IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saea15/196887.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Producer Compensation under Government Programs: What Should the Magnitude Be?

Author

Listed:
  • Haynes, Dwayne J.
  • Schmitz, Andrew
  • Schmitz, Troy G.

Abstract

When policies are changed it is not uncommon for losers to be compensated. Economic theory and quantitative analysis are useful in determining the efficiency gains/losses associated with a policy change, but are little help in deciding what the approach to compensation should be. The amount of compensation varies, depending on, in part, the political clout of the parties being negatively affected by a policy change—compensation is what politicians and the sector demanding compensation can agree on. We formulate four approaches to producer compensation within the context of the Ontario Tobacco Transition Program where producers would have suffered losses in the absence of compensation. The approaches range from providing zero-compensation to providing compensation based on the entire value of the tobacco quota. The Canadian government chose to compensate producers for the termination of the tobacco quota program based on an approach that far exceeded other possible compensation approaches. Importantly, efficiency is not affected by the compensation approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Haynes, Dwayne J. & Schmitz, Andrew & Schmitz, Troy G., 2015. "Producer Compensation under Government Programs: What Should the Magnitude Be?," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196887, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea15:196887
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.196887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/196887/files/Producer%20Rights%20to%20Compensation_Haynes%20Schmitz%20and%20Schmitz_SAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.196887?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schmitz, Andrew & Haynes, Dwayne J. & Schmitz, Troy G., 2013. "Benefit-cost analysis: government compensation vs. consumer tax model," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 375-389, December.
    2. Schmitz, Andrew & Schmitz, Troy G., 2010. "Benefit-Cost Analysis: Distributional Considerations under Producer Quota Buyouts," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Troy G. Schmitz & Tim Highmoor & Andrew Schmitz, 2002. "Termination of the WGTA: An Examination of Factor Market Distortions, Input Subsidies anc Compensation," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(3), pages 333-347, November.
    4. Rucker, Randal R & Thurman, Walter N & Sumner, Daniel A, 1995. "Restricting the Market for Quota: An Analysis of Tobacco Production Rights with Corroboration from Congressional Testimony," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(1), pages 142-175, February.
    5. Schmitz Andrew & Schmitz Troy G., 2010. "Benefit-Cost Analysis: Distributional Considerations under Producer Quota Buyouts," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Schmitz, Andrew & Schmitz, Troy G., 2010. "Benefit-Cost Analysis: Distributional Considerations under Producer Quota Buyouts," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(01), pages 1-15, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Andrew Schmitz & Dwayne J. Haynes & Troy G. Schmitz, 2016. "Alternative Approaches to Compensation and Producer Rights," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(3), pages 439-454, September.
    2. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Brennan A. McLachlan & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2022. "Reforming Canada's dairy supply management scheme and the consequences for international trade," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(1), pages 21-39, March.
    4. Schmitz, Troy G. & Schmitz, Andrew, 2012. "The Complexities of the Interface between Agricultural Policy and Trade," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, February.
    5. Schmitz Andrew & Haynes Dwayne J. & Schmitz Troy G., 2013. "Benefit-cost analysis: government compensation vs. consumer tax model," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 375-389, December.
    6. G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2017. "The Welfare Economics of Dismantling Dairy Quota in a Confederation of States," Working Papers 2017-04, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    7. G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2020. "Reforming Canada's Dairy Sector: USMCA and the Issue of Compensation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 542-558, September.
    8. Just, David R. & Kropp, Jaclyn D., 2009. "Production Incentives from Static Decoupling: Entry, Exit and Use Exclusion Restrictions," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49158, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. W. Mark Brown & Shon M. Ferguson & Crina Viju‐Miljusevic, 2020. "Farm Size, Technology Adoption and Agricultural Trade Reform: Evidence from Canada," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 676-697, September.
    10. Nancy H. Chau & Harry de Gorter, 2005. "Disentangling the Consequences of Direct Payment Schemes in Agriculture on Fixed Costs, Exit Decisions, and Output," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1174-1181.
    11. Pavel Ciaian & d’Artis Kancs & Johan Swinnen, 2010. "EU Land Markets and the Common Agricultural Policy," Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Economics and Econometrics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-31.
    12. Corbett A. Grainger & Christopher Costello, 2016. "Distributional Effects of the Transition to Property Rights for a Common-Pool Resource," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 1-26.
    13. Brown, A. Blake & Martin, Laura L., 1996. "Price Versus Quota Reductions: U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Policy," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-8, December.
    14. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Jo Swinnen, 2008. "Static and Dynamic Distributional Effects of Decoupled Payments," Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Economics and Econometrics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 20-47.
    15. Brown, Mark & Ferguson, Shon M. & Viju, Crina, 2017. "Agricultural Trade Reform, Reallocation and Technical Change: Evidence from the Canadian Prairies," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 263492, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Shon M. Ferguson & M. Rose Olfert, 2016. "Competitive Pressure and Technology Adoption: Evidence from a Policy Reform in Western Canada," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 422-446.
    17. Jaclyn D. Kropp & Ani L. Katchova, 2011. "The effects of direct payments on liquidity and repayment capacity of beginning farmers," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 71(3), pages 347-365, November.
    18. Andrew Schmitz, 2008. "Canadian Agricultural Programs and Policy in Transition," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 371-391, December.
    19. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Guyomard, Herve & Requillart, Vincent, 2001. "On inefficiencies in the European sugar regime," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 659-667, August.
    20. Benjamin Bridgman & Shi Qi & James A. Schmitz, 2015. "Cartels Destroy Productivity: Evidence from the New Deal Sugar Manufacturing Cartel, 1934-74," Staff Report 519, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

    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:ags:saea15:196887. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.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.