IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea00/21823.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal Commodity Promotion In Imperfectly Competitive Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Mingxia
  • Sexton, Richard J.

Abstract

We investigate the optimal collection and expenditure of funds for agricultural commodity promotion in markets where the processing and distribution sectors may exhibit oligopoly and/or oligopsony power. The conditions that characterize optimal advertising intensity under perfect competition for funds generated from either per-unit or lump-sum taxes do not, in general, hold when marketing is imperfectly competitive. Simulation analyses show that imperfect competition always reduces farmers' optimal advertising expenditure and that an imperfectly competitive marketing sector may capture half or more of the benefits from the funds that are expended.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea00:21823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/21823
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alston, Julian M. & Carman, Hoy F. & Chalfant, James A. & Crespi, John M. & Sexton, Richard J. & Venner, Raymond J., 1998. "The California Prune Board's Promotion Program: An Evaluation," Research Reports 11926, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation.
    2. Gasmi, F & Laffont, J J & Vuong, Q, 1992. "Econometric Analysis of Collusive Behavior in a Soft-Drink Market," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 277-311, Summer.
    3. Philip L. Paarlberg & John G. Lee, 2001. "U.S. Trade Policy on Lamb Meat: Who Gets Fleeced?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 196-208.
    4. E. W. Goddard & M. L. McCutcheon, 1993. "Optimal Producer Investment in Generic Advertising: The Case of Fluid Milk in Ontario and Quebec," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 41(3), pages 329-347, November.
    5. Chung, Chanjin & Kaiser, Harry M., 2000. "Do Farmers Get An Equal Bang For Their Buck From Generic Advertising Programs? A Theroetical And Empirical Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(01), July.
    6. Henry W. Kinnucan & Yuliang Miao, 2000. "Distributional Impacts of Generic Advertising on Related Commodity Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 672-678.
    7. Henry W. Kinnucan, 1999. "Optimal Generic Advertising Decisions in Supply-managed Industries: Clarification and Some Further Results," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(1), pages 57-66, March.
    8. Azzam, Azzeddine M. & Schroeter, John R., 1991. "Implications Of Increased Regional Concentration And Oligopsonistic Coordination In The Beef Packing Industry," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(02), December.
    9. Alston, Julian M. & Chalfant, James A. & Christian, Jason E. & Meng, Erika C.H. & Piggott, Nicholas E., 1997. "The California Table Grape Commission's Promotion Program: An Evaluation," Monographs, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation, number 11932.
    10. George C. Davis, 1999. "The science and art of promotion evaluation," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 465-483.
    11. Nicholas E. Piggott, 2000. "The Incidence of the Costs and Benefits of Generic Advertising," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 665-671.
    12. Chanjin Chung & Harry M. Kaiser, 2000. "Distribution of Generic Advertising Benefits Across Participating Firms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 659-664.
    13. John A. L. Cranfield & Ellen W. Goddard, 1999. "Open Economy and Processor Oligopoly Power Effects of Beef Advertising in Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(1), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Mingxia Zhang, 1997. "The Effects of Imperfect Competition on the Size and Distribution of Research Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1252-1265.
    15. R. W. Ward & C. Lambert, 1993. "Generic Promotion Of Beef: Measuring The Impact Of The Us Beef Checkoff," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 456-465.
    16. Nouhoun Coulibaly & B. Wade Brorsen, 1999. "Explaining the differences between two previous meat generic advertising studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 501-515.
    17. Stephen F. Hamilton & David Sunding, 1998. "Returns to Public Investments in Agriculture with Imperfect Downstream Competition," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(4), pages 830-838.
    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. Kinnucan, Henry W., 2003. "Optimal generic advertising in an imperfectly competitive food industry with variable proportions," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 143-158, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing;

    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:ags:aaea00:21823. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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 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.

    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.