IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae17/261265.html

Risk Aversion And Pesticide Use: Further Insights From Prospect Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Carpentier, Alain

Abstract

Prospect Theory suggests that farmers’ attitudes toward pest risks depend on the situation they refer to when facing crop protection decisions. Farmers referring to the ‘protected crop’ situation may implement self-insurance pesticide treatments while farmers referring to the ‘unprotected crop’ situation are risk neutral toward pest risks. Importantly, farmers are more likely to refer to the ‘protected crop’ situation when pesticides are relatively inexpensive. This in turn leads to original results related to the regulation of agricultural pesticide uses. For instance, pesticide taxes would not only impact pesticide expected profitability but also farmers’ attitude toward pest risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Carpentier, Alain, "undated". "Risk Aversion And Pesticide Use: Further Insights From Prospect Theory," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261265, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae17:261265
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.261265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261265/files/Carpentier%20A%20%282017%29%20Risk%20Aversion%20And%20Pesticide%20Use.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261265/files/Carpentier%20A%20%282017%29%20Risk%20Aversion%20And%20Pesticide%20Use.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.261265?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. Robert G. Chambers & Giannis Karagiannis & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2010. "Another Look at Pesticide Productivity and Pest Damage," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1401-1419.
    2. Bharat Ramaswami, 1992. "Production Risk and Optimal Input Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(4), pages 860-869.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Sergio H. Lence, 2007. "Joint Estimation of Risk Preferences and Technology: Flexible Utility or Futility?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 581-598.
    5. Yazhen Gong & Kathy Baylis & Robert Kozak & Gary Bull, 2016. "Farmers’ risk preferences and pesticide use decisions: evidence from field experiments in China," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 411-421, July.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    7. Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    8. Erik Lichtenberg & David Zilberman, 1986. "The Econometrics of Damage Control: Why Specification Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 261-273.
    9. J. K. Horowitz & E. Lichtenberg, 1994. "Risk‐Reducing And Risk‐Increasing Effects Of Pesticides," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 82-89, January.
    10. Bhavani Shankar & Richard Bennett & Stephen Morse, 2008. "Production risk, pesticide use and GM crop technology in South Africa," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(19), pages 2489-2500.
    11. Lence, Sergio H., . "Ajae Appendix For “Joint Estimation Of Risk Preferences And Technology: Flexible Utility Or Futility?”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 1-6.
    12. Atanu Saha & C. Richard Shumway & Arthur Havenner, 1997. "The Economics and Econometrics of Damage Control," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 773-785.
    13. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    14. Ehrlich, Isaac & Becker, Gary S, 1972. "Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(4), pages 623-648, July-Aug..
    15. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    16. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    17. Segal, Uzi & Spivak, Avia, 1990. "First order versus second order risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-125, June.
    18. Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1047-1073, September.
    19. Sexton, Steven E. & Lei, Zhen & Zilberman, David, 2007. "The Economics of Pesticides and Pest Control," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 271-326, September.
    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. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Bontemps, Christophe & Bougherara, Douadia & Nauges, Céline, 2020. "Do Risk Preferences Really Matter? The Case of Pesticide Use in Agriculture," TSE Working Papers 20-1095, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Niklas Möhring & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Robert Finger, 2020. "Are pesticides risk decreasing? The relevance of pesticide indicator choice in empirical analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 429-444, May.
    4. Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany [A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 940-982.
    5. Bougherara, Douadia & Nauges, Céline, 2018. "How laboratory experiments could help disentangle the influences of production risk and risk preferences on input decisions," TSE Working Papers 18-903, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    6. Feng, Shuaizhang & Han, Yujie & Qiu, Huanguang, 2021. "Does crop insurance reduce pesticide usage? Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    7. Shuoli Zhao & Chengyan Yue, 2020. "Risk preferences of commodity crop producers and specialty crop producers: An application of prospect theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 359-372, May.
    8. Céline Nauges & Douadia Bougherara & Estelle Koussoubé, 2021. "Fertilizer use and risk: New evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," Working Papers hal-04972041, HAL.
    9. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    10. Barberis, Nicholas & Huang, Ming, 2009. "Preferences with frames: A new utility specification that allows for the framing of risks," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1555-1576, August.
    11. repec:dgr:rugsom:14022-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Géraldine Bocqueho & Marc Deschamps & Jenny Helstroffer & Julien Jacob & Majlinda Joxhe & Ofce Observatoire Français Des Conjonctures Économiques, 2018. "The risk and refugee migration," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03607866, HAL.
    13. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    14. Alexander L. Brown & Taisuke Imai & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Colin F. Camerer, 2024. "Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 485-516, June.
    15. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    16. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    17. Wenhui Zhou & Dongmei Wang & Weixiang Huang & Pengfei Guo, 2021. "To Pool or Not to Pool? The Effect of Loss Aversion on Queue Configurations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4258-4272, November.
    18. Adriaan Soetevent & Liting Zhou, 2016. "Loss Modification Incentives for Insurers Under Expected Utility and Loss Aversion," De Economist, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 41-67, March.
    19. Sebastian Oelrich, 2019. "Making regulation fit by taking irrationality into account: the case of the whistleblower," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 175-207, April.
    20. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    21. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2019. "Decisions under uncertainty in social contexts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 73-95.

    More about this item

    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:eaae17:261265. 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/eaaeeea.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.