IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bjafio/v16y2018i1p11n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative Policy Responses to Increased Use of Formula Pricing

Author

Listed:
  • Brorsen B. Wade

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK74078-6026, USA)

  • Fain James R.

    (Department of Economics and Legal Studies in Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-4011, USA)

  • Maples Joshua G.

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA)

Abstract

This article determines the potential effects of policies to address concerns about lower producer prices due to increased use of marketing agreements. Policies considered are banning alternative marketing agreements, compensating producers who sell on the cash market, and restricting the quantity of marketing agreements. We use an agent-based model in a common-value auction framework to analyze these policies. The common-value auction framework is used because it closely resembles how livestock are actually purchased. The agent-based model is used to find the common-value auction equilibrium. A ban on marketing agreements reduces social welfare and the other policy interventions have little effect on prices. Past theoretical studies predict marketing agreements will cause large reductions in prices paid to producers. Conversely, empirical studies show slight effects. This article offers an alternative theory that more closely matches livestock markets and our results reduce the gap between theoretical and empirical research. The common-value auction model predicts negative effects on producer prices close to those found in past empirical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Brorsen B. Wade & Fain James R. & Maples Joshua G., 2018. "Alternative Policy Responses to Increased Use of Formula Pricing," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-11, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bjafio:v:16:y:2018:i:1:p:11:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/jafio-2017-0008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0008
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jafio-2017-0008?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tian Xia & Richard J. Sexton, 2004. "The Competitive Implications of Top-of-the-Market and Related Contract-Pricing Clauses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 124-138.
    2. Martin Feldstein, 1999. "Tax Avoidance And The Deadweight Loss Of The Income Tax," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(4), pages 674-680, November.
    3. Atakelty Hailu & Sophie Thoyer, 2010. "What Format for Multi-Unit Multiple-Bid Auctions?," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 189-209, March.
    4. Muth, Mary K. & Liu, Yanyan & Koontz, Stephen R. & Lawrence, John D., 2008. "Differences in Prices and Price Risk Across Alternative Marketing Arrangements Used in the Fed Cattle Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Tong Zhang & B. Wade Brorsen, 2010. "The Long-Run and Short-Run Impact of Captive Supplies on the Spot Market Price: An Agent-Based Artificial Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1181-1194.
    6. Meyer, Donald J, 1988. "Competition and Bidding Behavior: Some Evidence from the Rice Market," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(1), pages 123-132, January.
    7. Christopher Boyer & B. Brorsen & Tong Zhang, 2014. "Common-value auction versus posted-price selling: an agent-based model approach," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 9(1), pages 129-149, April.
    8. Ward, Clement E., 2002. "A Review of Causes for and Consequences of Economic Concentration in the U.S. Meatpacking Industry," CAFRI: Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, issue 3, pages 1-28, January.
    9. Koontz Stephen R & Ward Clement E, 2011. "Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Related Market Information Research," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-33, July.
    10. Tesfatsion, Leigh, 2001. "Introduction to the special issue on agent-based computational economics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(3-4), pages 281-293, March.
    11. Crespi, John M. & Xia, Tian, 2015. "A Note on First-Price Sealed-Bid Cattle Auctions in the Presence of Captive Supplies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 340-345, December.
    12. John M. Crespi & Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton, 2012. "Competition in U.S. Farm Product Markets: Do Long-Run Incentives Trump Short-Run Market Power?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 34(4), pages 669-695.
    13. Zhang, Mingxia & Sexton, Richard J., 2000. "Captive Supplies And The Cash Market Price: A Spatial Markets Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-21, July.
    14. Schroeder, Ted & Jones, Rodney & Mintert, James & Barkley, Andrew, 1991. "The Impacts of Captive Supplies on the Fed Cattle Industry," Staff Papers 232404, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    15. Ji, In Bae & Chung, Chanjin, 2012. "Causality Between Captive Supplies and Cash Market Prices in the U.S. Cattle Procurement Market," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Lusk, Jayson L. & Anderson, John D., 2004. "Effects of Country-of-Origin Labeling on Meat Producers and Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Stephen R. Koontz, 1999. "Marketing Agreement Impacts in an Experimental Market for Fed Cattle," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(2), pages 347-358.
    18. John R. Schroeter & Azzeddine Azzam, 2003. "Captive supplies and the spot market price of fed cattle: The plant-level relationship," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 489-504.
    19. Azzeddine Azzam, 2003. "Market Transparency and Market Structure: The Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 387-395.
    20. Eric Guerci & Stefano Ivaldi & Silvano Cincotti, 2008. "Learning Agents in an Artificial Power Exchange: Tacit Collusion, Market Power and Efficiency of Two Double-auction Mechanisms," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 32(1), pages 73-98, September.
    21. Christopher N. Boyer & B. Wade Brorsen, 2013. "Changes in Beef Packers' Market Power after the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act: An Agent-based Auction," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(4), pages 859-876.
    22. Catherine J. Morrison Paul, 2001. "Market and Cost Structure in the U.S. Beef Packing Industry: A Plant-Level Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 64-76.
    23. John Crespi & Richard Sexton, 2005. "A Multinomial Logit Framework to Estimate Bid Shading in Procurement Auctions: Application to Cattle Sales in the Texas Panhandle," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 27(3), pages 253-278, November.
    24. Cordero Salas, Paula, 2016. "Relational Contracts and Product Quality: The Effect of Bargaining Power on Efficiency and Distribution," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-19.
    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. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2019. "Technology and evolving supply chains in the beef and pork industries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 346-354.

