Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:21:23.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Incentive Payment Programs Through Aggregate Production Response: The Case of Mohair

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

James R. Conner ,
William K. Mathis  and
Robert R. Wilson
James R. Conner
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology
William K. Mathis
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology
Robert R. Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology and the Institute of Statistics, Texas A&M University
Get access

Extract

In 1966, leading agricultural economists indicated that production response under changing conditions would be a significant factor in agricultural policy, and recommended that research be directed accordingly. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the use of production response relationships to indicate the effectiveness of government policy. One commodity for which this approach can be easily demonstrated is mohair, which is included in the National Wool Act and supported by production incentive payments. Thus, the response of mohair producers to changes in expected market price, government policy and other variables is estimated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , December 1969 , pp. 81 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1969

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.)

References

1.Black, W.E., “Marketing Texas Mohair,” Paper presented at Edwards County Mohair Marke ting and Preparation Field Day, Rocksprings, Texas, Jan. 16, 1968.Google Scholar
2.Chicago Daily Drovers Journal, Year Book of Figures, Drovers Journal Publishing Company, Chicago, 1925-40.Google Scholar
3.Christ, C.F., Econometric Models and Methods, Wiley, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
4.Commodity Marketing Corporation, “Potential Market Outlets for Mohair,” mimeographed, Washington, 1952.Google Scholar
5. “Conclusions and Recommendations of the Cooperative Interrregional Seminar on National Agricultural Policy Research,” Airlie House, Warrenton, Virginia, Sept. 26–27, 1966.Google Scholar
6.Dean, G.W. and Heady, E.O., “Changes in Supply Response and Elasticity in Hogs,” Journal of Farm Economics, 40:845-60, Nov. 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Fuller, W. and Martin, J. E., “The Effects of Autocorrelated Errors on the Statistical Estimation of Distributed Lag Models,” Journal of Farm Economics, 43:71–82, Feb. 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Goldberger, A.S., Econometric Theory, Wiley, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
9.Griliches, Z., “Distributed Lags: A Survey,” Econometrica, 55:16–49, Jan. 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Halvorson, H.W., “The Response of Milk Production to Price,” Journal of Farm Economics, 40:1101-13, Dec. 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hathaway, Dale E., The Effects of the Price Support Program on the Dry Bean Industry in Michigan, Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station Tech. Bui. 250, April 1955.Google Scholar
12.Hee, Olman, “The Effect of Price on Acreage and Yield of Potatoes,” Agricultural Economics Research 10:131-41, Oct. 1958.Google Scholar
13.Hubbard, J.W., “An Appraisal of the Farmer Knowledge Situations Investigated by the Interstate Managerial Survey” Journal of Farm Economics, 38:496–509, May 1956.Google Scholar
14.Hurwicz, L., “Least Squares Bias and Time Series,” Chap. 15 of Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models, Koopmans, T.C., (ed.) Cowles Comm. Mono. 10, Wiley, New York, 1950.Google Scholar
15.Hurwicz, L. “Prediction and Least Squares,” Chapter 7 of Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models, Koopmans, T.C., (ed.) Cowles Comm. Mono. 10, Wiley, New York, 1950.Google Scholar
16.Johnston, J., Econometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960.Google Scholar
17.Mundlak, Y., “Long Run Coefficeints and Distributed Lag Analysis, A Reformulation,” Econometrica, 35:278–293, April 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. “National Wool Act of 1954,” Title VII, Public Law 690, U.S. Statutes at Large 1954, Vol. 68 - part 1, Aug. 28, 1954.Google Scholar
19.Nerlove, Marc, The Dynamics of Supply: Estimation of Farmers Response to Price, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1958.Google Scholar
20.Nerlove, Marc “Estimates of the Elasticity of Supply of Selected Agricultural Commodities,” Journal of Farm Economics, 38:496–509, May 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Nerlove, Marc and Addison, William, “Statistical Estimations of Long-Run Elasticities of Supply and Demand,” Journal of Farm Economics, 40:861-80, Nov. 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Partenheimer, F.J. and Bell, R. D., “Managerial Behavior of Farmers in Formulating Expectations of Future Events,” A Study of Managerial Processes of Midwestern Farmers, Johnson, G. L., et al, eds., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1961.Google Scholar
23.Ticken, A.W. and McNeely, J. G., Marketing Texas Goats, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 844, Sept. 1956.Google Scholar
24.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Meat Situation, ERS, 1941-67.Google Scholar
25.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monthly Range and Livestock Report, SRS, 1963-67.Google Scholar
26.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Western Range and Livestock, 17 Western States 1922-62, SRS, Stat. Bui. No. 331.Google Scholar
27.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wool Situation, ERS, 1965–1967.Google Scholar
28.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wool Statistics and Related Data 1920-1964 and 1965 Supplement, ERS.Stat. Bui. No. 363, July 1965.Google Scholar