IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v15y1999i4p465-483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The science and art of promotion evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • George C. Davis

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2124)

Abstract

Over the past two decades commodity checkoff programs have proliferated. In 1996 legislation was passed that requires these programs to be evaluated at least once every 5 years. Because of this legislation there are now potential legal and monetary implications associated with these evaluations. Consequently, for all parties concerned two questions naturally arise: what is the scientific status of promotion evaluations? How can promotion evaluations be improved?This article attempts to answer these questions by exploring the scientific and artistic aspects of the central activity involved in all promotion evaluations: modeling. Attention centers on the scientific assumption choice set that is available to modelers, the tradeoffs involved in making certain assumption choices, and how assumption choices may be improved in general. These ideas are discussed in the context of a sample of promotion evaluation studies. [Econ-Lit citations: B4, D6, Q13] © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • George C. Davis, 1999. "The science and art of promotion evaluation," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 465-483.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:15:y:1999:i:4:p:465-483
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6297(199923)15:4<465::AID-AGR4>3.0.CO;2-D
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lewbel, Arthur, 1996. "Aggregation without Separability: A Generalized Composite Commodity Theorem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 524-543, June.
    2. Sandra J. Peart, 1995. "'Disturbing Causes,' 'Noxious Errors,' and the Theory-Practice Distinction in the Economics of J. S. Mill and W. S. Jevons," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 28(4b), pages 1194-1211, November.
    3. Forni, Mario & Lippi, Marco, 1999. "Aggregation of linear dynamic microeconomic models," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 131-158, February.
    4. Musgrave, Alan, 1981. "'Unreal Assumptions' in Economic Theory: The F-Twist Untwisted," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 377-387.
    5. P. K. Trivedi, 1985. "Distributed Lags, Aggregation and Compounding: Some Econometric Implications," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(1), pages 19-35.
    6. Gary W. Williams, 1999. "Commodity checkoff programs as alternative producer investment opportunities: The case of soybeans," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 539-552.
    7. Stoker, Thomas M, 1993. "Empirical Approaches to the Problem of Aggregation Over Individuals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1827-1874, December.
    8. George C. Davis, 1997. "Product Aggregation Bias as a Specification Error in Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 100-109.
    9. David S. Bullock, 1993. "Welfare Implications of Equilibrium Supply and Demand Curves in an Open Economy," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(1), pages 52-58.
    10. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, December.
    11. David L. Edgerton, 1997. "Weak Separability and the Estimation of Elasticities in Multistage Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 62-79.
    12. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, 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. Shumway, C. Richard & Davis, George C., 2001. "Does consistent aggregation really matter?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(2), pages 1-34.
    2. Yeboah, Godfred & Maynard, Leigh J., 2004. "The Impact Of Bse, Fmd, And U.S. Export Promotion Expenditures On Japanese Meat Demand," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19978, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Zhang, Mingxia & Sexton, Richard J., 2000. "Optimal Commodity Promotion In Imperfectly Competitive Markets," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21823, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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. Eduardo Strachman & Jos Ricardo Fucidji, 2012. "The Current Financial And Economic Crisis Empirical And Methodological Issues," Journal of Advanced Studies in Finance, ASERS Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 95-109.
    2. Yan Shen & Cheng Hsiao & Hiroshi Fujiki, 2005. "Aggregate vs. disaggregate data analysis-a paradox in the estimation of a money demand function of Japan under the low interest rate policy," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(5), pages 579-601.
    3. Simon Deichsel & Andreas Pyka, 2009. "A Pragmatic Reading of Friedman's Methodological Essay and What It Tells Us for the Discussion of ABMs," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(4), pages 1-6.
    4. David Calnitsky & Asher Dupuy-Spencer, 2013. "The economic consequences of homo economicus: neoclassical economic theory and the fallacy of market optimality," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 6(2), May.
    5. Gustavo Marqués & Diego Weisman, 2011. "Standard decision theory and prospect theory: Philosophical considerations regarding theoretical change," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 36(31), pages 55-83, January-j.
    6. Suzuki, Tomo, 2003. "The accounting figuration of business statistics as a foundation for the spread of economic ideas," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 65-95, January.
    7. Kevin D. Hoover, 2016. "The Crisis in Economic Theory: A Review Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1350-1361, December.
    8. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    9. Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont, 2013. "The Ideal Economy: A Prototype," MPRA Paper 51582, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Shumway, C. Richard & Davis, George C., 2001. "Does consistent aggregation really matter?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(2), pages 1-34.
    11. Mur, Jesús & Angulo, Ana, 2009. "Model selection strategies in a spatial setting: Some additional results," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 200-213, March.
    12. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2014. "A Model of Modeling," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    13. Miguel A. Duran, 2007. "Mathematical Needs and Economic Interpretations," Contributions to Political Economy, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16.
    14. Ole Røgeberg & Morten Nordberg, 2005. "A defence of absurd theories in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 543-562.
    15. Schaefer, Alexander, 2021. "Rationality, uncertainty, and unanimity: an epistemic critique of contractarianism," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 82-117, March.
    16. Joshua M. Epstein, 2007. "Agent-Based Computational Models and Generative Social Science," Introductory Chapters, in: Generative Social Science Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling, Princeton University Press.
    17. Giuseppe Garofalo, 2014. "Irreducible complexities: from Gödel and Turing to the paradigm of Imperfect Knowledge Economics," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3463-3474, November.
    18. Giandomenica Becchio, 2020. "The Two Blades of Occam's Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, July.
    19. Smith, Peter, 2009. "Induction, complexity, and economic methodology," MPRA Paper 12693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Kevin D. Hoover, "undated". "Econometrics And Reality," Department of Economics 97-28, California Davis - Department of Economics.

    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:wly:agribz:v:15:y:1999:i:4:p:465-483. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.