Consequences of Deregulation in the Victorian Egg Industry
There has been much discussion in recent times of alternative proposals for reform of egg industry regulations. This paper aims to describe, analyse and measure the effects of possible changes to egg industry regulations in Victoria. The conclusion is that there are significant potential net benefits to Victorians from eliminating hen quotas and arrangements for fixing egg prices. The significant losses to each of a small number of producers would be more than offset by the small benefits to each of a large number of consumers. The majority of these net benefits could be obtained, alternatively, by allowing free transferability of quota rather than eliminating quota; but then the benefits would all accrue to quota owners.
Volume (Year): 54 (1986)
Issue (Month): 01 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Michele M. Veeman, 1982. "Social Costs of Supply-Restricting Marketing Boards," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 30(1), pages 21-36, 03.
- Fisher, Brian S., 1985. "Frontiers in Agricultural Policy Research," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(02), August.
- Beck, Anthony C., 1974. "The Social Cost On Production Control In The Australian Egg Industry," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(04), December.
- Alston, Julian M., 1981. "A Note on the Effects of Non-Transferable Quotas on Supply Functions," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(03), December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:remaae:12420. 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.