Effect of risk perspective on fertilizer choice by sharecroppers
Peanut and corn are two major crops in the tri-state area of the Southeast US, an area encompassing North Florida, Southwest Georgia, and Southeast Alabama. Sharecroppers in this region apply higher amount of input in crop production than the average farmers. We analyzed the behavior of sharecroppers in this region with regard to their fertilizer application decisions. Two hypotheses were formulated and tested based on sharecroppers' fertilizer application decisions: one assuming that sharecroppers are risk averse farmers and the other assuming that sharecroppers are regret minimizers. Our results show that a sharecropper uses different fertilizer treatments when minimizing risk depending on risk perspective and desired income. Sharecroppers who apply more fertilizer to obtain a desired level of income are regret minimizers where as sharecroppers who apply relatively low fertilizer are risk minimizer. At the same desired level of income, a regret minimizer farmer would apply a higher amount of fertilizer than the risk averse farmers. Our analysis revealed that sharecroppers in the Southeast US are regret minimizers as they apply a higher amount of fertilizer than an average farmer on the major crops grown in the region. The result of this study also confirms the result of a previous study in the region which reported that sharecroppers in the region are over capitalized and apply more fertilizer than average farmers.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Douglas W. Allen & Dean Lueck, 1993. "Transaction Costs and the Design of Cropshare Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(1), pages 78-100, Spring.
- P. B. R. Hazell, 1971. "A Linear Alternative to Quadratic and Semivariance Programming for Farm Planning under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 53(1), pages 53-62.
- Baron, Donald, 1982. "The Effects of Tenancy and Risk on Cropping Patterns: A Mathematical Programming Analysis," Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, issue 4.
- Otsuka, Keijiro & Hayami, Yujiro, 1988. "Theories of Share Tenancy: A Critical Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 31-68, October.
- B. Curtis Eaves, 1971. "On Quadratic Programming," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(11), pages 698-711, July.
- Paudel, Krishna P. & Lohr, Luanne & Martin, Neil R., 1998. "Optimal input cost sharing for tenants: Implications for negotiating efficiency," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 1-11, May.
- Eswaran, Mukesh & Kotwal, Ashok, 1985. "A Theory of Contractual Structure in Agriculture," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 352-367, June.
- Daniel Arce, 1995. "Social norms and core outcomes in a sharecropping economy," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 175-183, June.
- Tek-Ann Chew, 1993. "The Transactional Framework of Sharecropping: Further Implications," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 41(2), pages 209-221, 07.
- Braverman, Avishay & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1986. "Landlords, tenants and technological innovations," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 313-332, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:66:y:2000:i:2:p:115-128. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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.