Hostname: page-component-7d8f8d645b-clzrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-05-28T16:12:11.773Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Relating Farm and Operator Characteristics to Multiple Goals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Wyatte L. Harman
Affiliation:
Farm Production Economics Division, USDA, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Vernon R. Eidman
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Roy E. Hatch
Affiliation:
Farm Production Economics Division, USDA, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
P. L. Claypool
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Get access

Extract

Economic analyses of firm behavior are typically based on the assumption of maximization or minimization of a single goal. While economists recognize that multiple goals are important in making business decisions, a single goal, such as profit maximization, is used because it is operational and it provides an analytical approximation of firm behavior. However, the reduction of year-to-year income variability, providing an acceptable family living level, increasing net worth, additional leisure time, and many other goals have been suggested as being important to some farm firms. Some analyses have considered two or more of these goals by maximizing one subject to a constraint on another. In other cases, a utility function has been estimated for an individual farmer incorporating both expected income and variability of income. Although these efforts have been useful, progress towards incorporating multiple goals into empirical models has been inhibited by the inability to correctly specify important goals and the difficulty of incorporating several goals into frequently-used models. The recent development of simulation routines for farm firm analyses provides an analytical procedure that is sufficiently flexible to incorporate multiple goals. While it may be difficult to provide all of the information that is needed concerning goals and their use in decision making, additional information indicating the ranking of goals and the manner in which this hierarchy differs for farmers under alternative economic and noneconomic conditions provides a better basis for the selection of organizational and financial strategies.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Oklahoma Agri. Exp. Sta. Journal Article J-2446

References

[1]Baumol, William J.Economie Theory and Operations Analysis, 2nd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965, pp. 295310.Google Scholar
[2]Bock, R. Darrell, and Jones, Lyle V.. The Measurement and Prediction of Judgment and Choice. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1968, pp. 208211.Google Scholar
[3]Bostwick, Don, Esmay, James, and Rodewald, Gordon. Attitudinal Research Relating to Farmers' Use of Short-Term Credit. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERS-25, Oct., 1961.Google Scholar
[4]Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G., A Behavorial Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963, pp. 2643.Google Scholar
[5]Draper, N.R. and Smith, H.. Applied Regression Analysis, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.Google Scholar
[6]Edwards, A.L.Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York 1957, pp. 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Eidman, Vernon R., Carter, Harold O. and Dean, Gerald W.. Decision Models for California Turkey Growers. Giannini Foundation Monograph No. 21, July, 1968.Google Scholar
[8]Eidman, V.R., “Incorporating Decision Rules,” Agricultural Production Systems Simulation edited by Eidman, V.R., Oklahoma State University, May, 1971, pp. 7985.Google Scholar
[9]Guttman, L.A.A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data.” American Sociological Review, 9: 135150, April 1964.Google Scholar
[10]Harman, Wyatte L., Hacht, Roy E., Eidman, Vernon R. and Claypool, P.L., “An Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Hierarchy of Multiple Goals,” manuscript in review process to be published as an Oklahoma State Experiment Station publication in cooperation with USDA, ERS, FPED.Google Scholar
[11]Kendall, L.M.G.Rank Correlation Methods, 3rd. Edition, New York: Hafner, 1962, pp. 144161.Google Scholar
[12]Krenz, Ronald D., “Paired Comparisons As Applied to Seeding Cropland to Grass,” Journal of Farm Economics, 46: 12191226, Dec. 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Martin, J.R. and Plaxico, J.S.. Polyperiod Analysis of Growth and Capital Accumulation of Farms in the Rolling Plains of Oklahoma and Texas. USDA Technical Bulletin 1381, Sept. 1967.Google Scholar
[14]Mosteller, F., “Remarks on the Method of Paired-Comparisons: I. The Least Squares Solution Assuming Equal Standard Deviations and Equal Correlations,” Psychometrika, 16:39, 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Mosteller, F., “Remarks on the Method of Paired-Comparisons: II. The Effect of an Abberrant Standard Deviation When Equal Standard Deviations and Equal Correlations are Assumed,” Psychometrika, 16:203206, 1951a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Mosteller, F., “Remarks on the Method of Paired-Comparisons: III. A Test of Significance for Paired-Comparisons When Equal Standard Deviations and Equal Correlations are Assumed,” Psychometrika, 16:207208, 1951b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Officer, R.R. and Halter, A.N., “Utility Analysis in a Practical Setting,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50:257277, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Patrick, George F. and Eisgruber, Ludwig M.. “The Impact of Managerial Ability and Capital Structure on Growth of the Farm Firm.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50:491506, August 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Thurstone, L.L. and Clave, E.J.The Measurement of Attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929.Google Scholar