The political, structural and managerial advantages of commodity-controlled agricultural research and development in South Africa

Abstract

Since the end of the nineteenth century the funding and control of agricultural research and development (R&D) has usually been assumed to be a State responsibility. The contention is that the State's share of agriculture's R & D costs is excessive and its control of R&D management is unsatisfactory. It is suggested that producer associations should be responsible for R&D on tradable agricultural commodities which are capable of generating private profit. The State should retain responsibility for R&D on agricultural resources and for legislative purposes, both of which can only generate social benefit. The political advantages of commodity responsibility for R&D are considered to be reduced dependence on State funds which now have higher priorities, greater relevance of R&D to producers' needs and depoliticisation of an economic activity without loss of its social benefits. Structurally, the advantages of commodity controlled R&D are claimed to be a reduction in institutional size and in centralised bureaucracy. This would permit more rapid response to changes in R&D requirements and the setting of unequivocal goals, which improve motivation and productivity. The managerial advantages of commodity controlled R&D include release from the equity principle inherent in bureaucracies which inhibits paying for performance; ‘closeness to the customer’ which improves the relevance of R&D projects; and the ability to use change to maintain personal and organisational effectiveness. Perhaps most important of all managerial advantages is the opportunity to use a specialised and integrated extension service to promote the profitability of producers.