IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea12/124585.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incorporating "Bads" and "Goods" in the Measurement of Agricultural Productivity Growth in the U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Plesha, Nataliya
  • Ray, Subhash C.
  • Nehring, Richard F.
  • Ball, V. Eldon

Abstract

Productive utilization of resources has enabled American agriculture to supply the nation with vast quantities of food at a high level of efficiency. However, the USDA shows that 2011 pesticide expenses increased by about $100 million resulting from a slight increase of planted acres and a one-percent rise in prices paid. Some believe that increased food and fiber production has come at a cost to environmental quality. Modern pest management utilizes a wider range of appropriate pest management options despite the diversity of chemical use in agriculture. In fact, modern agriculture may suffer significant economic losses in yield and quality without intensive use of pesticides and other chemicals. This paper presents findings on the efficiency score measures with undesirable or bad outputs and the offending bad input (i.e., pesticides and fertilizers) for twelve key corn producing states, twelve key cotton producing states, and fifteen key soybean producing states using a unique panel of state-level data set for 1960-1997. Our preliminary findings indicate that the efficiency scores for corn, cotton, and soybean producing states are consistent with the pesticide risk indicators for protection of drinking water patterns discussed in Kellogg et al, 2002. In general, there is more room for reducing the bad output along with the polluting input (e.g., pesticide and fertilizer) than for expanding the good outputs (e.g., crops, livestock, and farm related output) in the major corn and soybean producing states. Only half of the 12 cotton producing states were found to be efficient over the entire period. Our findings using the updated, revised and extended through 1997 USDA data on “goods” and “bads” differ from the previous results reported in Harper et al. “New Developments in Productivity Analysis” (2001) due to the different approach (i.e., measured efficiency scores) used in this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Plesha, Nataliya & Ray, Subhash C. & Nehring, Richard F. & Ball, V. Eldon, 2012. "Incorporating "Bads" and "Goods" in the Measurement of Agricultural Productivity Growth in the U.S," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124585, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:124585
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124585
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124585/files/PleshaEtal.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124585?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. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Tyteca, Daniel, 1996. "An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms--application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 161-175, August.
    2. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 2007. "A Comment on Weak Disposability in Nonparametric Production Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(2), pages 535-538.
    3. Murty, Sushama & Russell, R. Robert, 2010. "On modeling pollution-generating technologies," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 931, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    4. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
    5. Atakelty Hailu & Terrence S. Veeman, 2001. "Non-parametric Productivity Analysis with Undesirable Outputs: An Application to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 605-616.
    6. Ball, V. Eldon & Lovell, C.A. Knox & Luu, H. & Nehring, Richard F., 2004. "Incorporating Environmental Impacts in the Measurement of Agricultural Productivity Growth," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Pittman, Russell W, 1983. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons with Undesirable Outputs," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 93(372), pages 883-891, December.
    8. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf & Carl A Pasurka, Jr., 2001. "Accounting for Air Pollution Emissions in Measures of State Manufacturing Productivity Growth," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 381-409, August.
    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. Forsund, Finn R., 2009. "Good Modelling of Bad Outputs: Pollution and Multiple-Output Production," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(1), pages 1-38, August.
    2. Leleu, Hervé, 2013. "Shadow pricing of undesirable outputs in nonparametric analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(2), pages 474-480.
    3. K Hervé Dakpo & Philippe Jeanneaux & Laure Latruffe, 2014. "Inclusion of undesirable outputs in production technology modeling:The case of greenhouse gas emissions in French meat sheep farming," Working Papers SMART - LERECO 14-08, INRAE UMR SMART-LERECO.
    4. Kenneth Rødseth, 2014. "Efficiency measurement when producers control pollutants: a non-parametric approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 211-223, October.
    5. Dakpo, K & Jeanneaux, Philippe & Latruffee, Laure, 2015. "Empirical comparison of pollution generating technologies in nonparametric modelling: The case of greenhouse gas emissions in French sheep meat farming," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211557, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Yang, Hongliang & Pollitt, Michael, 2010. "The necessity of distinguishing weak and strong disposability among undesirable outputs in DEA: Environmental performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4440-4444, August.
    7. George Halkos & George Papageorgiou, 2016. "Spatial environmental efficiency indicators in regional waste generation: a nonparametric approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(1), pages 62-78, January.
    8. George Halkos & Nickolaos Tzeremes, 2012. "Measuring German regions’ environmental efficiency: a directional distance function approach," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 7-16, March.
    9. Hoang, Viet-Ngu & Coelli, Tim, 2011. "Measurement of agricultural total factor productivity growth incorporating environmental factors: A nutrients balance approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 462-474.
    10. Halkos, George E. & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2013. "A conditional directional distance function approach for measuring regional environmental efficiency: Evidence from UK regions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(1), pages 182-189.
    11. Halkos, George & Petrou, Kleoniki Natalia, 2019. "Treating undesirable outputs in DEA: A critical review," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 97-104.
    12. Kumar, Surender & Khanna, Madhu, 2009. "Measurement of environmental efficiency and productivity: a cross-country analysis," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 473-495, August.
    13. Halkos, George & Tzeremes, Nickolaos, 2011. "Regional environmental efficiency and economic growth: NUTS2 evidence from Germany, France and the UK," MPRA Paper 33698, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Berre, David & Boussemart, Jean-Philippe & Leleu, Hervé & Tillard, Emmanuel, 2013. "Economic value of greenhouse gases and nitrogen surpluses: Society vs farmers’ valuation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(2), pages 325-331.
    15. Halkos, George & Tzeremes, Nickolaos, 2011. "Kuznets curve and environmental performance: evidence from China," MPRA Paper 34312, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Charles, Vincent & Kumar, Mukesh & Irene Kavitha, S., 2012. "Measuring the efficiency of assembled printed circuit boards with undesirable outputs using data envelopment analysis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 194-206.
    17. Wang, Ke & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2014. "China’s regional industrial energy efficiency and carbon emissions abatement costs," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 617-631.
    18. Beltrán-Esteve, Mercedes & Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J., 2017. "Assessing environmental performance in the European Union: Eco-innovation versus catching-up," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 240-252.
    19. Halkos, George & Tzeremes, Nickolaos, 2011. "Measuring regional environmental efficiency: A directional distance function approach," MPRA Paper 32934, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Zhou, P. & Delmas, M.A. & Kohli, A., 2017. "Constructing meaningful environmental indices: A nonparametric frontier approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 21-34.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Production Economics; Productivity Analysis;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea12:124585. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://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 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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.