Returns to Soybean Producers from Investments in Promotion and Research

By Williams, Gary W.; Shumway, C. Richard et al. | Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, April 2002 | Go to article overview

Returns to Soybean Producers from Investments in Promotion and Research


Williams, Gary W., Shumway, C. Richard, Love, H. Alan, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review


U.S. soybean producers have been cooperatively investing in both production research and demand promotion for nearly four decades to enhance the profitability and international competitiveness of their industry. Have producers benefitted from their contributions to soybean checkoff program activities over the years? How has the return to investments in soybean production research compared to that of soybean demand promotion investments? The overall positive returns to producers over the study period resulted primarily from promotion activities. Production research contributed negatively to overall producer returns from soybean checkoff investments.

Key Words: benefit-cost analysis, checkoff program, promotion, research, soybeans

Over the last several decades, a large and growing number of programs have been established to promote cooperative investment by commodity producers in activities designed to enhance the profitability and competitiveness of the commodities they produce. Before 1990, producer contributions to many of these programs in most states were facilitated primarily by state legislation requiring producers to pay (or "check off") a small fi-action of the value of each unit produced. National checkoff programs for four key commodities (beef, pork, corn, and soybeans) were mandated by the 1990 farm bill.1 While virtually all commodity checkoff organizations invest in generic commodity promotion and related activities in an attempt to enhance demand, many also invest a considerable portion of checkoff funds in production research.

Analyses of the effectiveness of commodity checkoff programs have proliferated along with the programs themselves. Much of this research has focused on the benefits to producers from funded generic promotion activities (Williams and Nichols, 1998). Only a few studies have considered the returns to producers from checkoff investments in production research (e.g., Lim, Shumway, and Love, 2000). Likewise, producer returns across both demand promotion and production research activities and the implications of the allocation of checkoff funds between promotion and production research have received relatively little attention (e.g., Wolgenant, 1993; Chyc and Goddard, 1994).

This study considers the case of the soybean checkoff program to illustrate the potential joint and relative net returns to producers over time from the simultaneous investment of checkoff funds in both promotion and research activities. A brief review of the soybean checkoff program is followed by a consideration of relevant theoretical and measurement issues and a discussion of the methodology and data employed in the subsequent benefit-cost analysis of the program. The analytical results lead to conclusions and implications regarding the management of commodity checkoff investments and the allocations of funds between promotion and research activities.

The Soybean Checkoff Program

Since at least the mid-1950s, investments in U.S. soybean production research and demand promotion have been funded by a combination of private and public funds. For many years, the private funds consisted primarily ofstate-legislated checkoff contributions by producers 1/2 to 2 cents per bushel sold. A national soybean checkoff program was launched in 1991 under the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990.2 Subsequently upheld in a required referendum, the program mandates soybean producer participation at the rate of 0.5% of the market price per bushel when the crop is first sold. The right to demand a refund was terminated in a second required referendum. Even so, the 1996 farm bill3 requires a periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the national soybean checkoff program and allows for periodic referenda to determine if soybean producers favor its continuance, suspension, or termination.

About half the funds collected under both the previous state-level programs and the current national mandatory program have remained in the states and been managed by state-level soybean-producer-- controlled associations or boards. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Returns to Soybean Producers from Investments in Promotion and Research
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.