Blog
Is ag econ academic research cited? Yes
In an editorial in the Washington Post last week, Steven Pearstein discusses the cost of higher education. One of the comments that has drawn a lot of criticism is his claim about how much academic work goes uncited. Pearstein writes:
“The number of journal articles published has climbed from 13,000 50 years ago to 72,000 today, even as overall readership has declined. In his new book “Higher Education in America,” former Harvard president Derek Bok notes that 98 percent of articles published in the arts and humanities are never cited by another researcher. In social sciences, it is 75 percent. Even in the hard sciences, where 25 percent of articles are never cited, the average number of citations is between one and two.”
“Overall, the frequency of “dry holes” [or uncited papers] for the AJAE [American Journal of Agricultural Economics] is much lower than the figure of 26% for general economics journals reported by Laband and Tollison (2003). The percentage of papers receiving exactly zero citations to date is only 5.5% in 1991, 2.2% in 1993, 10.6% in 2001, 9% in 2003, and 45% in 2005. Clearly the AJAE performs much better than the average journal in Laband and Tollison’s (2003) sample of over 91 journals in terms of publishing research that is ultimately cited. Of further note is that a relatively large frequency of papers (over 20%) from the 1991 and 1993 publication years have received 20 or more citations. Although only about 10% of papers published in 2001 and 2003 have attained this level of citations, if the same trend continues we would expect the figure to double over the next decade. The RAE [Review of Agricultural Economics] experiences a higher level of “dry holes”– 32% in 2003 and 67% in 2005. The most cited paper published by the RAE in 2003 has received 11 citations to date. By contrast, the most cited paper published by the AJAE in 2003 has received 32 citations to date.”
I can't speak for other disciplines, but at least for agricultural economics, the "75% is never cited" claim is clearly at odds with the facts. Rather, given enough time, nearly ALL the papers published in our top journal - the AJAE - is eventually read and cited by someone.
Unnatural Food
My forthcoming book Unnaturally Delicious is set for release in March. So far, the most common questions have been, "why did you pick that title?" and "is it a book about GMOs?" The questions stem from a food culture that has elevated the status of "natural" food to such a point that it seems odd to pair a positive connotation with the word unnatural. There is, in my assessment, a vast under-appreciation for all the unnatural ways our food has changed over time (and I'm not talking about GMOs - I only lightly touch on this issue in a couple chapters of the book - hopefully in ways people haven't thought about before).
These thoughts came to mind when I stumbled upon this 2011 paper by Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. They discuss the evolution of the potato and the impacts of this crop as it moved from the New World to the Old. Many of us think of "Irish Potatoes" or Britian's "Bangers and Mash" as if they were the most natural foods these folks could have every eaten. The historical reality, of course, is that potatoes are were "unnatural" foods introduced to Europe only a few hundred years ago.
The authors begin the paper:
“Between 1000 and 1900, world population grew from under 300 million to 1.6 billion, and the share of population living in urban areas more than quadrupled, increasing from two to over nine percent.”
Nunn and Qian make a compelling case that a significant explanatory factor for this change was none other than the spud. They write:
“According to our most conservative estimates, the introduction of the potato accounts for approximately one-quarter of the growth in Old World population and urbanization between 1700 and 1900”
How?
“Potatoes provide more calories, vitamins, and nutrients per area of land sown than other staple crops”
Maybe you think the world is too crowded already, and that this change is a curse rather than a blessing. Another way to look at it: there is a reasonable chance some of the people reading this very blog wouldn't be here right now had the potato stayed local and not spread out from South America.
The paper makes the case that the potato, along with other items that made up the Columbian Exchange, is a significant factor contributing to the rise in European living standards in the 16th and 17th centuries. The paper shows that regions that first adopted the potato, and had soils and climates more suitable for potato growing, experienced more rapid population growth, and thus the potato possibly affected national and international politics of the time. The whole paper is full of interesting historical details. For example, looking at the height of soldiers in France, the authors find:
“for towns that were fully suitable for potato cultivation, the introduction of the potato increased average adult height by 0.41–0.78 inches.”
However natural potatoes might now seem, it is important to keep in mind there was a time when they weren't. And, we're better off today because our ancestors took a chance on the unnatural foodstuff.
Impacts of Agricultural Research and Extension
About a month ago, I posted on some new research suggesting decline rates of productivity growth in agriculture. Last week at a conference in Amsterdam, I ran into Wally Huffman from Iowa State University, and knowing he's done work in this area, I asked him if he had any thoughts on the issue. As it turns out, along with Yu Jin he has a new paper forthcoming in the journal Agricultural Economics on agricultural productivity and the impacts of state and federal spending on agricultural research and extension.
