IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v77y1995i2p243-250..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the Comparative Advantage of Agricultural Activities: Domestic Resource Costs and the Social Cost-Benefit Ratio

Author

Listed:
  • William A. Masters
  • Alex Winter-Nelson

Abstract

The Domestic Resource Cost (DRC) indicator is widely used in developing countries to measure comparative advantage and guide policy reforms. In this paper we demonstrate that the DRC formula is biased against activities that rely heavily on domestic factors (land and labor), and that a simple Social Cost-Benefit (SCB) ratio is a generally superior measure of social profitability. The SCB uses the same data as the DRC in a formula which does not distort profitability rankings. The policy significance of improved measurement is shown using data from Kenya, where the DRC overstates the relative profitability of activities using large amounts of tradable inputs.

Suggested Citation

  • William A. Masters & Alex Winter-Nelson, 1995. "Measuring the Comparative Advantage of Agricultural Activities: Domestic Resource Costs and the Social Cost-Benefit Ratio," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 243-250.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:77:y:1995:i:2:p:243-250.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1243534
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    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:oup:ajagec:v:77:y:1995:i:2:p:243-250.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.