IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/actuec/v74y1998i3p315-341.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inefficacité marshallienne, partage de coûts et modèles contractuels avec marchés manquants

Author

Listed:
  • Ai, Chunrong

    (Département d’économie, Université de la Floride)

  • Arcand, Jean-Louis

    (Centre de recherche et développement en économique (C.R.D.E.), Université de Montréal)

  • Éthier, François

    (Centre de recherche en économie agroalimentaire (CRÉA), Université Laval)

Abstract

When moral hazard concerns are present, standard contract theory predicts the "Marshallian inefficiency" of sharecropping contracts, in the sense that, ceteris paribus, sharecropping tenants will use different amounts of inputs than owner operators. In this paper, we examine this issue using a unique dataset collected in 1993 in the Tunisian village of El Oulja, thanks to the financial support of the PARADI program. We focus our attention on four questions that have been neglected by previous studies, namely: (1) cost sharing between landlords and tenants; (2) management inputs provided by landlords; (3) direct supervision of tenants by landlords; (4) repeated interaction between landlords and tenants. We implement panel estimation with household-specific fixed effects and control for the censoring of the dependent variable using the trimmed LAD estimator proposed by Honoré (1992). Our empirical results show that moral hazard is indeed an issue in tenancy contracts in the village, but that its quantitative importance in determining input use, in comparison with other factors, is relatively small. It follows that sharecropping is probably not chosen because of moral hazard concerns, and that other motivations, such as risk sharing or transaction costs, may be more important determinants of contractual choice. En présence de risque moral, la théorie des contrats prédit que le métayage sera assujetti au problème de l’inefficacité marshallienne, ce qui veut dire que les métayers utiliseront des quantités d’intrants différents sur les terres qu’ils exploitent par opposition aux propriétaires exploitants. Dans cet article, nous examinons cette question à l’aide d’une base de données unique en son genre collectée en 1993 dans le village tunisien d’El Oulja, grâce au financement du programme PARADI. Nous examinons quatre questions jusqu’à présent ignorées par les chercheurs : (1) le partage des coûts entre propriétaires et tenanciers; (2) les intrants en gestion fournis par les propriétaires; (3) la supervision des tenanciers par les propriétaires; (4) l’interaction répétée entre propriétaires et tenanciers. Nous utilisons des méthodes économétriques en panel avec effets fixes et en tobit en utilisant la méthode du trimmed LAD proposée par Honoré (1992). Nos résultats empiriques appuient l’argument selon lequel le risque moral est présent dans les relations contractuelles dans ce village. Par contre, l’importance quantitative des termes des contrats dans la détermination de l’utilisation des intrants, ainsi que de l’output, est relativement limitée. Il s’ensuit que le métayage est probablement choisi pour des raisons autres que le risque moral, telles que le partage du risque ou les coûts de transaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Ai, Chunrong & Arcand, Jean-Louis & Éthier, François, 1998. "Inefficacité marshallienne, partage de coûts et modèles contractuels avec marchés manquants," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 74(3), pages 315-341, septembre.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:74:y:1998:i:3:p:315-341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/602265ar
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Powell, James L, 1986. "Symmetrically Trimmed Least Squares Estimation for Tobit Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1435-1460, November.
    2. Honore, Bo E, 1992. "Trimmed LAD and Least Squares Estimation of Truncated and Censored Regression Models with Fixed Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 533-565, May.
    3. Sen, Abhijit, 1981. "Market Failure and Control of Labour Power: Towards an Explanation of 'Structure' and Change in Indian Agriculture. Part 2," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 327-350, December.
    4. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Mohamed Salah Matoussi, 1995. "Moral Hazard, Financial Constraints and Sharecropping in El Oulja," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(3), pages 381-399.
    5. Vaman Rao & Tosporn Chotigeat, 1981. "The Inverse Relationship between Size of Land Holdings and Agricultural Productivity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(3), pages 571-574.
    6. Earl O. Heady, 1947. "Economics of Farm Leasing Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 659-678.
    7. Huang, Yukon, 1975. "Tenancy Patterns, Productivity, and Rentals in Malaysia," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(4), pages 703-718, July.
    8. Rainer Schickele, 1941. "Effect of Tenure Systems on Agricultural Efficiency," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 185-207.
    9. Quibria, M. G. & Rashid, Salim, 1984. "The puzzle of sharecropping: A survey of theories," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 103-114, February.
    10. Otsuka, Keijiro & Hayami, Yujiro, 1988. "Theories of Share Tenancy: A Critical Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 31-68, October.
    11. Bardhan, Pranab K, 1973. "Size, Productivity, and Returns to Scale: An Analysis of Farm-Level Data in Indian Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(6), pages 1370-1386, Nov.-Dec..
    12. Earl O. Heady, 1955. "Marginal Resource Productivity and Imputation of Shares for a Sample of Rented Farms," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63, pages 500-500.
    13. Ransom, Roger L. & Sutch, Richard, 1973. "The Ex-Slave in the Post-Bellum South: A Study of the Economic Impact of Racism in a Market Environment," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 131-148, March.
    14. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1983. "An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(1), pages 7-45, January.
    15. Jaynes, Gerald David, 1982. "Production and Distribution in Agrarian Economies," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 346-367, July.
    16. Pranab Bardhan & Nirvikar Singh, 1987. "On Moral Hazard and Cost Sharing under Sharecropping," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 69(2), pages 382-383.
    17. D. Gale Johnson, 1950. "Resource Allocation under Share Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 111-111.
    18. Bliss, C. J. & Stern, N. H., 1982. "Palanpur: The Economy of an Indian Village," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198284192.
    19. Alston, Lee J. & Higgs, Robert, 1982. "Contractual Mix in Southern Agriculture since the Civil War: Facts, Hypotheses, and Tests," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 327-353, June.
    20. Reid, Joseph D, Jr, 1976. "Sharecropping and Agricultural Uncertainty," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(3), pages 549-576, April.
    21. Douglas W. Allen & Dean Lueck, 1993. "Transaction Costs and the Design of Cropshare Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(1), pages 78-100, Spring.
    22. Alston, Lee J & Datta, Samar K & Nugent, Jeffrey B, 1984. "Tenancy Choice in a Competitive Framework with Transactions Costs," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(6), pages 1121-1133, December.
    23. Shaban, Radwan Ali, 1987. "Testing between Competing Models of Sharecropping," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(5), pages 893-920, October.
    24. Allen, D. & Lueck, D., 1994. "Risk, Uncertainty and Contracts," Discussion Papers dp94-08, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    25. Pant, Chandrashekar, 1983. "Tenancy and family resources : A model and some empirical analysis," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1-2), pages 27-39.
    26. Avishay Braverman & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1986. "Cost-Sharing Arrangements under Sharecropping: Moral Hazard, Incentive Flexibility, and Risk," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(3), pages 642-652.
    27. Anil B. Deolalikar, 1981. "The Inverse Relationship between Productivity and Farm Size: A Test Using Regional Data from India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(2), pages 275-279.
    28. Kutcher, Gary P. & Scandizzo, Pasquale L., 1976. "A partial analysis of sharetenancy relationships in Northeast Brazil," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 343-354, December.
    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. Arcand, Jean-Louis & Ai, Chunrong & Ethier, Francois, 2007. "Moral hazard and Marshallian inefficiency: Evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 411-445, July.
    2. Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2004. "Normes sociales et productivité dans le processus d’appariement des contrats agricoles," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 80(4), pages 571-592, Décembre.

