IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v28y2017icp63-69.html

Financial Analysis of Scale Versus Lump Sum Timber Sale Payment Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Barron, Patrick M.
  • Kilgore, Michael A.
  • Blinn, Charles R.

Abstract

A financial analysis of two methods commonly used by public land management agencies to collect payment for stumpage sold was carried out using data from the St. Louis County Minerals and Land Department (SLCMLD) in northern Minnesota. The two payment methods evaluated were scale (also called pay-as-cut and consumer scale) where the buyer only pays for timber harvested and lump sum (also called sold-on-appraised-volume or SOAV) where a buyer pays for the entire tract’s estimated volume, regardless of the amount of timber actually harvested. The analysis found no significant difference in gross timber sale revenue collected by the SLCMLD under the two payment methods Scaled timber sales incurred an additional $323 in administrative costs per timber sale compared to lump sum timber sales. This increase in administrative costs represents less than 1% of the timber value contained in the average SLCMLD timber sale. Differences in the standards agencies use to estimate merchantable stand volume of a timber sale and the administrative time spent processing timber sales can impact the financial costs associated with each timber payment method.

Suggested Citation

  • Barron, Patrick M. & Kilgore, Michael A. & Blinn, Charles R., 2017. "Financial Analysis of Scale Versus Lump Sum Timber Sale Payment Methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 63-69.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:28:y:2017:i:c:p:63-69
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2017.06.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S110468991630112X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.06.001?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leffler, Keith B & Rucker, Randal R, 1991. "Transactions Costs and the Efficient Organization of Production: A Study of Timber-Harvesting Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(5), pages 1060-1087, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wang, Sen & Bogle, Tim & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2012. "Forestry and the New Institutional Economics," Working Papers 130818, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    2. Ibrahim Demir, 2016. "The firm size, farm size, and transaction costs: the case of hazelnut farms in Turkey," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 81-90, January.
    3. Quigley, Neil & Evans, Lewis & Boyd, Haleigh, 2000. "The Efficiency of Contractual Arrangements in Private Agricultural Product Markets," Working Paper Series 3918, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    4. Conlin, Michael & Orsini, Joe & Tang, Meng-Chi, 2013. "The effect of an agent’s expertise on National Football League contract structure," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 275-281.
    5. Marian Moszoro & Pablo T. Spiller & Sebastian Stolorz, 2016. "Rigidity of Public Contracts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 396-427, September.
    6. Carias Vega, Dora & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "Transaction costs and the organization of CFEs: Experiences from ejidos in Quintana Roo, Mexico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-8.
    7. Jed Devaro & Fidan Ana Kurtulus, 2010. "An Empirical Analysis of Risk, Incentives and the Delegation of Worker Authority," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 63(4), pages 641-661, July.
    8. Antinori, Camille M. & Rausser, Gordon C., 2010. "The Mexican Common Property Forestry Sector," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt8qh479p8, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    9. Yoder, Jonathan & Hossain, Ishrat & Epplin, Francis & Doye, Damona, 2008. "Contract duration and the division of labor in agricultural land leases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 714-733, March.
    10. repec:bla:jomstd:v:47:y:2010:i:s1:p:859-883 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. R. David Simpson & Roger A. Sedjo, 1994. "Commercialization Of Indigenous Genetic Resources," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 12(4), pages 34-44, October.
    12. Brewer, Dylan, 2022. "Equilibrium sorting and moral hazard in residential energy contracts," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. R. Knoeber, Charles, 2000. "Les contrats de production dans l'agriculture américaine. Une caractérisation de la recherche empirique actuelle," Économie rurale, French Society of Rural Economics (SFER Société Française d'Economie Rurale), vol. 259.
    14. Schluter, Achim, 2007. "Institutional change in the forestry sector--The explanatory potential of New Institutional Economics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1090-1099, May.
    15. Colin Doran & Thomas Stratmann, 2021. "The effects of neighboring parties on the value of rights: Evidence from timber harvests," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(2), pages 705-756, October.
    16. Martin Kloyer, 2004. "Opportunismus und Verhandlungsmacht in F&E-Lieferbeziehungen — Eine empirische Untersuchung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 333-364, June.
    17. M'Hand Farès & Stéphane Saussier, 2002. "Coûts de transaction et contrats incomplets," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 16(3), pages 193-230.
    18. Zhiqi Chen & Xiaoqiao Wang, 2020. "Specific investment, supplier vulnerability and profit risks," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(9-10), pages 1215-1237, October.
    19. Di Maria, Corrado & Lange, Ian & Lazarova, Emiliya, 2018. "A look upstream: Market restructuring, risk, procurement contracts and efficiency," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 35-83.
    20. Patrick Doran & Russell Thomson & Elizabeth Webster, 2025. "When royalties impede technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 227-244, February.
    21. Peyton Ferrier, 2009. "Quality improvement through consumer sorting and disposal," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 534-549.

    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:eee:foreco:v:28:y:2017:i:c:p:63-69. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    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.