IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v39y2017i4p533-546..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is it Good to Have Options? The 2014 Farm Bill Program Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Mykel R Taylor
  • Glynn T Tonsor
  • Nicholas D Paulson
  • Brenna Ellison
  • Jonathan Coppess
  • Gary D Schnitkey

Abstract

The 2014 Farm Bill continued the trend towards more risk management-based support for U.S. farmers. However, it also represents a major departure from previous legislation by introducing multiple program options among which producers had the ability to choose. While allowing producers to have choices creates flexibility, the design of the program required producers to consider potential outcomes for crop prices and production levels in future periods when making their decisions. Experience over the first two years of program implementation suggests that while programs are working as designed, not all producers are fully satisfied with their enrollment decisions. This will lead to proposals for further modification to programs, and to questions about whether program choice should be a component of the next Farm Bill.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:39:y:2017:i:4:p:533-546.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppx044
    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. Bruce A. Babcock, 2015. "Using Cumulative Prospect Theory to Explain Anomalous Crop Insurance Coverage Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1371-1384.
    2. Coppess, Jonathan & Paulson, Nick, 2014. "Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage in the 2014 Farm Bill," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 4, February.
    3. Schnitkey, Gary & Coppess, Jonathan & Zulauf, Carl & Paulson, Nick, 2015. "Expected Payments from ARC-CO and PLC," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 5, January.
    4. Taylor, Mykel R. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "Impact of Extension Education on Kansas Producers’ 2014 Farm Bill Enrollment Decisions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), January.
    5. Zulauf, Carl & Schnitkey, Gary & Langemeier, Michael, 2010. "Average Crop Revenue Election, Crop Insurance, and Supplemental Revenue Assistance: Interactions and Overlap for Illinois and Kansas Farm Program Crops," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 501-515, August.
    6. Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    7. Orden, David & Paarlberg, Robert & Roe, Terry, 1999. "Policy Reform in American Agriculture," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226632643, September.
    8. Babcock, Bruce, 2015. "Using Prospect Theory to Explain Anomalous Crop Insurance Coverage Choice," 2015 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 3-5, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts 189682, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    10. 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.
    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. Brenna Ellison & Nicholas D Paulson & Mykel R Taylor & Glynn T Tonsor & Jonathan Coppess & Gary D Schnitkey, 2017. "Evaluation of Educational Offerings Associated with the 2014 Farm Bill," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(4), pages 547-558.
    2. Xiaofei Li & Zhiwei Shen & Ardian Harri & Keith H. Coble, 2020. "Comparing survey-based and programme-based yield data: implications for the U.S. Agricultural Risk Coverage-County programme," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 184-202, January.
    3. Ole Boysen & Kirsten Boysen‐Urban & Alan Matthews, 2023. "Stabilizing European Union farm incomes in the era of climate change," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1634-1658, September.
    4. Simone Severini & Cinzia Zinnanti & Valeria Borsellino & Emanuele Schimmenti, 2021. "EU income stabilization tool: potential impacts, financial sustainability and farmer’s risk aversion," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, December.

    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. Douadia Bougherara & Laurent Piet, 2018. "On the role of probability weighting on WTP for crop insurance with and without yield skewness," Working Papers hal-02790605, HAL.
    2. Taylor, Mykel & Wilson, Candice, 2017. "Effects of Imperfect Information on 2014 Farm Bill Program Enrollment," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252805, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Francisco Rosas & Mariana Sans & Santiago Arana, 2018. "The effect of irrigation on income volatility reduction: a prospect theory approach," Documentos de Investigación 118, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.
    4. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2020. "Prospect theory in experiments : behaviour in loss domain and framing effects," Working Papers hal-02987294, HAL.
    5. Zhao, Shuoli & Skevas, Teo & Chai, Yuan & Tack, Jesse B., 2020. "Crop Insurance Decision under Expected Revenue," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304574, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Doidge, Mary & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of changes to crop insurance coverage level – a test of third generation prospect theory," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274478, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Rosas, Juan Francisco & Sans, Mariana & Arana, Santiago, 2017. "Quantifying the Benefits of Supplemented Irrigation due to Less Volatile Yields: A Prospect Theory Approach Applied to Summer Crops in Uruguay," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259122, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Shuoli Zhao & Chengyan Yue, 2020. "Risk preferences of commodity crop producers and specialty crop producers: An application of prospect theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 359-372, May.
    9. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2023. "Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 593-636, May.
    10. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2021. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 89-112, February.
    11. Xiaodong Du & Hongli Feng & David A. Hennessy, 2017. "Rationality of Choices in Subsidized Crop Insurance Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 732-756.
    12. Fezzi, Carlo & Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2021. "Estimating risk preferences integrating insurance choices with subjective beliefs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    13. Mohit Anand & Ruiqing Miao & Madhu Khanna, 2019. "Adopting bioenergy crops: Does farmers’ attitude toward loss matter?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 435-450, July.
    14. Bontemps, Christophe & Bougherara, Douadia & Nauges, Céline, 2020. "Do Risk Preferences Really Matter? The Case of Pesticide Use in Agriculture," TSE Working Papers 20-1095, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Feyisa, Ashenafi Duguma & Maertens, Miet & de Mey, Yann, 2023. "Relating risk preferences and risk perceptions over different agricultural risk domains: Insights from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    16. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    17. 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.
    18. Hongli Feng & Xiaodong Du & David A. Hennessy, 2020. "Depressed demand for crop insurance contracts, and a rationale based on third generation Prospect Theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 59-73, January.
    19. Christoph Duden & Oliver Mußhoff & Frank Offermann, 2023. "Dealing with low‐probability shocks: The role of selected heuristics in farmers’ risk management decisions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 382-399, May.
    20. Thomas Sproul & Clayton P. Michaud, 2017. "Heterogeneity in loss aversion: evidence from field elicitations," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 77(1), pages 196-216, May.

    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:4:p:533-546.. 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.