Jin and Huffman also find evidence of a slowdown in productivity growth, writing:
“We find a strong impact of trended factors on state agricultural productivity of 1.1 percent per year. The most likely reason is continued strong growth in private agricultural R&D investments. The size and strength of this trend makes it unlikely for average annual TFP growth for the U.S. as a whole to become negative in the near future. However, for two-thirds of the states, the forecast of the mean ln(TFP) over 2004-2010 is less than trend. The primary reason is under-investment in public agricultural research and extension in the past. For public agricultural research where the lags are long, it will be impossible for these states to exceed the trend rate of growth for TFP in the near future.”
They also find large returns to spending on agricultural research, and even larger returns to spending on extension. They find the following:
“For public agricultural research with a productivity focus the estimated real [internal rate of return] is 67%, and for narrowly defined agricultural and natural resource extension is over 100%. Stated another way, these public investment project could pay a very high interest rate (66% for agricultural research and 100% for extension) and still have a positive net present value. Hence, these [internal rate of return] estimates are quite large relative to alternative public investments in programs of education and health. In addition, there is no evidence of a low returns to public agricultural extension in the U.S., or that public funds should be shifted from public agricultural extension to agricultural research. In fact, if any shifting were to be recommended, it would be to shift some funds from public agricultural research to extension. ”
The paper includes a couple really interesting graphs on research spending and extension employment over time. First, they show that for four major agricultural states, real spending on agricultural research peaked in the mid 1990s.
And, while extension staff has declined in some states, it hasn't in others.
The Behavioral and Neuroeconomics of Food and Brand Decisions
That's the title of a special issue I helped edit with John Crespi and Amanda Bruce in the latest issue of the Journal of Food and Agricultural Industrial Organization.
Here's an excerpt from our summary:
“To economists interested in food decisions, progress seen in other fields ought to be exciting. In the articles for this special issue, we gathered information from a wide range of research related to food decisions from behavioral economics, psychology, and neuroscience. The articles, we hope, will provide a useful reference to researchers examining these techniques for the first time…The variety of papers in this special issue of JAFIO should provide readers with a broad introduction to newer methodological approaches to understanding food choices and human decision-making”
A complete listing of the authors and papers are below (all of which can be accessed here)
• The Behavioral and Neuroeconomics of Food and Brand Decisions: Executive Summary
o Bruce, Amanda / Crespi, John / Lusk, Jayson
• Cognitive Neuroscience Perspectives on Food Decision-Making: A Brief Introduction
o Lepping, Rebecca J. / Papa, Vlad B. / Martin, Laura E.
• Marketing Placebo Effects – From Behavioral Effects to Behavior Change?
o Enax, Laura / Weber, Bernd
• The Role of Knowledge in Choice, Valuation, and Outcomes for Multi-Attribute Goods
o Gustafson, Christopher R.
• Brands and Food-Related Decision Making in the Laboratory: How Does Food Branding Affect Acute Consumer Choice, Preference, and Intake Behaviours? A Systematic Review of Recent Experimental Findings
o Boyland, Emma J. / Christiansen, Paul
• Modeling Eye Movements and Response Times in Consumer Choice
o Krajbich, Ian / Smith, Stephanie M.
• Visual Attention and Choice: A Behavioral Economics Perspective on Food Decisions
o Grebitus, Carola / Roosen, Jutta / Seitz, Carolin Claudia
• Towards Alternative Ways to Measure Attitudes Related to Consumption: Introducing Startle Reflex Modulation
o Koller, Monika / Walla, Peter
• I Can’t Wait: Methods for Measuring and Moderating Individual Differences in Impulsive Choice
o Peterson, Jennifer R. / Hill, Catherine C. / Marshall, Andrew T. / Stuebing, Sarah L. / Kirkpatrick, Kimberly
• A Cup Today or a Pot Later: On the Discounting of Delayed Caffeinated Beverages
o Jarmolowicz, David P. / Lemley, Shea M. / Cruse, Dylan / Sofis, Michael J.
• Are Consumers as Constrained as Hens are Confined? Brain Activations and Behavioral Choices after Informational Influence
o Francisco, Alex J. / Bruce, Amanda S. / Crespi, John M. / Lusk, Jayson L. / McFadden, Brandon / Bruce, Jared M. / Aupperle, Robin L. / Lim, Seung-Lark