Estimating Investment Rigidity Within A Threshold Regression Framework: The Case Of U.S. Hog Production Sector
As the U.S. hog production sector becomes ever more specialized, the importance of capital inputs has heightened. Given that it is costly to adjust the capital stock and that the associated adjustment cost function may exhibit cost asymmetries between investment and disinvestment, profit-maximizing producers may find themselves trapped in a situation where it is neither profitable investing nor worthwhile disinvesting. This article addresses two issues related to the employment of quasi-fixed input in the U.S. hog production sector: does an inaction or sluggish regime exist in the demand for quasi-fixed input, and, if so, to what extent has this impeded adjustment in quasi-fixed input stock and, hence, hog output supply toward the long-term equilibrium levels? The conceptual framework is based on the work by Abel and Eberly and allows for the existence of an inaction/sluggish regime, alongside an investment regime and a disinvestment regime. Quarterly data from 1976 through 1999 are used to estimate the three-regime investment demand equation, treating breeding sows as the quasi-fixed input. The threshold estimation procedure recently advanced by Hansen is adopted. To provide a linkage between breeding herd investment and hog output supply, a hog supply equation, specified in part as a function of lagged breeding stock, is estimated by a least squares procedure. The dynamic recursive system of investment demand and hog supply is used to simulate the effects on breeding stock and hog supply of changes in the magnitude of investment rigidities. The econometric results strongly support the three-regime breeding herd investment model. More than 10 percent of the observations fall into the sluggish regime, indicating that this regime has occurred sufficiently often to warrant attention. The estimated rate of adjustment toward the long-run equilibrium breeding stock is 2.7 percent per quarter. The existence of a linkage between lagged breeding stock and hog supply is confirmed. Thus, the results suggest that it is important to account for investment rigidity when estimating breeding herd demand and hog supply. Simulation results indicate that the effects on breeding stock and hog supply of continued specialization in the hog production sector may not be as significant as what the hog production sector has experienced in the past decades. More importantly the simulations suggest that the impact of increasing investment rigidity is rather modest, about 3 percent at most and, thus, no policy intervention appears to be needed. However, the econometric results clearly indicate that estimates will be biased if investment rigidity is not explicitly accounted for when estimating breeding herd demand and hog supply.
|Date of creation:||2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 231ClaOff Building, 1994 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108-6040|
Phone: (612) 625-1222
Fax: (612) 625-6245
Web page: http://www.apec.umn.edu
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.:
- Pietola, Kyosti & Myers, Robert J., 1998. "Investment Under Uncertainty And Dynamic Adjustment In Finnish Pork Industry," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20953, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
- Donald W.K. Andrews & Werner Ploberger, 1992.
"Optimal Tests When a Nuisance Parameter Is Present Only Under the Alternative,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
1015, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Andrews, Donald W K & Ploberger, Werner, 1994. "Optimal Tests When a Nuisance Parameter Is Present Only under the Alternative," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1383-1414, November.
- Bruce E. Hansen, 1997.
"Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing and inference,"
Boston College Working Papers in Economics
365, Boston College Department of Economics.
- Hansen, Bruce E., 1999. "Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 345-368, December.
- Robert G. Chambers & Utpal Vasavada, 1983. "Testing Asset Fixity for U.S. Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(4), pages 761-769.
- Matthew T. Holt & Stanley R. Johnson, 1986.
"Supply Dynamics in the U.S. Hog Industry,"
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications
86-wp12, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at Iowa State University.
- Matthew T. Holt & Stanley R. Johnson, 1988. "Supply Dynamics in the U.S. Hog Industry," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 36(2), pages 313-335, 07.
- Matthew T. Holt & Stanley R. Johnson, 1986. "Supply Dynamics in the U.S. Hog Industry," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 86-wp12, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
- Alfons Oude Lansink & Spiro E. Stefanou, 1997. "Asymmetric Adjustment of Dynamic Factors at the Firm Level," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1340-1351.
- Chang, Ching-Cheng & Stefanou, Spiro E., 1988. "Specification and estimation of asymmetric adjustment rates for quasi-fixed factors of production," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 145-151, March.
- Mundlak, Yair, 2001. "Production and supply," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 3-85 Elsevier.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:umaesp:13790. 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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.