    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. Christopher Boyer & B. Brorsen, 2014. "Implications of a Reserve Price in an Agent-Based Common-Value Auction," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 43(1), pages 33-51, January.
    2. Tian Xia & John M. Crespi & Kevin C. Dhuyvetter, 2019. "Could packers manipulate spot markets by tying contracts to futures prices? And do they?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 85-102, March.
    3. Christopher N. Boyer & Charles C. Martinez & Joshua G. Maples & Justin Benavidez, 2023. "Price ranges from fed cattle negotiated cash sales," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1659-1671, September.
    4. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2019. "Technology and evolving supply chains in the beef and pork industries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 346-354.
    5. McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Saitone, Tina L. & Schaefer, K Aleks, 2020. "Cattle Cycle Dynamics in a Modern Agricultural Market: Competition in Holstein Cattle Procurement," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304380, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Joseph, Kishore & Garcia, Philip & Peterson, Paul E., 2016. "Does the Boxed Beef Price Inform the Live Cattle Futures Price?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236166, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Christopher C. Pudenz & Lee L. Schulz, 2022. "Multi-plant Coordination in the US Beef Packing Industry," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp630, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    8. Adjemian, Michael & Brorsen, B. Wade & Hahn, William & Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J., 2016. "Thinning Markets in U.S. Agriculture," Economic Information Bulletin 232928, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Lee, Yoonsuk & Ward, Clement E. & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2010. "Relationships among Prices across Alternative Marketing Arrangements for Fed Cattle and Hogs," 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56282, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Melissa G.S. McKendree & Tina L. Saitone & K. Aleks Schaefer, 2021. "Oligopsonistic Input Substitution in a Thin Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1414-1432, August.
    11. Mérel, Pierre & Sexton, Richard J., 2017. "Buyer power with atomistic upstream entry: Can downstream consolidation increase production and welfare?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 259-293.
    12. Stephen R. Koontz & John D. Lawrence, 2010. "Impacts of alternative marketing agreement cattle procurement on packer costs, gross margins, and profits: evidence from plant-level profit and loss data," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 1-24.
    13. Raszap Skorbiansky, Sharon & Adjemian, Michael K. & Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J., 2017. "Price Determination and Margin Volatility in Thinly Traded Commodity Markets: An Application to Major U.S. Field Crops," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258577, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Hildebrand, Kayla & Chung, Chinjin, 2023. "Selectivity Bias and Cattle Price in the Cattle Procurement Market," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 48(3), September.
    15. Scott W. Fausti & Zhiguang Wang & Bashir A. Qasmi & Matthew A. Diersen, 2014. "Risk and marketing behavior: pricing fed cattle on a grid," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 601-612, September.
    16. Pozo, Veronica F. & Bachmeier, Lance J. & Schroeder, Ted C., 2021. "Are there price asymmetries in the U.S. beef market?," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 21(C).
    17. Pudenz, Christopher C. & Schulz, Lee & Schulz, Lee L., 2022. "Multi-plant Coordination in the US Beef Packing Industry," ISU General Staff Papers 202202141403110000, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Thomas Kopp & Jan Salecker, 2018. "Modelling Social Evolutionary Processes and Peer Effects in Agricultural Trade Networks: the Rubber Value Chain in Indonesia," Papers 1811.11476, arXiv.org.
    19. Kopp, T. & Salecker, J., 2018. "Identifying Influential Traders by Agent Based Modelling," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277130, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Kopp, Thomas & Salecker, Jan, 2020. "How traders influence their neighbours: Modelling social evolutionary processes and peer effects in agricultural trade networks," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agent-based models; captive supplies; common-value auction; market power; marketing agreements; thin markets;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • Q02 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Commodity Market

    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:bpj:bjafio:v:16:y:2018:i:1:p:11:n:4. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.