    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. M. A. Taslim, 1992. "A Survey of Theories of Cropshare Tenancy," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 68(3), pages 254-275, September.
    2. Martin A. Garrett & Zhenhui Xu, 2003. "The Efficiency of Sharecropping: Evidence from the Postbellum South," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(3), pages 578-595, January.
    3. Sen, Debapriya, 2011. "A theory of sharecropping: The role of price behavior and imperfect competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 181-199.
    4. Ackerberg, Daniel A. & Botticini, Maristella, 2000. "The Choice of Agrarian Contracts in Early Renaissance Tuscany: Risk Sharing, Moral Hazard, or Capital Market Imperfections?," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 241-257, July.
    5. Agrawal, Pradeep, 1999. "Contractual structure in agriculture," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 293-325, July.
    6. Luis H.B. Braido, 2005. "Risk and Insurance in Sharecropping," Risk and Insurance 0508002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Luis H. B. Braido, 2008. "Evidence on the Incentive Properties of Share Contracts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(2), pages 327-349, May.
    8. Arcand, Jean-Louis & Ai, Chunrong & Ethier, Francois, 2007. "Moral hazard and Marshallian inefficiency: Evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 411-445, July.
    9. Dubois, Pierre, 2002. "Moral hazard, land fertility and sharecropping in a rural area of the Philippines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 35-64, June.
    10. Benin, Samuel & Place, Frank & Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Pender, John L., 2006. "Land Markets and Agricultural Land Use Efficiency and Sustainability: Evidence from East Africa," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25645, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Huffman, Wallace E & Just, Richard E, 2004. "Implications of Agency Theory for Optimal Land Tenure Contracts," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 617-642, April.
    12. Debapriya Sen, 2005. "Sharecropping, interlinkage, and price variation," Department of Economics Working Papers 05-10, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    13. Laha, A. & Kuri, P.K, 2008. "Productivity Differences under Alternative Tenurial Contracts in Agriculture and Access to Credit: Evidence from Rural West Bengal, India," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 10, pages 1-18.
    14. Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 2007. "Land Reform And Farm Productivity In West Bengal," Boston University - Department of Economics - The Institute for Economic Development Working Papers Series dp-163, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    15. Pasquale Commendatore & Martin Currie, 2006. "A Dynamical Analysis Of Alternative Forms Of Agricultural Land Tenure," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 443-463, November.
    16. Jean-Philippe Colin & Emmanuelle Bouquet, 2001. "Le métayage comme partenariat. L'arrangement a médias dans la Sierra Madré orientale," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 261(1), pages 77-92.
    17. Cambria Finegold & Mohamed Shehata & Olfat Anwar Habib, 2011. "Productivity, Capital Mobilization and Moral Hazard in Fisheries Share Contracts: Lake Nasser, Egypt," Journal of Social and Development Sciences, AMH International, vol. 1(5), pages 183-193.
    18. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing & Yadav, Vandana, 2012. "Does sharecropping affect productivity and long-term investment ? evidence from West Bengal's tenancy reforms," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6293, The World Bank.
    19. Aryal, Jeetendra P. & Holden, Stein T., 2011. "Caste, Land and Labor Market Imperfections, and Land Productivity in Rural Nepal," CLTS Working Papers 6/11, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 10 Oct 2019.

    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:ris:actuec:v:74:y:1998:i:3:p:315-341. 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/scseeea.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: Benoit Dostie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/scseeea.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.