IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/15099.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect Of Risk And Autonomy On Independent Hog Producers' Contracting Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Gillespie, Jeffrey M.
  • Eidman, Vernon R.

Abstract

The introduction of vertical coordination in the hog industry has provided producers with new business arrangements for raising hogs. While some researchers have elicited utility functions for hog producers on the basis of income risk, none have addressed autonomy, a factor which appears to be important in business arrangement selection for independent family hog operations. In this study, a method is developed for eliciting a multi-attribute function with attributes of income and autonomy. Utility functions are elicited for a group of Minnesota farrow-to-finish hog producers. For these producers, autonomy dominated risk as the most important attribute in business arrangement selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Eidman, Vernon R., 1998. "The Effect Of Risk And Autonomy On Independent Hog Producers' Contracting Decisions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(01), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:15099
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.15099
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/15099/files/30010175.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.15099?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    2. Joan Fulton & Jeffrey Gillespie, 1995. "Emerging Business Organizations in a Rapidly Changing Pork Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(5), pages 1219-1224.
    3. repec:ags:agsaem:288652 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. John C. Foltz & John G. Lee & Marshall A. Martin & Paul V. Preckel, 1995. "Multiattribute Assessment of Alternative Cropping Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 408-420.
    5. R. R. Officer & A. N. Halter, 1968. "Utility Analysis in a Practical Setting," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 50(2), pages 257-277.
    6. Lawrence, John D. & Kaylen, Michael S., 1990. "Risk Management For Livestock Producers: Hedging And Contract Production," Staff Papers 13496, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    7. Kliebenstein, James & Hillburn, Chris, 1991. "Comparing Pork Production Contracts," ISU General Staff Papers 199105010700001221, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    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. Davis, Christopher & Dimitri, Carolyn & Nehring, Richard & Collins, LaPorchia & Haley, Mildred & Ha, Kim & Gillespie, Jeffrey, . "U.S. Hog Production: Rising Output and Changing Trends in Productivity Growth," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 2022(Economic ).
    2. Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Davis, Christopher G. & Rahelizatovo, Noro C., 2004. "An Evaluation of U.S. Hog Producer Preferences Toward Autonomy," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Chris Boessen & Joe Parcell & Jason Franken & John Lawrence & Ron Plain & Glenn Grimes, 2010. "Producer perceptions and attitudes toward hog marketing contracts," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 405-424.
    4. Davis, Christopher G. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2004. "Attitudes and Characteristics of U.S. Hog Producers Under Alternative Business Arrangements," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2004, pages 1-6.
    5. Adhikari, Bishwa B. & Harsh, Stephen B. & Cheney, Laura Martin, 2003. "Factors Affecting Regional Shifts Of U.S Pork Production," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22200, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Iain Fraser, 2005. "Microeconometric analysis of wine grape supply contracts in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 23-46, March.
    7. Goodrich, Brittney K. & Goodhue, Rachael E., 2020. "Are All Colonies Created Equal? The Role of Honey Bee Colony Strength in Almond Pollination Contracts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    8. Granoszewski, K. & Spiller, A., . "Vertragliche Zusammenarbeit bei der energetischen Biomasselieferung: Einstellungen und Bindungsbereitschaften von deutschen Landwirten," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49.
    9. Granoszewski, Karol & Spiller, Achim, 2013. "Langfristige Rohstoffsicherung in der Supply Chain Biogas: Status Quo und Potenziale vertraglicher Zusammenarbeit," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260820, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    10. Ahn, Kyeong Ah & Choi, Young Chan, 2016. "Role of farmer’s attitude to risk in the relationship between trust and contract decisions: The fresh apple market in South Korea," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235762, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Christopher G. Davis & Jeffrey M. Gillespie, 2007. "Factors Affecting the Selection of Business Arrangements by U.S. Hog Farmers," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 331-348.
    12. Hudson Darren & Lusk Jayson, 2004. "Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, February.
    13. Sauthoff, Saramena & Anastassiadis, Friederike & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Analyzing farmers' preferences for substrate supply contracts for sugar beets," DARE Discussion Papers 1509, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    14. Shang, Max Zongyuan & McEwan, Ken, "undated". "The Boundary of the Farm: Homegrown versus Purchased Feed on Ontario Swine Farms," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 264191, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    15. Yang, Xi & Paulson, Nicholas D. & Khanna, Madhu, 2012. "Optimal Contracts to Induce Biomass Production under Risk," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124699, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Key, Nigel D. & McBride, William D., 2001. "Does Contracting Raise Farm Productivity? The Impact Of Production Contracts On Hog Farm Performance," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20721, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Hudson, Darren, 2001. "Cross-Commodity Perspective On Contracting: Evidence From Mississippi," Research Reports 15800, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    18. McBride, William D. & Key, Nigel D., 2001. "Factors Affecting Contractor And Grower Success In Hog Contracting," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20552, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Cakir, Metin & Balagtas, Joseph Valdes & Wu, Steven Y., 2009. "Allocation of Authority in Agricultural Production Contracts," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49577, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Garcia, Philip & Nelson, Carl H., 2003. "Engaging Students In Research: The Use Of Structured Professional Dialogue," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21894, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    21. Key, Nigel D., 2002. "How Much Do Farmers Value Their Independence? Estimating The Risk And Autonomy Premia Associated With Production Contracts," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19688, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    22. Fausti, Scott W. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2000. "A Comparative Analysis Of Risk Preference Elicitation Procedures Using Mail Survey Results," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36469, Western Agricultural Economics Association.

