IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/ajagec/v86y2004i1p115-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Roe
  • Thomas L. Sporleder
  • Betsy Belleville

Abstract

We use a stated preference instrument to elicit producer preferences for the attributes of risk‐shifting hog marketing contracts and express acceptable producer trade‐offs between contract attributes in a convenient dollar metric. Respondents value an increase in a window contract's price ceiling three to five times more than the same increase in the price floor, which suggests that hog producers dislike contracts that limit up‐side price potential (limit positive skewness). The contractor's organizational form is also important. Cooperative forms are preferred by many respondents, particularly those who state that trust in the contractor is an important antecedent for any contractual relationship.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Roe & Thomas L. Sporleder & Betsy Belleville, 2004. "Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(1), pages 115-123, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:ajagec:v:86:y:2004:i:1:p:115-123
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2004.tb18460.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2004.tb18460.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2004.tb18460.x?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. Lajili, Kaouthar & Barry, Peter J. & Sonka, Steven T. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 1997. "Farmers' Preferences For Crop Contracts," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Bala, Mohan V. & Wood, Lisa L. & Cates, Sheryl C. & Gambin, Suzanne P., 1998. "Predicting participation intentions for optional energy services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 287-301, September.
    3. Patrick, George F. & Baquet, Alan E. & Coble, Keith H. & Knight, Thomas O., 2000. "Hog Risk Management Survey: Summary And Preliminary Analysis," Staff Papers 28638, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    3. Arouna, Aminou & Adegbola, Patrice Y. & Raphael, Babatunde & Diagne, Aliou, 2015. "Contract farming preferences by smallholder rice producers in Africa: a stated choice model using mixed logic," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 210957, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. H. Holly Wang & Yanping Zhang & Laping Wu, 2011. "Is contract farming a risk management instrument for Chinese farmers?," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 3(4), pages 489-505, November.
    5. Kaouthar Lajili & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2006. "Revisiting agency and transaction costs theory predictions on vertical financial ownership and contracting: electronic integration as an organizational form choice," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(7), pages 573-586.
    6. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    7. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    8. Juan Marcos González & Justin Doan & David J. Gebben & Marco Boeri & Mayer Fishman, 2018. "Comparing the Relative Importance of Attributes of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatments to Patients and Physicians in the United States: A Discrete-Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 973-986, August.
    9. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, March.
    10. Adi Haryono & Mohamad Syamsul Maarif & Arif Imam Suroso & Siti Jahroh, 2023. "The Design of a Contract Farming Model for Coffee Tree Replanting," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    12. Semra Özdemir & Ateesha F. Mohamed & F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber, 2010. "Who pays attention in stated‐choice surveys?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 111-118, January.
    13. Franken, Jason R.V. & Pennings, Joost M.E. & Garcia, Philip, 2009. "Do Transaction Costs and Risk Preferences Influence Marketing Arrangements in the Illinois Hog Industry?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-19, August.
    14. Mandy Ryan & Angela Bate, 2001. "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 59-63.
    15. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    16. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    17. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    18. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.
    19. Özdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Hauber, A. Brett, 2009. "Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 894-901, July.
    20. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.

    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:ajagec:v:86:y:2004:i:1:p:115-123. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-8276 .

    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.