The Choice of Farm Organisation. A Hungarian Case
The literature on the agricultural transformation in Central an Eastern European countries usually neglect the investigation of organisational forms in agriculture. This paper is the first to analyse the choice of organisation forms in transition agriculture employing transaction cost theory. The analysis is based on Hungarian FADN data in 2003. In general, our results do not support the theoretical predictions on the choice of farm organisation, but confirm the differences in capital level and farm area observed in different farm organisations. The divergence between theory and empirics shed light on the importance of path dependency in explaining of farm organisations.
|Date of creation:||2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.eaae.orgEmail: |
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Matthew Gorton & Barna Kovacs & Tamas Mizik & Sophia Davidova & Tomas Ratinger & Belen Iraizoz, 2003. "An Analysis of the Performance of Commercially Oriented Farms in Hungary," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 401-416.
- Roumasset, J., 1995.
"The nature of the agricultural firm,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 161-177, March.
- Dong, Xiao-yuan & Dow, Gregory K, 1993. "Monitoring Costs in Chinese Agricutural Teams," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(3), pages 539-53, June.
- Gorton, Matthew & Davidova, Sophia, 2004.
"Farm productivity and efficiency in the CEE applicant countries: a synthesis of results,"
Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 1-16, January.
- Gorton, Matthew & Davidova, Sophia, 2004. "Farm productivity and efficiency in the CEE applicant countries: a synthesis of results," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 30(1), January.
- D. McFadden & J. Hausman, 1981.
"Specification Tests for the Multinominal Logit Model,"
292, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-40, September.
- Frisvold, George B., 1994. "Does supervision matter? Some hypothesis tests using Indian farm-level data," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 217-238, April.
- Brooks, Karen & Nash, John, 2002. "The rural sector in transition economies," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 30, pages 1547-1592 Elsevier.
- Allen, Douglas W & Lueck, Dean, 1998. "The Nature of the Farm," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 343-86, October.
- Erik Mathijs & Liesbet Vranken, 2001. "Human Capital, Gender and Organisation in Transition Agriculture: Measuring and Explaining the Technical Efficiency of Bulgarian and Hungarian Farms," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 171-187.
- Scott Rozelle & Johan F.M. Swinnen, 2004. "Success and Failure of Reform: Insights from the Transition of Agriculture," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 404-456, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae94:24420. 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)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.