IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risks Perceptions and Risk Management Instruments in the European Union: do farmers have a clear idea of what they need?


  • Morales, C.
  • Garrido, Alberto
  • Palinkas, Peter
  • Szekely, Csaba


This paper explores and analyzes farmers’ risk perceptions, risk management instruments’ demand and usage in five Member States (Hungary, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany and Poland). A survey completed by 1047 representative farmers of these EU Member Status collected information that allowed us to set apart two focus areas: the first looks at the declared importance of several sources of farms’ risk and income instability, and at the actual means that farmers pursue to manage and face them. The second area focuses on the demand for risk management instruments. The paper’s objective is to determine the factors that explain farmers’ responses in the first area, and based on those factors, analyse the demands for two instruments (insurance, and future & option markets). After carrying out basic descriptive statistic analyses, we perform factor analysis in order to establish the linkages between the perceptions and ranking of risks with the declared strategies to manage them. Logit models were fit to determine potential demand of insurance, and futures & options based on the three factors, and other variables like activity types and other controls, like nationality. Results from the factor analysis show that the perception of risk and actual use of risk management are very diverse. Logit models show that insurance is clearly an alternative instrument to diversification, but its demand is poorly explained by the other factors. Furthermore the demand for the use of futures and options is explained by the three factors, with the volatility factor, positively linked; market access /contractual risks; and diversification, negatively linked. In conclusion, policy makers should proceed with caution selecting the most adequate risk management instruments for farmers. It appears that the expected demand of risk management tools does not fit perfectly with the stated perception of risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Morales, C. & Garrido, Alberto & Palinkas, Peter & Szekely, Csaba, 2008. "Risks Perceptions and Risk Management Instruments in the European Union: do farmers have a clear idea of what they need?," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43956, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:43956

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Matthew T. G. Meulenberg & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2002. "A Marketing Approach to Commodity Futures Exchanges: A Case Study of the Dutch Hog Industry," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 51-64.
    2. Williams, Jeffrey C., 2001. "Commodity futures and options," Handbook of Agricultural Economics,in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 13, pages 745-816 Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Lajos Barath & Raushan Bokusheva & Imre Ferto, 2016. "Studying Farm Insurance Demand under Financial Constraints," IEHAS Discussion Papers 1625, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
    2. Schulze, Birgit, 2011. "Dynamic Markets – Dynamic Relationships: The Example of Grain Marketing in Germany," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122001, International European Forum on Innovation and System Dynamics in Food Networks.
    3. Assefa, Tsion & Lansink, Alfons G.J.M. & Meuwissen, Miranda, 2015. "Does price volatility matter? An assessment along EU food chains," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 210965, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item


    risk; risk management; farmer’s perception.; Risk and Uncertainty;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:eaae08:43956. 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: .

    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.