No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Econometric Analysis of Farmer Participation in the Dairy Termination Program in North Carolina and Virginia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2016
Abstract
Farm-level data are used to estimate equations explaining the probability of bidding and the level of the bid for the 1986 Dairy Termination Program. Participation was attractive to older farmers, to those who were not planning to transfer the farm to a family member, to less experienced farmers, and to those using less sophisticated management techniques. Schooling, off-farm work, and nonfarm experience did not have significant effects. The participation pattern suggests that the long-term effects of the program on milk supply are small.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1990
References
Amemiya, T. “Qualitative Response Models: A Survey.”. J. Econ. Lit., 19(1981):1483–1536.Google Scholar
Carley, D.H.
Thomas, W.A., Gauthier, W.M., Powe, C.E., and Wilson, L.E.. An Evaluation of Characteristics of Participants in the Dairy Termination Program in Four Southern States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 328, February, 1988.Google Scholar
Chambers, R.G. and Foster, W.E.. “Participation in the Farmer-Owned Reserve Program: A Discrete Choice Model.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 65(1983): 120–124.Google Scholar
Dvoskin, D. Excess Capacity in U.S. Agriculture: Economic Approach to Measurement. USDA/ERS, AER-580, 1988.Google Scholar
Findeis, J.L.
Hallberg, M.C., and Lass, D.. “Off-farm Employment: Research and Issues.” Presented at AAEA annual meeting, East Lansing, MI, 1987.Google Scholar
Gauthier, W.M.
Wharton, R.B., and Riechers, R.. “An Analysis of Voluntary Dairy Supply Control Programs: Milk Diversion and DTP Participants.” Unpublished manuscript, Louisiana State University, 1987.Google Scholar
Gauthier, W.M. “An Analysis of Louisiana Milk Diversion Program Participants and Non-Participants.” Unpublished manuscript, Louisiana State University, 1987.Google Scholar
Goss, E.P. and Paul, C.. “Age and Work Experience in the Decision to Migrate.” J. Human Resources, 21(1986):397–405.Google Scholar
Heckman, J.J. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica, 47(1979): 153–162.Google Scholar
Huffman, W. “Allocative Efficiency: The Role of Human Capital.” Quar. J. Econ., 91(1977):59–79.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H.M. and Lee, D.R.. “An Aggregate Analysis of Bid Decisions for the Dairy Termination Program.” N. Cent. J. Agr. Econ., 9(1987):259–269.Google Scholar
Kirkland, J.J. and Smith, B.J.. “Results of Survey of Pennsylvania MPTP Participants.” Dairy Marketing Information, The Cooperative Extension Service, The Pennsylvania State University, June, 1987.Google Scholar
Knight, T.O. and Kubiak, K.A.. “Extension Aids for the Dairy Termination Program: A Comparative Analysis.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 69(1987):777–785.Google Scholar
Kramer, R.A. and Pope, R.. “Participation in Farm Commodity Programs: A Stochastic Dominance Analysis.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 63(1981): 119–128.Google Scholar
Lee, D.R. and Boisvert, R.. “Factors Affecting Participation in the Milk Diversion Program in the U.S. and in New York.” Northeastern J. Agr. Resource Econ., 14(1985): 193–202.Google Scholar
Lee, D.R. and Helmberger, P.G.. “Estimating Supply Response in the Presence of Farm Programs.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 67(1985):193–203.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S.
Limited and Qualitative Dependent Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Mincer, J.
Schooling, Experience and Earnings. Boston, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1974.Google Scholar
Mincer, J. and Jovanovic, B.. “Labor Mobility and Wages.” In Studies in Labor Markets, Sherwin Rosen, ed., Boston, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1981.Google Scholar
Norris, P.E. and Batie, S.S.. “Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application of Tobit Analysis.” So. J. Agr. Econ., 19(1987):79–90.Google Scholar
Peterson, R.N. “A Single Equation Approach to Estimating Nonstationary Markov Matrices: The Case of U.S. Agriculture.” USDA/ERS, forthcoming, 1989.Google Scholar
Pingali, P. and Carlson, G.A. “Human Capital, Adjustments in Subjective Probabilities, and the Demand for Pest Controls.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 67(1985):853–861.Google Scholar
Rahm, M.R. and Huffman, W.E.. “The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 66(1984):405–413.Google Scholar
Shaw, K.L. “Occupational Change, Employer Change, and Transferability of Skills.” So. Econ. J., 53(1987):702–719.Google Scholar
Simler, K.R.
Bills, N.L., and Kaiser, H.M.. “The Impact of the Dairy Termination Program on Land Use in New York.” Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, 1987.Google Scholar
Smith, M.G. A Conditional Approach to Projecting Farm Structure. USDA/ERS Staff Report AGES 880208, 1988.Google Scholar
Sumner, D.A. and Leiby, J.. “An Econometric Analysis of the Effects of Human Capital on Size and Growth Among Dairy Farms.” Am. J. Agr. Econ., 69(1987):465–470.Google Scholar
Teigen, L. “A Golden Handshake: Decoupling With a Twist.” Choices, Fourth Quarter, 1988.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. Effects and Administration of the 1984 Milk Diversion Program. GAO/RCED-85-126. Washington, DC: July 19, 1985.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. Dairy Termination Program: A Perspective on its Participants and Milk Production. Washington, DC: GAO/RCED-88-157, 1988.Google Scholar