Activity Analysis: Bridging the Gap between Production Economics Theory and Practical Farm Management Procedures
AbstractThis paper is addressed to the traditional problem of demonstrating the relevance of production theory to management-oriented people. Activity analysis, it is argued, is the most appropriate pedagogic framework within which to commence either a production economics or a farm management course. Production economics theory has not been widely accepted as a useful method for the analysis of practical management problems. The theory has been traditionally presented in terms of continuous functions which assume away the question of technical efficiency. Activity analysis, in its general form, is a more comprehensive approach to the theory of production than the conventional neo-classical production function approach since activity analysis explicitly incorporates technical efficiency considerations. The failure of general agricultural economists to demonstrate appropriately the relevance of production theory has encouraged a sub-discipline of farm management dedicated to real-world management problems in agriculture. The basic procedures developed by the farm management sub-discipline (virtually independent of production theory) and now in common use, have a strong affinity with activity analysis. The traditional gap between production theory and applied farm management can, therefore, be bridged by approaching the theory from the activity analysis viewpoint.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its journal Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics.
Volume (Year): 48 (1980)
Issue (Month): 01 (April)
Contact details of provider:
Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Cocks, K.D., 1964. "Creep Budgeting," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 32(03), September.
- Shapiro, Kenneth H & Muller, Jurgen, 1977. " Sources of Technical Efficiency: The Roles of Modernization and Information," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(2), pages 293-310, January.
- E.O. Burns, 1966. "Comparative Analysis Of Farm Accounts," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 10(2), pages 169-182, December.
- Burns, E.O., 1966. "Comparative Analysis Of Farm Accounts," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 10(02), December.
- Musgrave, Warren F., 1976. "Problems Of Change In Australian Agricultural Economics," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 20(03), December.
- Leibenstein, Harvey, 1977. " X-Efficiency, Technical Efficiency, and Incomplete Information Use: A Comment," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(2), pages 311-16, January.
- Herrington, Mark E. & Wegener, Malcolm & Hardner, Craig & Woolcock, Louella L. & Dieters, Mark J., 2012. "Influence of plant traits on production costs and profitability of strawberry in southeast Queensland," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 23-32.
- McCown, R. L., 2002. "Locating agricultural decision support systems in the troubled past and socio-technical complexity of `models for management'," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 11-25, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.