    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. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    2. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    3. Epstein, Larry G. & Zin, Stanley E., 2001. "The independence axiom and asset returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 537-572, December.
    4. Gérard Colson, 1993. "Prenons-nous assez de risque dans les théories du risque?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 111-141.
    5. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    6. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    7. King, Robert P. & Robison, Lindon J., "undated". "Implementing Stochastic Dominance With Respect To A Function," Risk Analysis in Agriculture: Research and Educational Developments, January 16-18, 1980, Tucson, Arizona 271563, Regional Research Projects > W-149: An Economic Evaluation of Managing Market Risks in Agriculture.
    8. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges, 1988. "Risk Perception, Learning, and Individual Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1113-1117.
    9. Biais, Bruno & Mariotti, Thomas & Moinas, Sophie & Pouget, Sébastien, 2017. "Asset Pricing and Risk Sharing in Complete Markets: An Experimental Investigation," TSE Working Papers 17-798, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Nov 2025.
    10. Thierry Chauveau & Nicolas Nalpas, 1999. "Risk Weighted Utility Theory as a Solution to the Equity Premium Puzzle," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla99020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    11. Lisa L. Posey & Vickie Bajtelsmit, 2017. "Insurance and Endogenous Bankruptcy Risk: When is it Rational to Choose Gambling, Insurance, and Potential Bankruptcy?," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 15-40, March.
    12. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    13. Loehman, Edna, 1985. "Discussion: Risk Concepts Revisited: A Mathematical Approach," Regional Research Projects > 1985: S-180 Annual Meeting, March 24-27, 1985, Charleston, South Carolina 271792, Regional Research Projects > S-180: An Economic Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Production Firms.
    14. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    15. Lefranc, Arnaud & Pistolesi, Nicolas & Trannoy, Alain, 2009. "Equality of opportunity and luck: Definitions and testable conditions, with an application to income in France," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(11-12), pages 1189-1207, December.
    16. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    17. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    18. Marc Fleurbaey, 2010. "Assessing Risky Social Situations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 649-680, August.
    19. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    20. Yves Alarie, 2000. "L’importance de la procédure dans les choix de loteries," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 76(3), pages 321-340.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:joaaec:15099. 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.