IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jproda/v46y2016i2d10.1007_s11123-016-0483-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of production risks in the state-contingent framework: application to balanced panel data

Author

Listed:
  • Kota Minegishi

    (University of Minnesota)

Abstract

In a balanced panel data setting, this article proposes an empirical application of the state-contingent (SC) framework for production uncertainty. The SC approach (e.g., Chambers and Quiggin 2000) casts production decisions under uncertainty as the decision to select a portfolio of Arrow-Debreu SC outputs, scheduled to be delivered in the contingent states of nature. Under some stationarity assumptions on the SC decisions (i.e., no technical change, time-invariant states of nature, time-invariant SC portfolio decisions) and regularity assumptions on the data generating process (i.e., cross-sectionally homogeneous state realizations), SC technology can be estimated from balanced panel data that are framed as cross-sectional data of partially-revealed SC portfolio decisions. This allows one to simulate an optimal SC portfolio, determined by the interaction between the estimated SC technology and given risk preferences. In the application to Maryland dairy production data, the stochastic technologies of confinement and intensive-grazing dairy systems are compared. Of the two time intervals (years 2000–2004 and ye0ars 2006–2009) separately analyzed, the optimal production decision has generally become riskier for the confinement system and less risky for the grazing system. These contrasting trends appear directly related to the volatile milk prices, feed cost hikes, and increasing organic milk production during 2006–2009. The risk associated with the optimal portfolio is substantially lower under the SC analysis compared to a typical residual-as-uncertainty approach, suggesting that the typical approach may overstate the risk due to uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Kota Minegishi, 2016. "Comparison of production risks in the state-contingent framework: application to balanced panel data," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 121-138, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jproda:v:46:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11123-016-0483-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11123-016-0483-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11123-016-0483-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11123-016-0483-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Serra, Teresa & Chambers, Robert G. & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2014. "Measuring technical and environmental efficiency in a state-contingent technology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 706-717.
    2. Just, Richard E. & Pope, Rulon D., 1978. "Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 67-86, February.
    3. Jean-Paul Chavas, 2008. "A Cost Approach to Economic Analysis Under State-Contingent Production Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 435-466.
    4. Fried, Harold O. & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Shelton S. (ed.), 1993. "The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195072181.
    5. Khanal, Aditya R. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & MacDonald, James M., 2010. "Adoption of Technology, Management Practices, and Production Systems in U.S. Milk Production," 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56496, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    7. Charles I. Jones, 2005. "The Shape of Production Functions and the Direction of Technical Change," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 517-549.
    8. Léopold Simar & Paul Wilson, 2000. "Statistical Inference in Nonparametric Frontier Models: The State of the Art," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 49-78, January.
    9. Sriram Shankar & John Quiggin, 2013. "Production under uncertainty: a simulation study," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 207-215, June.
    10. Garry F. Barrett & Stephen G. Donald, 2003. "Consistent Tests for Stochastic Dominance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 71-104, January.
    11. John K. Galbraith & John D. Black, 1938. "The Maintenance of Agricultural Production During Depression: The Explanations Reviewed," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(3), pages 305-305.
    12. C. J. O'Donnell & W. E. Griffiths, 2006. "Estimating State-Contingent Production Frontiers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 249-266.
    13. Robert G. Chambers & Margarita Genius & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2012. "A Supply-Response Model Under Invariant Risk Preferences," Working Papers 1209, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    14. Quiggin, John & Chambers, R.G.Robert G., 2004. "Invariant risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 96-118, July.
    15. Chambers,Robert G. & Quiggin,John, 2000. "Uncertainty, Production, Choice, and Agency," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521622448.
    16. Clark Edwards, 1959. "Resource Fixity and Farm Organization," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 41(4), pages 747-759.
    17. Fuss, Melvyn, 1978. "Factor Substitution in Electricity Generation: A Test of the Putty-Clay Hypothesis," Histoy of Economic Thought Chapters, in: Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.),Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, volume 2, chapter 7, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
    18. McFadden, Daniel, 1978. "Cost, Revenue, and Profit Functions," Histoy of Economic Thought Chapters, in: Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.),Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, volume 1, chapter 1, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
    19. Robert G. Chambers & John Quiggin, 2002. "The State-Contingent Properties of Stochastic Production Functions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 513-526.
    20. Samuel S. Kortum, 1997. "Research, Patenting, and Technological Change," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(6), pages 1389-1420, November.
    21. Greene, William H., 1980. "Maximum likelihood estimation of econometric frontier functions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 27-56, May.
    22. Robert G. Chambers & Utpal Vasavada, 1983. "Testing Asset Fixity for U.S. Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(4), pages 761-769.
    23. H. S. Houthakker, 1955. "The Pareto Distribution and the Cobb-Douglas Production Function in Activity Analysis," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 23(1), pages 27-31.
    24. Yaari, Menahem E., 1969. "Some remarks on measures of risk aversion and on their uses," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 315-329, October.
    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. Parmeter, Christopher F., 2021. "Is it MOLS or COLS?," Efficiency Series Papers 2021/04, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).

