Journal of Agricultural Economics最新文献

We investigate the relationship between EU Common Agricultural Policy environmental payments, and dairy and beef farm level competitiveness and environmental performance. We use an Irish panel of farm level financial data for the years 2000–2017 and apply stochastic frontier analysis. Our estimates identify a positive relationship between technical efficiency and the Green, Low-Carbon, Agri-Environment Scheme for dairy farms, in contrast with the negative relation identified for previous payments of this kind such as the Rural Environment Protection Scheme for both beef and dairy. We then simulate increases in the first type of environmental payments financed through reductions in decoupled payments. We use alternative scenarios for payment redistribution such as flat allocation, allocation to farms with low stocking rates or proportional reallocation of payments. We find that under the second scenario, marginal environmental gains can potentially be achieved for dairy farms. For beef farms, the proportional allocation performs best regarding environmental gains. We also find that under this scenario, the impacts on income inequality can be smoothed for both farm types.

Family farms dominate less favoured areas (LFAs) within Europe, and family life-cycle conditions, such as succession and retirement, affects how these farms adapt to changing circumstances. Past studies of on-farm technical efficiency have not directly addressed these conditions, but they may explain why some farms are more efficient than others, especially as the farm family model dominates most farming systems. Motivated by the UK's withdrawal from the EU and the debate around establishing replacement support policies, we apply a multi-step model to measure both transient and persistent inefficiencies using a panel of LFA cattle and sheep farms in Scotland over the period 2003–2020. We find a greater prevalence of persistent compared to transient inefficiency, which suggests that structural problems still exist. Farms with planned succession are found to have higher persistent efficiencies, whereas farmers nearing retirement have lower levels. Other factors, such as dependence on subsidy, off-farm activity and classification as severely disadvantaged tend to compound these lower efficiencies. We argue that life-cycle conditions should not be ignored in studies of farm technical efficiency. Within the scope of framing a new agricultural policy for UK administrations, these results inform the debate on support for LFAs, as well as the promotion of support towards generational renewal to ease transition across farm family life-cycle events.

The Income Stabilisation Tool (IST), which was recently added to the European Common Agricultural Policy's risk management toolkit, is a mutual fund that aims at stabilising farmers' income. We investigate the drivers of farmers' participation in an IST for the apple sector in the Autonomous Province of Trento in Italy, which is the only region that has operationalised the IST in the European Union. Our analysis is based on a theoretical framework based on the Unified Theory of Use and Acceptance of Technology. Using a three-year panel dataset of 3268 farm households, we estimated a logit model with the Mundlak–Chamberlain procedure. Our results show that higher crop production specialisation, associated with greater risk exposure, favours participation in the IST. Similarly, previous experience with mutual funds increases the acceptance of the IST. The analysis also provides evidence of how the new tool interacts with existing on-farm protection strategies, leading to a discussion of the presence of adverse and advantageous selection effects. Our paper sheds light on farmers' acceptance of newly implemented sector-specific ISTs and generates better knowledge and understanding of lock-ins and levers that influence participation in such schemes, which are relevant to other EU regions or member states that are considering the introduction of ISTs.

Using unique crop-specific data gathered over 7 years, we study if and how maize-producing farmers in Ethiopia adjust their land allocation decisions in response to pre-planting-season weather variations. We show that farmers adjust their land allocation decisions in response to increased temperatures early in the growing season. In addition to quantifying a substantial adaptation margin that has not been documented before, our study also reveals the presence of a weather variation-induced expansion of maize production into areas that are less suitable for maize cultivation.

Empirical studies in agricultural economics usually involve policy implications. In many cases, such studies rely on proprietary or confidential data that cannot be published along with the article, challenging the replicability and credibility of the results. To overcome this problem, the use of synthetic data—that is, data that do not contain a single unit of the original data—has been proposed. In this note, we illustrate the utility of synthetic data generation methods for replication purposes using a range of methods from agricultural production analysis. More specifically, we compare input elasticities and technical efficiency scores based on different farm-level production data between original data and synthetic data. We generate synthetic data using a non-parametric method of classification and regression trees (CART) and parametric linear regressions. We find synthetic data result in elasticities and technical efficiency distributions that are very similar to the original data, especially when generated with CART, and conclude with implications for the research community.

