IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea10/61490.html

Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program or Traditional Government Payment Programs: What Factors Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Yunguang
  • Wang, H. Holly
  • Patrick, George F.

Abstract

Rankings of different risk management portfolios including Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE), traditional government payment programs, crop insurance and hedging in futures; and optimal choices of insurance coverage levels and hedge ratios are evaluated for a representative central Indiana corn farm, using Monte Carlo simulation and optimization of expected utilities. The changes of preference between ACRE and traditional government programs under comprehensive scenarios of price and yield risks are studied. Also, Interactions between ACRE and other risk management instruments are examined, and government costs and risk management efficiencies between ACRE and traditional government programs are compared. The results show a strong preference of ACRE for the representative central Indiana corn farm in 2009, due to high ACRE guarantee price and expected drop in corn price from 2008 level. Even if the farm faces weak dependence between farm and aggregate yield, the risk could not offset the addition value ACRE could provide for this year. Also, it is found that there are synergistic effects between ACRE and two individual crop insurance plans but antagonistic effects between ACRE and group insurance plans. ACRE is more efficient than traditional government programs in terms of expected program costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Yunguang & Wang, H. Holly & Patrick, George F., 2010. "Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program or Traditional Government Payment Programs: What Factors Matter?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61490, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61490
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.61490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/61490/files/main%20paper%20AAEA%20Selected%20Paper%2011338%20NEW.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.61490?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. Rulon D. Pope & Richard E. Just, 1991. "On Testing the Structure of Risk Preferences in Agricultural Supply Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(3), pages 743-748.
    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. Mitchell, Paul D. & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Coble, Keith H. & Knight, Thomas O., 2011. "Analyzing Farmer Participation Intentions and Enrollment Rates for the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program," Staff Paper Series 560, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Mitchell, Paul D. & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Coble, Keith H. & Knight, Thomas O., 2010. "A Real Options Framework for Analyzing Program Participation as Human Capital Investments: The Case of the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program," Staff Papers 92896, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

    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. Li, Chenguang & Sexton, Richard J., "undated". "Impacts of Retailers’ Pricing Strategies for Produce Commodities on Farmer Welfare," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51720, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Kim, Tae-Hun, . "The measurement of farmers' risk attitudes using a non-structural approach," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 31(2), pages 1-18.
    3. Thorne, Fiona S. & Hennessy, Thia C., 2006. "The Role of Risk in the Decision to Produce Post-Decoupling - A Stochastic Budgeting Example," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25415, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Z. Bar‐Shira & R.E. Just & D. Zilberman, 1997. "Estimation of farmers' risk attitude: an econometric approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 211-222, December.
    5. CARPENTIER, Alain & GOHIN, Alexandre & SCKOKAI, Paolo & THOMAS, Alban, 2015. "Economic modelling of agricultural production: past advances and new challenges," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(01), March.
    6. Alexis Berg & Philippe Quirion & Benjamin Sultan, 2009. "Weather-index drought insurance in Burkina-Faso: assessment of its potential interest to farmers," Post-Print hal-00520893, HAL.
    7. Olmos, Marta Fernandez & Martinez, Jorge Rosell, 2011. "The Quality-Quantity Trade-off in the Principal-Agent Framework," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(01), pages 1-12, January.
    8. Just, Richard E., 1992. "Discovering Microeconomic Relationships in Agriculture," 1992 Conference (36th), February 10-13, 1992, Canberra, Australia 146530, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Robert G. Chambers & Margarita Genius & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2021. "Invariant Risk Preferences and Supply Response under Price Risk," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1802-1819, October.
    10. Sunil KANWAR & Elisabeth SADOULET, 2008. "Dynamic Output Response Revisited: The Indian Cash Crops," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 46(3), pages 217-241, September.
    11. Sunil Kanwar, 2004. "Price Incentives, Nonprice factors, and Crop Supply Response:The Indian Cash Crops," Working papers 132, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    12. Dissemin, uploaded via & Berg, Alexis & Quirion, Philippe & Sultan, Benjamin, 2018. "Weather-index drought insurance in Burkina-Faso: assessment of its potential interest to farmers," OSF Preprints dsmqz, Center for Open Science.
    13. Silvio Daidone & Benjamin Davis & Sudhanshu Handa & Paul Winters, 2019. "The Household and Individual-Level Productive Impacts of Cash Transfer Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1401-1431.
    14. Messina, C. D. & Hansen, J. W. & Hall, A. J., 1999. "Land allocation conditioned on El Nino-Southern Oscillation phases in the Pampas of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 197-212, June.
    15. Olmos, Marta Fernandez & Rosell-Martinez, Jorge & Espitia-Escuer, Manuel Antonio, 2008. "The yield/quality trade-off and contractual choice," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6065, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Kingwell, Ross S., 1995. "Effects of Tactical Responses and Risk Aversion on Farm Wheat Supply," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(01), pages 1-14, April.
    17. Harold Alderman & Christina H. Paxson, 1994. "Do the Poor Insure? A Synthesis of the Literature on Risk and Consumption in Developing Countries," International Economic Association Series, in: Edmar L. Bacha (ed.), Economics in a Changing World, chapter 3, pages 48-78, Palgrave Macmillan.
    18. Just, Richard E., 2000. "Some Guiding Principles for Empirical Production Research in Agriculture," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 138-158, October.
    19. repec:osf:osfxxx:dsmqz_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Fraser, Rob W., 1998. "Lease allocation systems, risk aversion and the resource rent tax," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-16.
    21. Jeffrey LaFrance & Rulon Pope & Jesse Tack, 2011. "Risk Response in Agriculture," NBER Chapters, in: The Intended and Unintended Effects of US Agricultural and Biotechnology Policies, pages 143-186, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:aaea10:61490. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.