IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/recoru/ecoru_0013-0559_2000_num_259_1_5207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Actualisation, risque et cacao. Les insuffisances de la théorie

Author

Listed:
  • Véronique Alary
  • Jean-Marc Boussard

Abstract

[fre] Lorsqu'on applique aux taux d'actualisation les valeurs effectivement prises par les prix et les taux d'intérêts courants, il est rare de trouver une «valeur actuelle» positive pour un investissement forestier. Dans les pays en développement qui connaissant généralement des taux d'intérêt élevés, l'application de la théorie de l'actualisation conduirait à l'arrachage de milliers d'hectares de plantation. Néanmoins, on observe que les gens continuent à planter des arbres. Ceci conduit à supposer que c'est le risque plus que la préférence pour le présent qui conditionne les comportements. Cette idée est illustrée par les résultats d'une enquête et d'un modèle sur auprès des planteurs de cacao du Cameroun, qui montrent que les prédictions de la théorie de l'actualisation ne correspondent pas au comportement réel des planteurs. On verra alors, d'une part que la théorie pure de l'actualisation devient sans objet, et que, d'autre part, il est possible de définir le taux d'actualisation de manière endogène. [eng] Discounting, risk and cocoa: theoretical failures - Given observed prices, current rates of discount seldom produce positive present values for forest investments. Especially in LDC's, where rates of interest are high, a «rational» investor should remove trees, and plant annual crops. Yet, it is not unusual to find tree planting farmers. In order to explain such behavior, one is forced to admit that the preference to present against futures consumption is less important than assumed by current theory, and should perhaps be replaced by dynamic risk aversion. These remarks are illustrated by a survey and a multi-period model of Cameroon cocoa planters. It is shown that the predictions of current theory are not conformable with observed facts. On the other hand, by endogenously defining the rate of discount from risk consideration, a better fit to reality is obtained.

Suggested Citation

  • Véronique Alary & Jean-Marc Boussard, 2000. "Actualisation, risque et cacao. Les insuffisances de la théorie," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 259(1), pages 64-74.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:recoru:ecoru_0013-0559_2000_num_259_1_5207
    DOI: 10.3406/ecoru.2000.5207
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecoru.2000.5207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ecoru.2000.5207
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecoru_0013-0559_2000_num_259_1_5207
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/ecoru.2000.5207?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Binswanger, Hans P, 1981. "Attitudes toward Risk: Theoretical Implications of an Experiment in Rural India," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 867-890, December.
    2. Majumdar, Mukul & Zilcha, Itzhak, 1987. "Optimal growth in a stochastic environment: Some sensitivity and turnpike results," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 116-133, October.
    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. Aude Ridier, 2004. "Les effets du découplage des aides directes sur des exploitations de viande bovine en présence de risque," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 279(1), pages 7-19.

    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. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    2. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    3. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    4. Jean-Paul Chavas & Matthew T. Holt, 1990. "Acreage Decisions Under Risk: The Case of Corn and Soybeans," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 529-538.
    5. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    6. Yi Fan, 2017. "Does Adversity Affect Long-Term Consumption and Financial Behaviour? Evidence from China's Rustication Programme," ERES eres2017_148, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    7. Gatti, Nicolas & Cecil, Michael & Baylis, Kathy & Estes, Lyndon & Blekking, Jordan & Heckelei, Thomas & Vergopolan, Noemi & Evans, Tom, 2023. "Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    8. César Calvo, 2016. "Vulnerability to Poverty: Theory," Working Papers 2016-3, Lima School of Economics.
    9. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    10. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    11. Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2015. "Efficient Management of Insecure Fossil Fuel Imports through Taxing Domestic Green Energy?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(5), pages 724-751, October.
    12. Fan, Yi, 2020. "Does adversity affect long-term financial behaviour? Evidence from China’s rustication programme," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. Leakey, Roger & Kranjac-Berisavljevic, Gordana & Caron, Patrick & Craufurd, Peter & Martin, Adrienne M. & McDonald, Andy & Abedini, Walter & Afiff, Suraya & Bakurin, Ndey & Bass, Steve & Hilbeck, Ange, 2009. "Impacts of AKST on development and sustainability goals," Book Chapters,, International Water Management Institute.
    14. Z. Bar‐Shira & R.E. Just & D. Zilberman, 1997. "Estimation of farmers' risk attitude: an econometric approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 211-222, December.
    15. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    16. Shawn Cole & Xavier Giné & James Vickery, 2017. "How Does Risk Management Influence Production Decisions? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 1935-1970.
    17. Mariapia MENDOLA, 2005. "Farm households production theories: a review of institutional and behavioural responses," Departmental Working Papers 2005-01, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    18. Gregory L. Poe & Richard M. Klemme & Shawn J. McComb & John E. Ambrosious, 1991. "Commodity Programs and the Internalization of Erosion Costs: Do They Affect Crop Rotation Decisions?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 13(2), pages 223-235.
    19. Lilia Maliar & Serguei Maliar & John B. Taylor & Inna Tsener, 2020. "A tractable framework for analyzing a class of nonstationary Markov models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(4), pages 1289-1323, November.
    20. Drichoutis, Andreas & Lusk, Jayson, 2012. "Risk preference elicitation without the confounding effect of probability weighting," MPRA Paper 37762, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:prs:recoru:ecoru_0013-0559_2000_num_259_1_5207. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ecoru .

    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.