    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. Serra, Teresa & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2014. "Measuring the impacts of production risk on technical efficiency: A state-contingent conditional order-m approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(1), pages 237-242.
    2. Robert Chambers & Teresa Serra & Spiro Stefanou, 2015. "Using ex ante output elicitation to model state-contingent technologies," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 75-83, February.
    3. Shankar, Sriram, 2012. "Production economics in the presence of risk," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(4), pages 1-24, December.
    4. Orea, Luis, 2019. "The Econometric Measurement of Firms’ Efficiency," Efficiency Series Papers 2019/02, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).
    5. John Quiggin & Robert G. Chambers, 2006. "The state-contingent approach to production under uncertainty ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(2), pages 153-169, June.
    6. Pedro Macedo & Elvira Silva & Manuel Scotto, 2014. "Technical efficiency with state-contingent production frontiers using maximum entropy estimators," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 131-140, February.
    7. Adamson, David, 2010. "Climate change, Irrigation and Pests: Examining Heliothis in the Murray Darling Basin," Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers 149879, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    8. Yin, Pengzhen & Sun, Jiasen & Chu, Junfei & Liang, Liang, 2016. "Evaluating the environmental efficiency of a two-stage system with undesired outputs by a DEA approach: An interest preference perspectiveAuthor-Name: Wu, Jie," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 1047-1062.
    9. Theodoros Skevas & Teresa Serra, 2016. "The role of pest pressure in technical and environmental inefficiency analysis of Dutch arable farms: an event-specific data envelopment approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 139-153, December.
    10. Just, Richard E. & Just, David R., 2011. "Global identification of risk preferences with revealed preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 6-17, May.
    11. Rasmussen, Svend, 2003. "Criteria for optimal production under uncertainty. The state-contingent approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1-30.
    12. John Quiggin, 2022. "Production under uncertainty and choice under uncertainty in the emergence of generalized expected utility theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 717-729, April.
    13. Sriram Shankar & John Quiggin, 2013. "Production under uncertainty: a simulation study," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 207-215, June.
    14. Jakub Growiec, 2008. "A new class of production functions and an argument against purely labor‐augmenting technical change," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 4(4), pages 483-502, December.
    15. Huettel, Silke & Narayana, Rashmi & Odening, Martin, 2011. "Measuring dynamic efficiency under uncertainty," Structural Change in Agriculture/Strukturwandel im Agrarsektor (SiAg) Working Papers 129062, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    16. Uras, R.B. & Wang, P., 2014. "Techniques Choice, Misallocation and Total Factor Productivity," Other publications TiSEM 5a3d8436-c929-49f3-a990-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Shankar, Sriram, 2015. "Efficiency analysis under uncertainty: a simulation study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    18. Serra, Teresa & Chambers, Robert G. & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2014. "Measuring technical and environmental efficiency in a state-contingent technology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 706-717.
    19. Taylan G. Topcu & Konstantinos Triantis, 2022. "An ex-ante DEA method for representing contextual uncertainties and stakeholder risk preferences," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 309(1), pages 395-423, February.
    20. Céline Nauges & Christopher J. O'Donnell & John Quiggin, 2011. "Uncertainty and technical efficiency in Finnish agriculture: a state-contingent approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(4), pages 449-467, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    State contingent production; Uncertainty; Panel data analysis; Data envelopment analysis; Agricultural economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory

    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:kap:jproda:v:46:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11123-016-0483-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.