IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uerstb/157047.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Equilibrium Effects of Agricultural Technology Adoption: The Case of Induced Output Price Changes

Author

Listed:
  • Caswell, Margriet F.
  • Shoemaker, Robbin A.

Abstract

Pollution from agricultural activity depends on the agricultural practices or technologies that farmers employ. Adoption of less polluting practices can be induced by a variety of policy instruments. Cost-$haring by the government to reduce the costs of technology adoption and/or implementation for producers is an instrument widely used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This report examines the problem of designing economically efficient cost-sharing programs. The adoption decision for a farm is based on a comparison of the relative profitability of the existing technology and a new, less polluting one where the profitability of each technology depends on land quality. The problem for government is to determine the optimal subsidy rates that will induce a level of adoption sufficient to achieve some exogenous pollution goal. A benchmark (or first best) solution to the pollution problem serves as a reference against which to compare the optima! cost-sharing policy with imperfect targeting of land. The authors also examine the importance of specifying the land on which a technology should be u~ed and of varying subsidy rates across inputs.

Suggested Citation

  • Caswell, Margriet F. & Shoemaker, Robbin A., 1993. "Equilibrium Effects of Agricultural Technology Adoption: The Case of Induced Output Price Changes," Technical Bulletins 157047, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uerstb:157047
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.157047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/157047/files/tb1823.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/157047/files/tb1823.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.157047?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. Reilly, John M., 1988. "Cost-reducing and output-enhancing technologies," Technical Bulletins 312287, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Margriet F. Caswell & David Zilberman, 1986. "The Effects of Well Depth and Land Quality on the Choice of Irrigation Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(4), pages 798-811.
    3. Thirtle, Colin G. & Ruttan, Vernon W., 1986. "The Role of Demand and Supply in the Generation and Diffusion of Technical Change," Bulletins 7522, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    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. Shoemaker, Robbin A., 1993. "Model of Participation in U.S. Farm Programs," Technical Bulletins 157043, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    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. Chatterjee, Diti & Dinar, Ariel & González-Rivera, Gloria, 2019. "Impact of Agricultural Extension on Irrigated Agriculture Production and Water Use in California," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2019.
    2. Boyer, Christopher N. & Larson, James A. & Roberts, Roland K. & McClure, Angela T. & Tyler, Donald D., 2014. "The impact of field size and energy cost on the profitability of supplemental corn irrigation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 61-69.
    3. Alain Ayong Le Kama & Agnès Tomini, 2012. "Water Conservation versus Soil Salinity Control," Working Papers hal-04141151, HAL.
    4. Khanna, Madhu & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Incentives, precision technology and environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 25-43, October.
    5. Fishman, Ram & Giné, Xavier & Jacoby, Hanan G., 2023. "Efficient irrigation and water conservation: Evidence from South India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    6. Uri Shani & Yacov Tsur & Amos Zemel & David Zilberman, 2009. "Irrigation production functions with water‐capital substitution," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(1), pages 55-66, January.
    7. Louis Sears & Joseph Caparelli & Clouse Lee & Devon Pan & Gillian Strandberg & Linh Vuu & C. -Y. Cynthia Lin Lawell, 2018. "Jevons’ Paradox and Efficient Irrigation Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.
    8. Zhang, Biao & Fu, Zetian & Wang, Jieqiong & Zhang, Lingxian, 2019. "Farmers’ adoption of water-saving irrigation technology alleviates water scarcity in metropolis suburbs: A case study of Beijing, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 349-357.
    9. C. Thirtle & P. Bottomley, 1992. "Total Factor Productivity In Uk Agriculture, 1967‐90," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 381-400, September.
    10. Nicolas E. Quintana Ashwell & Jeffrey M. Peterson, 2016. "The Impact of Irrigation Capital Subsidies on Common-Pool Groundwater Use and Depletion: Results for Western Kansas," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(03), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Koundouri, Phoebe & Nauges, Céline & Tzouvelekas, Vangelis, 2009. "The Effect of Production Uncertainty and Information Dissemination of the Diffusion of Irrigation Technologies," TSE Working Papers 09-032, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    12. Khanna, Madhu, 2021. "Digital Transformation for a Sustainable Agriculture: Opportunities and Challenges," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315052, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. de Fraiture, Charlotte & Perry, C. J., 2007. "Why is agricultural water demand unresponsive at low price ranges?," IWMI Books, Reports H040602, International Water Management Institute.
    14. Margarita Genius & Phoebe Koundouri & Céline Nauges & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2014. "Information Transmission in Irrigation Technology Adoption and Diffusion: Social Learning, Extension Services, and Spatial Effects," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(1), pages 328-344.
    15. Linda Steinhübel & Johannes Wegmann & Oliver Mußhoff, 2020. "Digging deep and running dry—the adoption of borewell technology in the face of climate change and urbanization," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 685-706, September.
    16. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    17. Luwen Cui & Weiwei Wang, 2023. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Digital Technology by Farmers in China: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-14, October.
    18. Farhed Shah & David Zilberman & Erik Lichtenberg, 1995. "Optimal combination of pollution prevention and abatement policies: The case of agricultural drainage," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(1), pages 29-49, January.
    19. Gregory Amacher & Jeffrey Alwang, 2004. "Productivity and Land Enhancing Technologies in Northern Ethiopia: Health, Public Investments, and Sequential Adoption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 321-331.
    20. Blend Frangu & Jennie Sheerin Popp & Michael Thomsen & Arben Musliu, 2018. "Evaluating Greenhouse Tomato and Pepper Input Efficiency Use in Kosovo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.

    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:uerstb:157047. 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/ersgvus.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.