Implementing the Medical Home Model in Minnesota: A Case Study Prepared by a Joint Committee of the Association of Teachers of Maternal and Child Health (ATMCH) and the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP) Supported by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA February 2008 Table of Contents Introduction and Use of the Guide.…………
- A |
J |K |
U |V |
Do patents matter for commercialisationEnd-point royalties and the performance of
Australian wheat breeders
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and the
Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
The ‘performance’ of wheat breeders
The Innovation Pathway
• Not about farmers adoption of new varieties by farmers in practice
• Not about actual commercial on-farm productivity
• Not about choice between end-point and up-front royalties
CONTEXT: WHEAT BREEDING IN AUSTRALIA
• Historically, (almost) exclusively public breeding – State government (VIC, QLD, NSW, WA) + U. Adelaide & U.Syd. • 1996 First variety attracting ‘End Point Royalties’ released Did the shift toward royalty funded breeding affect the performance of Australian
Few related studies using crop trial data: Babcock and Foster (1991); Alson and Venner (2002); Kolady and Canonical estimating equation, variety i in region j.: yield = α RFB + β X + ε Value created by new variety is the yield advantage. Varieties not tested in all regions (sites) = selection bias 248 varieties (hard and soft); 23 regions; 10 breeders Yield data from scientific variety trials. • National Variety Trials & old state government sowing guides • Does the breeder ‘look like’ it undertakes royalty funded breeding – Data: The share of varieties released in the previous 5 years that attract end 1 Thanks to John Brennan, John Sheppard, Rob Wheeler, Alan Bedggood and Neale Sutton & National Variety Trials, Peter Martin, and Colin Wellings for providing data and assistance in interpretation and use. ISSUE (1)‘VALUE’ = YIELD ADVANTAGE (NOT JUST YIELD)
Issue: What do we do with negative estimated yield advantage?
Proposed solution: Transform E(advantage)
If E(advantage) < 0, still some probability that they will outperform the frontier in some describes the yield advantage of variety i at any randomly selected location: POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL OUTPUT (Q)
ISSUE (2) VALUE DEPENDS ON AREA OF ADAPTATION
Issue: 23 regions differ in size
Proposed solution: Scale the dependent variable.
New data on area of wheat cultivation in each NVT ‘region’: geo-coded regions around ISSUE (3): VARIETIES NOT TESTED IN ALL REGIONS
Solution: Type II Tobit (Heckman selection model).
• Are the breeders recent releases included in the trial region? • (Robust to other candidates and identification through non-linearity of IMR). DATA SUMMARY
Measures of performance
Pot. Add. Output
Pot. Add. Output
CONCLUSION: HOW DO ROYALTY FUNDED BREEDERS PERFORM?
• New data covering wheat trials in Australia 1978-2011 • New method for treating sub-frontier yielding varieties • Accommodating selection in data & weighting by region size • Royalty funded breeding associated with varieties included in more trials. • Royalty funded breeding associated with less ‘valuable’; i.e., lower contribution to total potential output of Australian wheat farms. THANKYOU
Official Journal of the European Communitiesadapting to technical progress for the 27th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on theapproximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification,packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(*)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the EuropeanThe texts in Annexes I a