The Effects of Agricultural R&D on Chinese Agricultural Productivity Growth: New Evidence of Convergence and Implications for Agricultural R&D Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article measures and compares the effects of agricultural research and development (R&D) on total agricultural factor productivity growth for 29 Chinese provinces from 1986 to 2011. Using the convergence test proposed by Phillips and Sul ( ), the study finds strong evidence of convergence in total agricultural productivity growth and positive correlation between growth and public investment in R&D. The analysis of convergence indicates that the productivity gap between different regions in China has lessened, suggesting agricultural productivity is convergent across all provinces in China. We find R&D being statistically and economically more important in technological catch‐up than in innovation. Human capital also plays a major role in productivity growth. The finding of strong positive inter‐region spillover effects implies that expanding cooperation across regions for public agricultural research is more efficient and training of researchers can improve total factor productivity, especially in less productive regions. Cet article mesure et compare les effets de la recherche et du développement agricoles sur la progression de la productivité totale des facteurs agricoles au sein de 29 provinces chinoises de 1986 à 2011. Au moyen du test de convergence proposé par Phillips et Sul ( ), l′étude révèle des preuves manifestes de convergence de la croissance de productivité agricole totale ainsi qu'une corrélation positive entre cette progression et les investissements publics en recherche et en développement. L'analyse de convergence démontre la diminution de l′écart de productivité dans les régions de la Chine, suggérant la convergence de la productivité agricole à la grandeur des provinces chinoises. La recherche et le développement sont ainsi proposés comme étant statistiquement et économiquement plus importants dans le rattrapage technologique que l'innovation. Le capital humain joue aussi un rôle majeur dans la croissance de la productivité. Les forts effets positifs de débordement entre les régions laissent entendre que la coopération grandissante en recherche agricole publique à travers les régions s'avère plus efficace, et que la formation des chercheurs peut améliorer la productivité totale des facteurs, surtout dans les régions moins productives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".