I was introduced to Carl Pray by Doug Parker. At the time, I was working on a paper on the political economy of agricultural research, and I spoke with Carl about some of the ideas behind it. We discussed the possibilities for government support of research and the extent to which such research should be supported. Carl amazed me with his knowledge of research around the world—what was happening in China, India, and countries across Africa—and with his intuitive understanding of why things are the way they are.
Several years later, when we began the ICABR Ravello conferences, I was very happy to see Carl there. He would make probably the most realistic assessment of the situation and was more knowledgeable than most of us about what was happening in the real world. But he was also fun to be around: always in a good mood, always with a good anecdote to tell, and always interested in anything you wanted to discuss. I also learned to appreciate Carl’s love of music—especially jazz—and art, which helped shape the ICABR agenda, as well as his broad perspective and open mind. Those qualities allowed him to interact with people from diverse backgrounds and to study many topics using multiple sources.
I learned that Carl is an economic historian. He is not a highly technical economist, but he is a very wise person. There are many clever economists, but not many wise ones, and Carl is very wise. While standard economists mostly use numbers as sources of data, economic historians like Carl rely heavily on stories and narratives, which gives them an edge in understanding the reality we study. If I needed a consultant or a leader in agricultural economics, or in economics applied to a real-world situation, it would be Carl. He has the judgment, wisdom, and temperament that lead to good advice.
I have always loved Carl’s humanity, his sense of humor, and his sense of fun. When I visited his home, I got to know the cats that he and Mary cared for. I realized how much friendship they had built with this family of animals, and how much vitality they drew from them. I understood that feeling because my own dogs have become close friends in our family as well. It also showed me Carl and Mary’s commitment to the well-being of all creatures.
After Vittorio Santaniello and Robert Evenson passed away, we needed new leadership for the Ravello conference, and Carl was the right person at the right time. He is extremely effective in a very gentle and modest way. He is able to convince people to join the Ravello effort and make a contribution. He has the vision to identify new directions while accommodating the different egos and groups in the consortium. He was able to shape an agenda that was truly exciting for both economists and non-economists, to get along with an incredible variety of people, and to help people get the best out of themselves. Under Carl’s leadership, the Ravello conference grew in the number of participants and the range of issues covered, and the quality of discussion improved immensely. This year’s 30th anniversary conference in Ravello will be a testament to much of the effort that he led.
Carl, together with Jikun Huang and Scott Rozelle, also played an extremely important role in expanding agricultural economics research. Their research on technology and other aspects of the Chinese agricultural economy built an incredible bridge between agricultural economics research in the United States and China. Similarly, Carl developed a significant base of collaborators in India, and many ICABR participants working on India were his collaborators and friends. The development of relationships and networks of scholars that established knowledge bridges linking the United States with the two most populous countries, China and India, is another outstanding contribution Carl has made to agricultural economics.
Carl expanded Evenson and Ruttan line ofresearch combining agricultural innovation economics with development economics. He treated agricultural R&D, seed systems, biotechnology, intellectual property, regulation, and private-sector incentives as core development variables. His work shows that productivity growth depends on institutions: public research systems, private firms, biosafety rules, IPR regimes, competition, extension, and technology-transfer channels.
He also showed empirically that small farmers can benefit from advanced technology, including biotechnology, when the technology meets their needs and is accessible. That finding challenged two simplistic views: that biotechnology is automatically pro-poor, and that it is automatically anti-poor. His work helped define the economics of public versus private agricultural research. His papers repeatedly show that private firms are increasingly important in seeds, biotechnology, chemicals, machinery, food processing, and biofuels, but that private R&D is concentrated in profitable crops, technologies, and markets, and depend on knowledge generated by public research. He emphasized the complementarity of public and private research – developing (and (developed countries) need both.
Carl also maintained a unique position in the department at Rutgers. He organized workshops on many topics, including research and innovation, the bioeconomy, and intellectual property rights. He recruited high-quality members and mentored students and colleagues. I always enjoyed coming to Rutgers, participating in the discussions, experiencing the friendly environment, and engaging with the interesting questions that Carl inspired.
Carl has always been able to create an environment of collaboration, friendship, and scholarship—one that is both enjoyable and beneficial. Now Carl is retiring, but I see it as a new beginning. He will continue his research and mentoring and will remain a model of wisdom, effectiveness, friendliness, and modesty. Mary and Carl will continue to enjoy travel, art, and life. Thank you, Carl, for being a friend all these years. We look forward to even more collaboration.
