analysis, as well as how a systematic variation in welfare weights may affect different groups important to policy makers. For example, in the case of Rwandan coffee, a shift in the welfare weights that would favor small coffee producers in Rwanda over foreign consumers of Rwandan coffee would increase the support for investments in small producer coffee projects. Generally, changes in welfare weights alter the ordering for selecting investments across alternative projects.
Funding source: USAID 98.001
Award Identifier / Grant number: 720-OAA-18-LA-00003
References
Adler, M. D. 2013. “Cost-Benefit Analysis and Distributional Weights: An Overview.” Duke Environmental and Energy Economics Working Paper EE 13-04, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2467673 or http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2467673.10.2139/ssrn.2467673Search in Google Scholar
Adler, M. D., and E. A. Posner. 2000. “Implementing Cost-Benefit Analysis when Preferences Are Distorted.” Journal of Legal Studies 29 (52): 1105–47.10.1086/468106Search in Google Scholar
Alicai, T., C. A. Omongo, M. N. Maruthi, R. J. Hillocks, Y. Baguma, R. Kawuki, A. Bua, G. W. Otim-Nape, and J. Colvin. 2007. “Re-Emergence of Cassava Brown Streak Disease in Uganda.” Plant Disease 91 (1): 24–9, https://doi.org/10.1094/PD-91-0024.Search in Google Scholar
Alston, J. M., P. G. Pardey, and V. H. Smith. 1999. Paying for Agricultural Productivity. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Behuria, P. 2020. “The Domestic Political Economy of Upgrading in Global Value Chains: How Politics Shapes Pathways for Upgrading Rwanda’s Coffee Sector.” Review of International Political Economy 27 (2): 348–76.10.1080/09692290.2019.1625803Search in Google Scholar
Cardwell, R., C. Lawley, and D. Xiang. 2015. “Milked and Feathered: The Regressive Welfare Effects of Canadas Supply Management Regime.” Canadian Public Policy 41 (1): 1–14.10.3138/cpp.2013-062Search in Google Scholar
Coate, S. 2000. “An Efficiency Approach to the Evaluation of Policy Changes.” The Economic Journal 110: 437–55.10.3386/w7316Search in Google Scholar
Harberger, A. C. 1978. “On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Journal of Political Economy 86 (2): S87–120.10.1086/260696Search in Google Scholar
Huffman, W. E., and R. E. Evenson. 1993. Science for Agriculture: A Long-Term Perspective. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Just, R. E., D. L. Hueth, and A. Schmitz. 2004. The Welfare Economics of Public Policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Search in Google Scholar
Moss, C. B., and A. Schmitz. 2019. “Distribution of Agricultural Productivity Gains in Selected Feed the Future African Countries.” Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 9 (1): 78–90.10.1108/JADEE-01-2018-0009Search in Google Scholar
Weishbach, D. A. 2014. Distributionally-Weighted Cost Benefit Analysis: Welfare Economics Meets Organizational Design.” WP-478. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Law School.10.2139/ssrn.2450142Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2021-0003).
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
