IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/31153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Farmers' Attitudes Toward Risk Using The "Closing-In" Method

Author

Listed:
  • Bard, Sharon K.
  • Barry, Peter J.

Abstract

The 1996 Farm Bill and low commodity prices have regenerated interest in the impact of risk and farmers' risk attitudes on production agriculture. Previous research has used expected utility theory (EUT) and direct elicitation of utility functions (DEU) for eliciting risk attitudes. To overcome the criticism of EUT and DEU, a recently developed technique called the "closing in" method is adapted for eliciting farmers' risk attitudes. This method is applied to Illinois farmers by using a computerized decision procedure, and is validated by comparing the results to the farmers' self-assessment of their risk attitudes and score to a risk attitudinal scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Bard, Sharon K. & Barry, Peter J., 2001. "Assessing Farmers' Attitudes Toward Risk Using The "Closing-In" Method," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-13, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:31153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/31153/files/26010248.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holt, Matthew T. & Moschini, GianCarlo, 1992. "Alternative Measures Of Risk In Commodity Supply Models: An Analysis Of Sow Farrowing Decisions In The United States," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(01), July.
    2. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    3. Schurle, Bryan W. & Tierney, William I., Jr., 1990. "A Comparison of Risk Preference Measurements with Implications for Extension Programming," Staff Papers 118185, Kansas State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    5. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    6. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Elsevier.
    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. Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2005. "Assessing farmers' risk attitudes based on economic, social, personal, and environmental sources of risk: evidence from Sweden," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19361, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Ahearn, Mary Clare & Collender, Robert N. & Diao, Xinshen & Harrington, David H. & Hoppe, Robert A. & Korb, Penelope J. & Makki, Shiva S. & Morehart, Mitchell J. & Roberts, Michael J. & Roe, Terry L. , 2004. "Decoupled Payments In A Changing Policy Setting," Agricultural Economics Reports 33981, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Fausti, Scott W. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2006. "Measuring risk attitude of agricultural producers using a mail survey: how consistent are the methods?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(2), June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk and Uncertainty;

    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:ags:jlaare:31153. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.