IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v39y2017i4p547-558..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Educational Offerings Associated with the 2014 Farm Bill

Author

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

Abstract

The 2014 Farm Bill required farmers and landowners to make a set of one-time, irrevocable decisions lasting for the duration of the farm bill. The decisions included the choice between three program alternatives with uncertain payments. To aid in making those decisions, the farm bill funded two key educational efforts: (a) the development of two online decision tools and (b) additional funding to support land grant institutions and extension systems to educate farmers through more traditional extension mediums, particularly in-person meetings. This paper provides an evaluation of both types of farm bill education through two case studies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:39:y:2017:i:4:p:547-558.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppx043
    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. Zapata, Samuel D. & Carpio, Carlos E. & Isengildina-Massa, Olga & Lamie, R. David, 2013. "The Economic Impact of Services Provided by an Electronic Trade Platform: The Case of MarketMaker," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-20.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Jock R. Anderson, 2004. "Agricultural Extension: Good Intentions and Hard Realities," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 19(1), pages 41-60.
    4. Brian Roe & Timothy C. Haab & Brent Sohngen, 2004. "The Value of Agricultural Economics Extension Programming: An Application of Contingent Valuation," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 373-390.
    5. Stephan J. Goetz & Meri Davlasheridze, 2017. "State-Level Cooperative Extension Spending and Farmer Exits," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 65-86.
    6. Wallace E. Huffman & Robert E. Evenson, 2006. "Do Formula or Competitive Grant Funds Have Greater Impacts on State Agricultural Productivity?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 783-798.
    7. 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.
    8. Wang, Sun Ling, 2014. "Cooperative Extension System: Trends and Economic Impacts on U.S. Agriculture," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8.
    9. Kenkel, Philip L. & Norris, Patricia E., 1995. "Agricultural Producers' Willingness To Pay For Real-Time Mesoscale Weather Information," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(2), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Clifford, William B. & Hoban, Thomas J. & Whitehead, John C., 2001. "Willingness To Pay For Agricultural Research And Extension Programs," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-11, April.
    11. Scott H. Irwin & Gary D. Schnitkey & Darrel L. Good & Paul N. Ellinger, 2004. "The Farmdoc Project: This Is Still Your Father's Extension Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(3), pages 772-777.
    12. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    13. Zulauf, Carl & Schnitkey, Gary, 2014. "ARC-PLC Decision: Why It Differs from the ACRE-DCP Decision," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 4, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:547-558.. 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: (Oxford University Press). General contact details of provider: http://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 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.

    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.