IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v85y2003i1p30-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tests for the Role of Risk Aversion on Input Use

Author

Listed:
  • Jutta Roosen
  • David A. Hennessy

Abstract

For risk-averting agents, risks alter production decisions while the existence of institutions to insure against adverse states of nature will likely restore decisions toward levels under risk neutrality. In this article, conditions are identified on a stochastic technology to test H rn 0,≤ : that risk averters choose smaller input levels than risk neutral agents, and H ra 0,≤ : that an increase in risk aversion reduces input use. A robust statistical method to test for dominance is adapted to stochastic production relations. It is found that H rn 0,≤ is likely true for nitrogen application on Iowa corn. Weaker evidence is found in favor of H ra 0,≤ . Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jutta Roosen & David A. Hennessy, 2003. "Tests for the Role of Risk Aversion on Input Use," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 30-43.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:85:y:2003:i:1:p:30-43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-8276.00101
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atanu Saha & C. Richard Shumway & Hovav Talpaz, 1994. "Joint Estimation of Risk Preference Structure and Technology Using Expo-Power Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(2), pages 173-184.
    2. Ian Jewitt, 1989. "Choosing Between Risky Prospects: The Characterization of Comparative Statics Results, and Location Independent Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 60-70, January.
    3. Michael Landsberger & Isaac Meilijson, 1994. "The Generating Process and an Extension of Jewitt's Location Independent Risk Concept," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 662-669, May.
    4. Esfandiar Maasoumi & Almas Heshmati, 2000. "Stochastic dominance amongst swedish income distributions," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 287-320.
    5. Robert G. Chambers & John Quiggin, 2002. "The State-Contingent Properties of Stochastic Production Functions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 513-526.
    6. Valentino Dardanoni & Antonio Forcina, 1999. "Inference for Lorenz curve orderings," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 2(1), pages 49-75.
    7. Bruce A. Babcock & David A. Hennessy, 1996. "Input Demand under Yield and Revenue Insurance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(2), pages 416-427.
    8. Just, Richard E. & Pope, Rulon D., 1978. "Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 67-86, February.
    9. Richard E. Just & Rulon D. Pope, 1979. "Production Function Estimation and Related Risk Considerations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 276-284.
    10. Carl H. Nelson & Paul V. Preckel, 1989. "The Conditional Beta Distribution as a Stochastic Production Function," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(2), pages 370-378.
    11. Russell Davidson & Jean-Yves Duclos, 2000. "Statistical Inference for Stochastic Dominance and for the Measurement of Poverty and Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(6), pages 1435-1464, November.
    12. Chavas, Jean-Paul & Holt, Matthew T, 1996. "Economic Behavior under Uncertainty: A Joint Analysis of Risk Preferences and Technology," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 329-335, May.
    13. Bharat Ramaswami, 1992. "Production Risk and Optimal Input Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(4), pages 860-869.
    14. Anderson, Gordon, 1996. "Nonparametric Tests of Stochastic Dominance in Income Distributions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(5), pages 1183-1193, September.
    15. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    16. Quiggin, John & Chambers, Robert G., 1998. "A state-contingent production approach to principal-agent problems with an application to point-source pollution control," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 441-472, December.
    17. Gollier, Christian & Pratt, John W, 1996. "Risk Vulnerability and the Tempering Effect of Background Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(5), pages 1109-1123, September.
    18. H. Dennis Tolley & Rulon D. Pope, 1988. "Testing for Stochastic Dominance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 693-700.
    19. Kaur, Amarjot & Prakasa Rao, B.L.S. & Singh, Harshinder, 1994. "Testing for Second-Order Stochastic Dominance of Two Distributions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(5), pages 849-866, December.
    20. Melinda Smale & Jason Hartell & Paul W. Heisey & Ben Senauer, 1998. "The Contribution of Genetic Resources and Diversity to Wheat Production in the Punjab of Pakistan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 482-493.
    21. Chambers, Robert G. & Quiggin, John, 1996. "Non-point-source pollution regulation as a multi-task principal-agent problem," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 95-116, January.
    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. Mitchell, Paul David, 1999. "The theory and practice of green insurance: insurance to encourage the adoption of corn rootworm IPM," ISU General Staff Papers 1999010108000013154, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Kuan Xu & Gordon Fisher, 2006. "Myopic loss aversion and margin of safety: the risk of value investing," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(6), pages 481-494.
    3. Oliver Linton & Esfandiar Maasoumi & Yoon-Jae Whang, 2002. "Consistent Testing for Stochastic Dominance: A Subsampling Approach," FMG Discussion Papers dp407, Financial Markets Group.
    4. Maasoumi, Esfandiar & Almas Heshmati, 2003. "Evaluating Dominance Ranking of PSID Incomes by various Household Attributes," Departmental Working Papers 0509, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    5. David Lander & David Gunawan & William Griffiths & Duangkamon Chotikapanich, 2020. "Bayesian assessment of Lorenz and stochastic dominance," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 767-799, May.
    6. David Lander & David Gunawan & William E. Griffiths & Duangkamon Chotikapanich, 2016. "Bayesian Assessment of Lorenz and Stochastic Dominance Using a Mixture of Gamma Densities," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 2023, The University of Melbourne.
    7. Stengos, Thanasis & Thompson, Brennan S., 2012. "Testing for bivariate stochastic dominance using inequality restrictions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 60-62.
    8. Jaenicke, Edward C. & Larson, James A., 2001. "Production Risk Revisited In A Stochastic Frontier Framework: Evaluating Noise And Inefficiency In Cover Crop Systems," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20477, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Agarwal, Sandip Kumar, 2017. "Subjective beliefs and decision making under uncertainty in the field," ISU General Staff Papers 201701010800006248, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Just, Richard E., 2003. "Risk research in agricultural economics: opportunities and challenges for the next twenty-five years," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 123-159.
    11. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    12. Lean, Hooi Hooi & McAleer, Michael & Wong, Wing-Keung, 2015. "Preferences of risk-averse and risk-seeking investors for oil spot and futures before, during and after the Global Financial Crisis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 204-216.
    13. Wen-Hao Chen & Jean-Yves Duclos, 2011. "Testing for poverty dominance: an application to Canada," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 44(3), pages 781-803, August.
    14. Lean, Hooi Hooi & McAleer, Michael & Wong, Wing-Keung, 2010. "Market efficiency of oil spot and futures: A mean-variance and stochastic dominance approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 979-986, September.
    15. Murat Isik & Madhu Khanna, 2003. "Stochastic Technology, Risk Preferences, and Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 305-317.
    16. Roosen J. & Hennessy D.A., 2004. "Testing for the Monotone Likelihood Ratio Assumption," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22, pages 358-366, July.
    17. Just, Richard E., 2000. "Some Guiding Principles for Empirical Production Research in Agriculture," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 138-158, October.
    18. Kim, Kwansoo & Chavas, Jean-Paul, 2003. "Technological change and risk management: an application to the economics of corn production," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 125-142, October.
    19. Xiaodong Du & David A. Hennessy & Cindy L. Yu, 2012. "Testing Day's Conjecture that More Nitrogen Decreases Crop Yield Skewness," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 225-237.
    20. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2010. "Market Efficiency of Oil Spot and Futures: A Stochastic Dominance Approach," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-705, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.

    More about this item

    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:oup:ajagec:v:85:y:2003:i:1:p:30-43. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.