Comparative advantage of organic wheat production in the Western Cape
In a context in which the framework of agricultural policy and business is changing radically the objective of the government and farmers should be to support the development of systems that look likely to be winners in the future. As a result this paper uses a Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) to determine whether wheat production would have a comparative advantage if produced under organic practices. The paper starts by analysing the comparative advantage of wheat under conventional practices, and later contrasts conventional with organic practices. The results of the analyses mainly indicate a comparative advantage for wheat grown under organic practices especially when the social cost benefit ratio (SCB) is incorporated into the analyses. This is because the domestic resource cost (DRC) criterion that is used by the PAM is confirmed to understate the social profitability of systems that use domestic factors intensively like organic wheat systems and favours systems that use less of these factors like conventional systems. The results also show the existence of distortions in the market even if wheat were to be produced under organic practises, although these are shown to be less than for wheat produced under conventional practices.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Johann Kirsten & Julian May & Sheryl Hendriks & Charles L. Machethe & Cecelia Punt & Mike Lyne, 2007.
Chapters,in: Beyond Food Production, chapter 8
Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Nick Vink & Gavin Williams & Johann Kirsten, 2004. "South Africa," Chapters,in: The World's Wine Markets, chapter 12 Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Kirsten, Johann F. & Ohene-Anyang, E. & van Rooyen, Johan, 1998. "An Analysis Of The Comparative Advantage And Policy Incentives Of Commercial Wheat Production In South Africa," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 37(4), December. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:9506. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.