Since their independence, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have used input subsidies to increase agricultural productivity and improve food security. We analyse the effects of both a fertiliser and a seed subsidy on farming households' land allocation among crops and crop diversity in Burkina Faso. Although previous studies investigated either the impact of a fertiliser or a seed subsidy on targeted crops, few examined the effects of both subsidies combined. Applying a correlated random-effects model with a control function approach to nationally representative, 2-year panel data collected from farming households, we find that those with access to the fertiliser subsidy allocate more land to the crops it targets (rice, maize and cotton) than non-targeted crops. Focusing on a minor crop with key agronomic and nutritional attributes, we conclude that land allocation to cowpea as the primary crop and intercrop declined with the fertiliser subsidy. The fertiliser subsidy also negatively affects crop diversity. However, we find that the cowpea seed subsidy offsets the bias of fertiliser subsidy toward fertiliser-targeted crops and enhances diversity.

We provide explorative insights on how farms which manage strong and successful growth affect farms in their neighbourhoods through spatial competition for land. The study is based on an exploratory analysis of repeated framed experiments within the business game FarmAgriPoliS (Appel & Balmann, Ecological Complexity, 40, 2019). In particular, we analyse the spatial influences of different behavioural clusters of farm managers. Our analysis finds that farms which manage strong growth substantially affect the development of farms in a spatial neighbourhood of some 10 km. Although the influence on the neighbourhood decreases with distance, the functional correlations of farm growth as well as exits are neither linear nor exponential, but eventually rather wave-like. We further discuss the spatial interdependence of farms and the related overlaps of the predator–prey phenomenon with the phenomena of farms' path dependency and agricultural structural change. We conclude that along with farmers' strategies and their abilities, the characteristics of their neighbours and the distances between neighbouring farms also determine who is ‘predator’ and who is ‘prey’.

In an emerging economy like China where the domestic income inequality has dramatically increased between middle-class urban consumers and poor rural farmers, food grown by poor farmers with poverty alleviation labels may receive price premiums from consumers with multiple incentives. To reveal consumers' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for anti-poverty labelled food, we implement a non-hypothetical Becker–DeGroot–Marschak auction online experiment for apples with real shoppers. Results show that consumers are willing to pay 3.66 RMB extra for each kilogram of apples with anti-poverty labels, indicating the opportunities for using voluntary public food consumption to supplement the government's anti-poverty responsibilities. Consumers who are more empathic, who believe that anti-poverty products have higher quality, who have donated money within the past year, and who are not involve with anti-poverty related production or selling processes are willing to pay more. Additionally, three different information treatments (a beneficiary description, an appreciation certificate and a government promotion document) were found to increase consumers' WTP for anti-poverty products. Treatment effects are different among consumers with different demographic characters and perspectives about the anti-poverty label. Lastly, anti-poverty labels can attract consumers for trial purchase but are not sufficient to lead consumers to make repeat purchases.

We test the ‘efficient-but-poor’ hypothesis by estimating the determinants of smallholders' choice over cash or food crops and whether their crop choice affects technical efficiency and poverty using the national household panel data in Nigeria. We employ the stochastic frontier analyses correcting for sample selection about farmers' crop choice. Our results indicate that smallholders are generally efficient in their resource allocations. A treatment effects model is employed to estimate farmers' crop choice in the first stage and the impact of their choices on technical efficiency and poverty outcomes in the second stage. The results show that farmers' access to free inputs, non-farm income and the use of seeds from the previous growing season are important determinants of crop choice. The adoption of cash crops by food-crop producing households will not generally reduce poverty, although it will improve technical efficiency marginally. However, if cash crops are commercialised, poverty tends to decline.