IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae17/261178.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The demand for public-private crop insurance and government disaster relief

Author

Listed:
  • Liesivaara, Petri
  • Myyrä, Sami

Abstract

Insurance premium subsidies and disaster relief payments are government actions that can help to smooth farmers’ incomes between years. In the EU crop insurance based on public-private partnership is promoted. We present an analysis based on farmers’ stated preferences with split data approach of crop insurance and disaster relief provided by the government. Results reveal that farmers’ willingness to pay for crop insurance is conditional on the prospect for government disaster relief.

Suggested Citation

  • Liesivaara, Petri & Myyrä, Sami, 2017. "The demand for public-private crop insurance and government disaster relief," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261178, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae17:261178
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.261178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261178/files/Liesivaara%20P%20and%20Myyr%C3%A4%20S%20%282017%29%20The%20demand%20for%20public-private%20crop%20insurance%20and%20government%20disaster%20relief.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261178/files/Liesivaara%20P%20and%20Myyr%C3%A4%20S%20%282017%29%20The%20demand%20for%20public-private%20crop%20insurance%20and%20government%20disaster%20relief.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    2. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Martinsen, Louise & Hasler, Berit & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2011. "Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1170-1177, April.
    3. Geoffroy Enjolras & Patrick Sentis, 2011. "Crop insurance policies and purchases in France," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(4), pages 475-486, July.
    4. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2007. "Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 610-623, September.
    5. Veronica F. Pozo & Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder, 2012. "How Choice Experiment Design Affects Estimated Valuation of Use of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 639-655, September.
    6. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    7. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, Enero.
    9. Alberto Garrido & David Zilberman, 2008. "Revisiting the demand for agricultural insurance: the case of Spain," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 68(1), pages 43-66, May.
    10. Velandia, Margarita M. & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Knight, Thomas O. & Sherrick, Bruce J., 2009. "Factors Affecting Farmers’ Utilization of Agricultural Risk Management Tools: The Case of Crop Insurance, Forward Contracting, and Spreading Sales," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(1), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    12. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
    13. Vincent H. Smith & Alan E. Baquet, 1996. "The Demand for Multiple Peril Crop Insurance: Evidence from Montana Wheat Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 189-201.
    14. Bruce J. Sherrick & Peter J. Barry & Paul N. Ellinger & Gary D. Schnitkey, 2004. "Factors Influencing Farmers' Crop Insurance Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 103-114.
    15. Myyra, Sami & Pietola, Kyosti, 2011. "Testing for Moral Hazard and Ranking Farms by Their Inclination to Collect Crop Damage Compensations," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114632, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Barry K. Goodwin, 1993. "An Empirical Analysis of the Demand for Multiple Peril Crop Insurance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 425-434.
    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. Coletta, Attilio & Giampietri, Elisa & Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Severini, Simone & Trestini, Samuele, 2018. "A preliminary test on risk and ambiguity attitudes, and time preferences in decisions under uncertainty: towards a better explanation of participation in crop insurance schemes," MPRA Paper 95347, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Trestini, Samuel & Giampietri, Elisa & Smiglak-Krajewska, Magdalena, 2018. "Farmer behaviour towards the agricultural risk management tools provided by the CAP: a comparison between Italy and Poland," 162nd Seminar, April 26-27, 2018, Budapest, Hungary 271978, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. repec:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4607-:d:260655 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural Finance; Risk and Uncertainty;

    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:eaae17:261178. 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/eaaeeea.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.