IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bea/wpaper/0189.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tracking Cultivated Assets in Measures of Capital

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Soloveichik

    (Bureau of Economic Analysis)

Abstract

Americans invested $72 billion in cultivated assets in 2019. By category, investment was: $7 billion in long-lived food animals, $2 billion in horses, $10 billion in farm plants, and $53 billion in landscaping plants. System of National Accounts 2008, the internationally agreed guidelines for national accounts, explicitly recommends that cultivated assets should be tracked in measures of capital (United Nations Statistics Division 2008, sec. 10.88–10.96). This recommendation has been widely accepted and most European Union countries currently track some cultivated assets in their measures of capital (Jager 2017). In addition, the U.S. agricultural productivity accounts have considered tracking cows in their measures of capital (Ball and Harper 1990). However, this recommendation is not currently implemented in either the U.S. National Economic Accounts (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2019) or the U.S. agricultural productivity accounts (Shumway et al. 2015). This paper explores how capitalizing those cultivated assets changes the U.S. National Economic Accounts from 1929 to 2019 and the production accounts from 1948 to 2019. First, real gross domestic product (GDP) growth before 1990 decreases slightly when cultivated farm assets are capitalized. Second, the 2000s housing bubble and bust appears more dramatic when cultivated landscaping is capitalized along with other real estate investment. Third, measured real estate sector productivity growth falls noticeably when cultivated landscaping is tracked as capital in the production accounts. This paper explores on how capitalizing cultivated biological resources might change economic statistics from 1929 to 2019. To start out, investment in cultivated farm assets grew slower than overall gross domestic product (GDP) before 1990. As a result, real GDP growth before 1990 decreases by 0.01 percentage point per year when cultivated farm assets are capitalized. Second, the housing bubble and bust during the 2000’s appears more dramatic when landscaping plants are capitalized along with other types of real estate investment. Third, measured real estate sector productivity growth falls noticeably when landscaping plants are tracked in the joint BEA-BLS production accounts.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Soloveichik, 2021. "Tracking Cultivated Assets in Measures of Capital," BEA Working Papers 0189, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    • Handle: RePEc:bea:wpaper:0189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.bea.gov/system/files/papers/BEA-WP2021-6_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David S. Jacks & Kevin H. O'Rourke & Jeffrey G. Williamson, 2011. "Commodity Price Volatility and World Market Integration since 1700," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(3), pages 800-813, August.
    2. Olmstead, Alan L. & Rhode, Paul W., 2001. "Reshaping The Landscape: The Impact And Diffusion Of The Tractor In American Agriculture, 1910–1960," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 663-698, September.
    3. Sander, Heather & Polasky, Stephen & Haight, Robert G., 2010. "The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1646-1656, June.
    4. Arnold J. Katz, 2015. "A Primer on the Measurement of Net Stocks, Depreciation, Capital Services, and Their Integration," BEA Working Papers 0123, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    5. Duffy, Michael & Barnhart, Steve, 2012. "2012 Estimated Costs of Pasture and Hay Production," Staff General Research Papers Archive 34955, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Randal R. Rucker & Walter N. Thurman & Michael Burgett, 2019. "Colony Collapse and the Consequences of Bee Disease: Market Adaptation to Environmental Change," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(5), pages 927-960.
    7. Bigelow, Daniel & Borchers, Allison, 2017. "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2012," Economic Information Bulletin 263079, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rocha, Adauto B. & Perrin, Richard K. & Fulginiti, Lilyan E., 2023. "Estimating Biological Capital: Application to Dairy Cows and Orange Orchards," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335856, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sam Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn, 2009. "Carbon markets in space and time," GRI Working Papers 3, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    2. Brahmbhatt, Milan & Canuto, Otaviano & Vostroknutova, Ekaterina, 2010. "Dealing with Dutch Disease," World Bank - Economic Premise, The World Bank, issue 16, pages 1-7, June.
