IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Does Contracting Raise Farm Productivity? The Impact Of Production Contracts On Hog Farm Performance

Listed author(s):
  • Key, Nigel D.
  • McBride, William D.

The costs and benefits of policies designed to regulate the use of production contracts will depend in part on the impact of these contracts on farm productivity. In this paper we measure the impact of contracting on 1) partial and total factor productivity and 2) the production technology for 479 US hog operations. A sample selection model accounts for the fact that unobservable variables may be correlated with both the decision to contract and farm productivity. Results also identify determinants of farmers' decisions to contract and factors influencing farm productivity.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/20721
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association) in its series 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL with number 20721.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2001
Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea01:20721
Contact details of provider: Postal:
555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Johnson, C. Scott & Foster, Kenneth A., 1994. "Risk Preferences And Contracting In The U.S. Hog Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(02), December.
  2. David A. Hennessy, 1996. "Information Asymmetry as a Reason for Food Industry Vertical Integration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 1034-1043.
  3. V. James Rhodes, 1995. "The Industrialization of Hog Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 107-118.
  4. Kliebenstein, James & Lawrence, John D., 1995. "Contracting and Vertical Coordination in the United States Pork Industry," ISU General Staff Papers 199501010800001264, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  5. Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Eidman, Vernon R., 1998. "The Effect of Risk and Autonomy on Independent Hog Producers' Contracting Decisions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(01), pages 175-188, July.
  6. Shelanski, Howard A & Klein, Peter G, 1995. "Empirical Research in Transaction Cost Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 335-361, October.
  7. Martin, Laura L., 1997. "Production Contracts, Risk Shifting, and Relative Performance Payments in the Pork Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(02), pages 267-278, December.
  8. Kliebenstein, James B. & Lawrence, John D., 1995. "Contracting and Vertical Coordination in the United States Pork Industry," ISU General Staff Papers 199507010700001264, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  9. Lawrence, John D. & Kliebenstein, James, 1995. "Contracting and Vertical Coordination in the United States Pork Industry," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5050, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  10. Jill E. Hobbs, 1997. "Measuring the Importance of Transaction Costs in Cattle Marketing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1083-1095.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea01:20721. 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)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.