IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v39y2017i1p1-15..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distributional Effects of Crop Insurance Subsidies

Author

Listed:
  • Jayson L. Lusk

Abstract

This article investigates the distributional effects of the subsidized crop insurance program in the United States. An equilibrium displacement model is constructed, linking the supply of disaggregate farm commodities with final consumer food demands. Using state-specific data on farm commodity production, crop insurance payments, food expenditures, and federal tax payments, the welfare effects of the removal of the premium subsidies for crop insurance are calculated for each state in the United States. Results indicate that the removal of the premium subsidy for crop insurance would have resulted in aggregate net economic benefits of $622, $932, and $522 million in 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. The deadweight loss amounts to about 9.6%, 14.4%, and 8.0% of the total crop insurance subsides paid to agricultural producers in 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. In aggregate, removal of the premium subsidy for crop insurance reduces farm producer surplus and consumer surplus, with taxpayers being the only aggregate beneficiary. The findings reveal that the costs of such farm policies are often hidden from food consumers in the form of a higher tax burden. On a disaggregate level, there is significant variation in effects of removal of the premium subsidy for crop insurance across states. Agricultural producers in several Western states, such as California, Oregon, and Washington, are projected to benefit from the removal of the premium subsides for crop insurance, whereas producers in the Plains States, such as North Dakota, South Dakota, and Kansas, are projected to be the biggest losers.

Suggested Citation

  • Jayson L. Lusk, 2017. "Distributional Effects of Crop Insurance Subsidies," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-15.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:39:y:2017:i:1:p:1-15.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppw002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. repec:aei:rpaper:32548 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:aei:rpaper:32545 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Wright, Brian D., 2014. "Multiple Peril Crop Insurance," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-5, September.
    4. Okrent, Abigail M. & Alston, Julian M., 2011. "Demand for Food in the United States: A Review of Literature, Evaluation of Previous Estimates, and Presentation of New Estimates of Demand," Monographs, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation, number 251908, December.
    5. Harrington, David H. & Dubman, Robert, 2008. "Equilibrium Displacement Mathematical Programming Models: Methodology and Model of the U.S. Agricultural Sector," Technical Bulletins 184313, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Lusk, Jayson L. & Roosen, Jutta & Shogren, Jason (ed.), 2011. "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199569441.
    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. Gohin, Alex, 2017. "Macroeconomic impacts of the U.S. farm policy: a second best assessment," Conference papers 332819, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Francis Tsiboe & Jesse Tack, 2022. "Utilizing Topographic and Soil Features to Improve Rating for Farm‐Level Insurance Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 52-69, January.
    3. Yuqiang Gao & Yongkang Shu & Hongjie Cao & Shuting Zhou & Shaobin Shi, 2021. "Fiscal Policy Dilemma in Resolving Agricultural Risks: Evidence from China’s Agricultural Insurance Subsidy Pilot," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-11, July.
    4. Lana Awada & Peter W. B. Phillips, 2021. "The distribution of returns from land efficiency improvement in multistage production systems," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 69(1), pages 73-92, March.
    5. Zhifeng Zhang & Haodong Xu & Shuangshuang Shan & Qingzhi Liu & Yuqi Lu, 2022. "Whether the Agricultural Insurance Policy Achieves Green Income Growth—Evidence from the Implementation of China’s Total Cost Insurance Pilot Program," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-20, January.
    6. Fabio G Santeramo, 2019. "I Learn, You Learn, We Gain Experience in Crop Insurance Markets," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(2), pages 284-304, June.
    7. Taoyong Su & Yuzhu Yu & Yongheng Chen & Jian Zhang, 2019. "The Experience, Dilemma, and Solutions of Sustainable Development of Inclusive Finance in Rural China: Based on the Perspective of Synergy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Mykel R Taylor & Glynn T Tonsor & Nicholas D Paulson & Brenna Ellison & Jonathan Coppess & Gary D Schnitkey, 2017. "Is it Good to Have Options? The 2014 Farm Bill Program Decisions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(4), pages 533-546.
    9. Thomas Dudek & Eric R. Ulm & Ilan Noy, 2021. "Demand for Multi-Year Catastrophe Insurance Contracts: Experimental Evidence for Mitigating the Insurance Gap," CESifo Working Paper Series 9442, CESifo.
    10. Alexandre Gohin, 2019. "General Equilibrium Modelling of the Insurance Industry: U.S. Crop Insurance," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 4(2), pages 108-145, December.
    11. Gohin, Alexandre, 2018. "Lessons from the U.S. risk management instruments for the future CAP," 162nd Seminar, April 26-27, 2018, Budapest, Hungary 271965, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Allais, Olivier & Etilé, Fabrice & Lecocq, Sébastien, 2015. "Mandatory labels, taxes and market forces: An empirical evaluation of fat policies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 27-44.
    2. Matthias Staudigel & Aleksej Trubnikov, 2022. "High price premiums as barriers to organic meat demand? A hedonic analysis considering species, cut and retail outlet," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 309-334, April.
    3. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    4. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    5. Fleissig, 2015. "Changes in aggregate food demand over the business cycle," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(17), pages 1366-1371, November.
    6. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    7. Andrej Cupak & Jan Pokrivcak & Marian Rizov, 2016. "Demand for Food Away from Home in Slovakia," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 66(4), pages 354-369, August.
    8. Irz, Xavier & Leroy, Pascal & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Economic assessment of nutritional recommendations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 188-210.
    9. Dieter Pennerstorfer & Nora Schindler & Christoph Weiss & Biliana Yontcheva, 2020. "Income Inequality and Product Variety: Empirical Evidence," Economics working papers 2020-17, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    10. Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg, 2018. "Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 41-53, January.
    11. Säll, Sarah & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-53.
    12. Crosetto, P. & Lacroix, A. & Muller, L. & Ruffieux, B., 2018. "Nutritional and economic impact of 5 alternative front-of-pack nutritional labels: experimental evidence," Working Papers 2018-11, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    13. Oranuch Wongpiyabovorn & Alejandro Plastina & John M. Crespi, 2021. "US Agriculture as a Carbon Sink: From International Agreements to Farm Incentives," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp627, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    14. Whittle, Henry J. & Palar, Kartika & Hufstedler, Lee Lemus & Seligman, Hilary K. & Frongillo, Edward A. & Weiser, Sheri D., 2015. "Food insecurity, chronic illness, and gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area: An example of structural violence in United States public policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 154-161.
    15. Olivier Bargain & Jinan Zeidan, 2019. "Heterogeneous effects of obesity on mental health: Evidence from Mexico," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 447-460, April.
    16. Kikushima, Ryosuke, 2019. "Spatial Competition among Farmers' Markets," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 21.
    17. Nga Thi Viet Nguyen & Felipe F. Dizon, 2017. "The Geography of Welfare in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Togo," World Bank Publications - Reports 27994, The World Bank Group.
    18. Lee, Hanbin & Sexton, Richard J. & Sumner, Daniel A., 2021. "Economics of Mandates on Farm Practices: Lessons from California’s Proposition 12 Regulations on Pork Sold in California," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313920, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    20. repec:oup:apecpp:v:40:y:2018:i:3:p:402-420. is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Majah-Leah V. Ravago & James Roumasset & Karl Jandoc, 2016. "Risk management and coping strategies: climate change and agriculture in the Philippines," Philippine Review of Economics, University of the Philippines School of Economics and Philippine Economic Society, vol. 53(2), pages 66-104, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    crop insurance; farm subsidies; food prices; equilibrium displacement model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q11 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis; Prices

    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:apecpp:v:39:y:2017:i:1:p:1-15.. 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: 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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.