    3. Miao, Ruiqing & Hennessy, David A. & Feng, Hongli, 2016. "The Effects of Crop Insurance Subsidies and Sodsaver on Land-Use Change," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    4. Nouf Alsharif & Sambit Bhattacharyya & Maurizio Intartaglia, 2016. "Economic Diversification in Resource Rich Countries: Uncovering the State of Knowledge," Working Paper Series 09816, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Mario J. Crucini & Gregor W. Smith, 2016. "Distance and Time Effects in Swedish Commodity Prices, 1732–1914," NBER Working Papers 22175, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Laura Panza, 2012. "Globalisation and the Ottoman Empire: A study of integration between Ottoman and world cotton markets," Working Papers 2012.01, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    7. Chen, Shuo & Lan, Xiaohuan, 2020. "Tractor vs. animal: Rural reforms and technology adoption in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    8. Bernardina Algieri, 2014. "A roller coaster ride: an empirical investigation of the main drivers of the international wheat price," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 459-475, July.
    9. Richard C. Sutch, 2008. "Henry Agard Wallace, The Iowa Corn Yield Tests, And The Adoption Of Hybrid Corn," Working Papers 200807, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics, revised Jun 2008.
    10. Sanglim Yoo & John E. Wagner, 2016. "A review of the hedonic literatures in environmental amenities from open space: a traditional econometric vs. spatial econometric model," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 141-166, March.
    11. Rabah Arezki & Daniel Lederman & Hongyan Zhao, 2014. "The Relative Volatility of Commodity Prices: A Reappraisal," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(3), pages 939-951.
    12. Jay Mittal, 2017. "Valuing Visual Accessibility of Scenic Landscapes in a Single Family Housing Market: A Spatial Hedonic Approach," ERES eres2017_1, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    13. William Arrata & Alejandro Bernales & Virginie Coudert, 2013. "The Effects of Derivatives on Underlying Financial Markets: Equity Options, Commodity Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps," SUERF 50th Anniversary Volume Chapters, in: Morten Balling & Ernest Gnan (ed.), 50 Years of Money and Finance: Lessons and Challenges, chapter 13, pages 445-473, SUERF - The European Money and Finance Forum.
    14. Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M. & Ruttan, Vernon W., 2010. "The Economics of Innovation and Technical Change in Agriculture," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 939-984, Elsevier.
    15. Hiroyuki Takeshima & Rajendra Prasad Adhikari & Anjani Kumar, 2016. "Is Access to Tractor Service a Binding Constraint for Nepali Terai Farmers?," Working Papers id:9604, eSocialSciences.
    16. Hyunseok Kim & GianCarlo Moschini, 2018. "The Dynamics of Supply: U.S. Corn and Soybeans in the Biofuel Era," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(4), pages 593-613.
    17. H. Allen Klaiber & Joshua K. Abbott & V. Kerry Smith, 2017. "Some Like It (Less) Hot: Extracting Trade-Off Measures for Physically Coupled Amenities," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1053-1079.
    18. Mei, Yingdan & Qiu, Jixiang & Wu, Jialu & Meng, Lina, 2021. "Do residents care about urban dumps? Evidence from individual housing transaction data," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    19. Bhattarai, Madhusudan & Joshi, Pramod Kumar & Shekhawa, R. S. & Takeshima, Hiroyuki, 2017. "The evolution of tractorization in India’s low-wage economy: Key patterns and implications," IFPRI discussion papers 1675, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. Giovanni Federico & Antonio Tena‐Junguito, 2017. "Lewis revisited: tropical polities competing on the world market, 1830–1938," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1244-1267, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • E01 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General - - - Measurement and Data on National Income and Product Accounts and Wealth; Environmental Accounts
    • O17 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Formal and Informal Sectors; Shadow Economy; Institutional Arrangements
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bea:wpaper:0189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Andrea Batch (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/beagvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.