IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v3y1987i3p307-322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pesticide regulatory decisions: Production efficiency, equity, and interdependence

Author

Listed:
  • Craig Osteen

    (Agricultural economists with the Resources and Technology Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20005-4788)

  • Fred Kuchler

    (Agricultural economists with the Resources and Technology Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20005-4788)

Abstract

EPA examines the benefits and risks of an agricultural pesticide's use when deciding whether or not to cancel its registration, but often neglects two effects which could change the decision: (1) the distributional effects on farmers using and not using the pesticide, and (2) the interdependence among regulatory decisions. This article examines the economic implications of banning several corn and soybean pesticides, highlighting these two concerns. Generally, banning one pesticide could have little effect, but banning all pesticides for a pest problem could have substantial effects. However, some pesticide users could suffer significant losses even though the aggregate effects are small.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig Osteen & Fred Kuchler, 1987. "Pesticide regulatory decisions: Production efficiency, equity, and interdependence," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 307-322.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:3:y:1987:i:3:p:307-322
    DOI: 10.1002/1520-6297(198723)3:3<307::AID-AGR2720030306>3.0.CO;2-1
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Swinton, Scott M. & King, Robert P., 1990. "Weedsim: A Bioeconomic Model Of Weed Management In Corn," Staff Papers 14164, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Scott M. Swinton & Robert P. King, 1994. "The Value of Pest Information in a Dynamic Setting: The Case of Weed Control," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(1), pages 36-46.
    3. Terry M. Dinan & Michael Salassi & Craig Simons, 1991. "Farm-level impacts of recent and proposed environmental regulations on selected farm types," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(2), pages 115-133.
    4. Cox, Craig A. & Easter, K. William, 1990. "A Regional Ban Of Alachlor And Atrazine In Southeastern Minnesota: The Economic And Environmental Effects," Staff Papers 13945, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    5. Swinton, Scott M. & King, Robert P. & Lybecker, Donald W., 1992. "The Effect of Triazine Restriction Policies on Recommended Weed Management in Corn," Staff Paper Series 201160, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    6. Ferguson, Walter L. & Szmedra, Philip, 1991. "Pesticide Residues and Food Safety: Aspects of a Changing Structure," Staff Reports 278383, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Mitchell, Paul D., 2011. "Estimating Soil Erosion and Fuel Use Changes and Their Monetary Values with AGSIM: A Case Study for Triazine Herbicides," Staff Paper Series 563, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    8. Osteen, Craig D. & Szmedra, Philip I., 1989. "Agricultural Pesticide Use Trends and Policy Issues," Agricultural Economic Reports 308081, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Stan G. Daberkow & Katherine H. Reichelderfer, 1988. "Low-Input Agriculture: Trends, Goals, and Prospects for Input Use," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1159-1166.
    10. Archer, David Walter, 1995. "Self-insurance and self-protection in weed control: implications for nonpoint source pollution," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000012033, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2002. "Agriculture and the environment," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 1249-1313, Elsevier.
    12. Fred KUCHLER & Katherine RALSTON & Laurian UNNEVEHR, "undated". "Identifying Priorities For Pesticide Residue Reduction," Department of Resource Economics Regional Research Project 9535, University of Massachusetts.
    13. Swinton, Scott M. & King, Robert P., 1994. "A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 313-335.
    14. Tauer, Loren W., 1990. "Ex-ante Economic Assessment of Agriculture Biotechnology," Staff Papers 121528, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    15. Liu, Shiping & Carlson, Gerald A. & Hoag, Dana L., 1995. "Trade-Off Analysis Of Herbicide Withdrawals On Agricultural Production And Groundwater Quality," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Liang, Chyi-Lyi (Kathleen) & Lovejoy, Stephen B. & Lee, John G., 1998. ""Green Taxes": Impacts On National Income, Social Welfare, And Environmental Quality," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20870, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Archer, David W. & Shogren, Jason F., 2001. "Risk-indexed herbicide taxes to reduce ground and surface water pollution: an integrated ecological economics evaluation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 227-250, August.

    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:3:y:1987:i:3:p:307-322. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.