IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uflowp/15663.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Institutional and Socioeconomic Model of Farm Mechanization and Foreign Workers

Author

Listed:
  • Napasintuwong, Orachos
  • Emerson, Robert D.

Abstract

A multi-output cost function approach to induced innovation is adopted to analyze the impact of socioeconomic variables and institutional factors on technological change in agriculture. Focusing on the impact of immigration policy and farm mechanization, the study includes variables such as H-2A or guest workers, deportable Mexicans working in agriculture representing the percentage of unauthorized workers, the public and private research expenditures on farm mechanization and other research on agricultural technology. We found that over the 1971-1995 period, the technology was biased toward labor-saving technology, but was capital-neutral. The number of unauthorized workers had no significant effect on cost shares; the number of H-2A workers had a negative effect on the cost share of capital. Both had a positive effect on the revenue share of cereals. Public expenditures on mechanization have a significant impact on reducing the cost share of capital; however, private expenditures on machinery increase the cost share of capital. Using the Morishima elasticity of substitution, we found that labor was a substitute for capital when the price of capital changes, but when the price of labor changes, capital was not necessarily a substitute for labor.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Napasintuwong, Orachos & Emerson, Robert D., 2005. "Institutional and Socioeconomic Model of Farm Mechanization and Foreign Workers," Working Papers 15663, University of Florida, International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uflowp:15663
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.15663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/15663/files/wp050007.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.15663?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Binswanger, Hans P, 1974. "The Measurement of Technical Change Biases with Many Factors of Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(6), pages 964-976, December.
    2. Alain de Janvry, 1973. "A Socioeconomic Model of Induced Innovations for Argentine Agricultural Development," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 87(3), pages 410-435.
    3. Napasintuwong, Orachos & Emerson, Robert D., 2003. "Farm Mechanization And The Farm Labor Market: A Socioeconomic Model Of Induced Innovation," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35117, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Blackorby, Charles & Russell, R Robert, 1989. "Will the Real Elasticity of Substitution Please Stand Up? (A Comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima Elasticities)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 882-888, September.
    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. Liu, Boying & Richard Shumway, C., 2016. "Substitution elasticities between GHG-polluting and nonpolluting inputs in agricultural production: A meta-regression," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 123-132.
    2. Msangi, Siwa & Rosegrant, Mark, 2007. "A Closer Look at the IMPACT of Climate Change on Country-Level Food Security and Nutrition," Conference papers 331635, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.

    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. Beatriz Muriel & Carlos Gustavo Machicado, 2012. "Employment and Labor Regulation: Evidence from Manufacturing Firms in Bolivia, 1988-2007," Development Research Working Paper Series 07/2012, Institute for Advanced Development Studies.
    2. Napasintuwong, Orachos & Emerson, Robert D., 2003. "Farm Mechanization And The Farm Labor Market: A Socioeconomic Model Of Induced Innovation," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35117, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Rainer Klump & César Miralles Cabrera, 2008. "Biased Technological Change in Agriculture: The Hayami-Ruttan Hypothesis Revisited," DEGIT Conference Papers c013_016, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    4. Liu, Boying & Richard Shumway, C., 2016. "Substitution elasticities between GHG-polluting and nonpolluting inputs in agricultural production: A meta-regression," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 123-132.
    5. Getu Hailu & John Cranfield & Rawlin Thangaraj, 2010. "Do U.S. food processors respond to sweetener-related health information?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 348-368.
    6. Yumei Liu & Wuyang Hu & Simon Jetté-Nantel & Zhihong Tian, 2014. "The Influence of Labor Price Change on Agricultural Machinery Usage in Chinese Agriculture," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(2), pages 219-243, June.
    7. Daniels, Jean M., 2010. "Assessing the lumber manufacturing sector in western Washington," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 129-135, February.
    8. Thomas Brasch, 2016. "Identifying the sector bias of technical change," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 595-621, March.
    9. Thomas von Brasch, 2015. "Indentifying the sector bias of technical change," Discussion Papers 795, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    10. Noel Uri, 2001. "Telecommunications in the United States and Changing Productive Efficiency," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 321-335, September.
    11. Paul, Saumik, 2019. "A Decline in Labor's Share with Capital Accumulation and Complementary Factor Inputs: An Application of the Morishima Elasticity of Substitution," IZA Discussion Papers 12219, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Barnett, William A. & Serletis, Apostolos, 2008. "Consumer preferences and demand systems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 210-224, December.
    13. Frédéric Reynès, 2011. "The cobb-douglas function as an approximation of other functions," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01069515, HAL.
    14. Laura Spierdijk & Sherrill Shaffer & Tim Considine, 2016. "Adapting to changing input prices in response to the crisis: The case of US commercial banks," CAMA Working Papers 2016-15, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    15. David Rezza Baqaee & Emmanuel Farhi, 2019. "The Macroeconomic Impact of Microeconomic Shocks: Beyond Hulten's Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1155-1203, July.
    16. Obare, G. A. & Omamo, S. W. & Williams, J. C., 2003. "Smallholder production structure and rural roads in Africa: the case of Nakuru District, Kenya," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 245-254, May.
    17. Noel Uri, 2003. "The Effect of Incentive Regulation in Telecommunications in the United States," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 169-191, May.
    18. Shoemaker, Robbin, 1986. "Effects of Changes in U.S. Agricultural Production on Demand for Farm Inputs," Technical Bulletins 157024, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    19. Fleissig, Adrian & Swofford, James L., 1996. "A dynamic asymptotically ideal model of money demand," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 371-380, April.
    20. Elena Lagomarsino & Karen Turner, 2017. "Is the production function Translog or CES? An empirical illustration using UK data," Working Papers 1713, University of Strathclyde Business School, Department of Economics.

    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:uflowp:15663. 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/iatpcus.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.