对其他农业安全网计划组合战略的评估

IF 1.5 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Agricultural Finance Review Pub Date : 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1108/afr-11-2023-0150
Sylvanus Gaku, Francis Tsiboe
{"title":"对其他农业安全网计划组合战略的评估","authors":"Sylvanus Gaku, Francis Tsiboe","doi":"10.1108/afr-11-2023-0150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Several farm safety net strategies are available to farmers as a source of financial protection against losses due to price instability, government policies, weather fluctuations and global market changes. Producers can employ these strategies combining crop insurance policies with countercyclical policies for several crops and production areas; however, less is known about the efficiency of these strategies in enhancing profit and reducing its variability. In this study, we examine the efficiency of these strategies at minimizing inter crop year farm profit variability.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>We utilized relative mean of profit and coefficient of variation, to compare counterfactually calculated farm safety net strategies for a sample of 28,615 observations across 2,486 farms and four dryland crops (corn, soybean, sorghum and wheat) in Kansas spanning nine crop years (2014–2022). A no farm safety net strategy is used as the benchmark for every alternative strategy to ascertain whether a policy customization is statistically different from a no farm safety case.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The general pattern of the results suggests that program combination strategies that have a high-profit enhancement potential necessarily have low profit risk for dryland wheat and sorghum production. On the contrary, such a connection is absent for dryland corn and soybeans production. Low-cost farm safety net strategies that enhance corn and soybeans profits do not necessarily lower profit risks.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This paper is one of the first to use a large sample of actual farm-level observations to evaluate how combinations of safety net programs offered under the Title I (PLC, ARCCO and ARCIC) and XI (FCIP) of the U.S. Farm Bill rank in terms of profit level enhancement and profit risk reduction.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":"226 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of alternative farm safety net program combination strategies\",\"authors\":\"Sylvanus Gaku, Francis Tsiboe\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/afr-11-2023-0150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>Several farm safety net strategies are available to farmers as a source of financial protection against losses due to price instability, government policies, weather fluctuations and global market changes. Producers can employ these strategies combining crop insurance policies with countercyclical policies for several crops and production areas; however, less is known about the efficiency of these strategies in enhancing profit and reducing its variability. In this study, we examine the efficiency of these strategies at minimizing inter crop year farm profit variability.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>We utilized relative mean of profit and coefficient of variation, to compare counterfactually calculated farm safety net strategies for a sample of 28,615 observations across 2,486 farms and four dryland crops (corn, soybean, sorghum and wheat) in Kansas spanning nine crop years (2014–2022). A no farm safety net strategy is used as the benchmark for every alternative strategy to ascertain whether a policy customization is statistically different from a no farm safety case.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>The general pattern of the results suggests that program combination strategies that have a high-profit enhancement potential necessarily have low profit risk for dryland wheat and sorghum production. On the contrary, such a connection is absent for dryland corn and soybeans production. Low-cost farm safety net strategies that enhance corn and soybeans profits do not necessarily lower profit risks.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>This paper is one of the first to use a large sample of actual farm-level observations to evaluate how combinations of safety net programs offered under the Title I (PLC, ARCCO and ARCIC) and XI (FCIP) of the U.S. Farm Bill rank in terms of profit level enhancement and profit risk reduction.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":46748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural Finance Review\",\"volume\":\"226 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural Finance Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-11-2023-0150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Finance Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-11-2023-0150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的农民可以利用几种农业安全网战略,作为财政保护的来源,防止因价格不稳定、政府政策、天气波动和全球市场变化而遭受损失。生产者可以针对几种作物和生产领域采用这些策略,将作物保险政策与反周期政策结合起来;然而,人们对这些策略在提高利润和减少利润变化方面的效率知之甚少。我们利用利润相对平均值和变异系数,对堪萨斯州 2,486 个农场和四种旱地作物(玉米、大豆、高粱和小麦)的 28,615 个观测样本进行了反事实计算的农场安全网策略比较,时间跨度为九个作物年度(2014-2022 年)。研究结果的总体模式表明,对于旱地小麦和高粱生产而言,具有高利润提升潜力的计划组合策略必然具有低利润风险。相反,旱地玉米和大豆生产却没有这种联系。本文是首批使用大样本实际农场观测数据来评估美国农业法案第一章(PLC、ARCCO 和 ARCIC)和第十一章(FCIP)下提供的安全网计划组合在提高利润水平和降低利润风险方面的表现的文章之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of alternative farm safety net program combination strategies

Purpose

Several farm safety net strategies are available to farmers as a source of financial protection against losses due to price instability, government policies, weather fluctuations and global market changes. Producers can employ these strategies combining crop insurance policies with countercyclical policies for several crops and production areas; however, less is known about the efficiency of these strategies in enhancing profit and reducing its variability. In this study, we examine the efficiency of these strategies at minimizing inter crop year farm profit variability.

Design/methodology/approach

We utilized relative mean of profit and coefficient of variation, to compare counterfactually calculated farm safety net strategies for a sample of 28,615 observations across 2,486 farms and four dryland crops (corn, soybean, sorghum and wheat) in Kansas spanning nine crop years (2014–2022). A no farm safety net strategy is used as the benchmark for every alternative strategy to ascertain whether a policy customization is statistically different from a no farm safety case.

Findings

The general pattern of the results suggests that program combination strategies that have a high-profit enhancement potential necessarily have low profit risk for dryland wheat and sorghum production. On the contrary, such a connection is absent for dryland corn and soybeans production. Low-cost farm safety net strategies that enhance corn and soybeans profits do not necessarily lower profit risks.

Originality/value

This paper is one of the first to use a large sample of actual farm-level observations to evaluate how combinations of safety net programs offered under the Title I (PLC, ARCCO and ARCIC) and XI (FCIP) of the U.S. Farm Bill rank in terms of profit level enhancement and profit risk reduction.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural Finance Review
Agricultural Finance Review AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
18.80%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Agricultural Finance Review provides a rigorous forum for the publication of theory and empirical work related solely to issues in agricultural and agribusiness finance. Contributions come from academic and industry experts across the world and address a wide range of topics including: Agricultural finance, Agricultural policy related to agricultural finance and risk issues, Agricultural lending and credit issues, Farm credit, Businesses and financial risks affecting agriculture and agribusiness, Agricultural policies affecting farm or agribusiness risks and profitability, Risk management strategies including the use of futures and options, Rural credit in developing economies, Microfinance and microcredit applied to agriculture and rural development, Financial efficiency, Agriculture insurance and reinsurance. Agricultural Finance Review is committed to research addressing (1) factors affecting or influencing the financing of agriculture and agribusiness in both developed and developing nations; (2) the broadest aspect of risk assessment and risk management strategies affecting agriculture; and (3) government policies affecting farm profitability, liquidity, and access to credit.
期刊最新文献
Multi-step commodity forecasts using deep learning Regional analysis of agricultural bank liquidity Data-driven determination of plant growth stages for improved weather index insurance design Utilizing FSA conservation loan programs to support farm conservation activities Evaluation of alternative farm safety net program combination strategies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1