IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/wisagr/116705.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analyzing Farmer Participation Intentions and Enrollment Rates for the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program

Author

Listed:
  • Mitchell, Paul D.
  • Rejesus, Roderick M.
  • Coble, Keith H.
  • Knight, Thomas O.

Abstract

The 2008 Farm Bill created the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program as a new commodity support program. We analyze actual county-level ACRE enrollment rates and a mail survey of farmers just before the ACRE sign-up deadline in Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin. As discussions begin regarding the next Farm Bill, an understanding of the factors affecting ACRE participation can provide guidance as program changes are discussed. Our empirical analysis of the survey suggest that initial farmer plans to switch to ACRE in 2009 were driven by producer perceptions of whether or not ACRE would pay more than existing programs and whether or not it would provide more risk protection. On the other hand, planning to stay with existing programs in 2009 and possibly switching to ACRE later was driven more by producer risk aversion and perceptions about the effect of yield and price variability on income risk in the coming years. Membership in organizations such as National Farmers Union, National Farmers Organization, and the Grange was consistently and strongly associated with intending to stay with existing programs in 2009. Consistent state and crop effects were also found. Texas and Wisconsin producers were more likely to plan to wait and possibly switch to ACRE later and cotton growers strongly intended to stay with existing programs in 2009, likely due to the large „cost‟ of giving up the relatively larger direct payments for cotton and price expectations that made counter-cyclical payments more likely. Our empirical analysis of actual, county-level ACRE enrollment rates suggests that crop effects were again important – cotton areas had low enrollment rates, wheat areas had high enrollment rates, and counties with more diversity in crops had higher enrollment rates. In addition, regions where farmers believed yield variability would be an important source of risk also had higher enrollment. Programmatic knowledge and transactions costs also mattered for ACRE enrollment. Counties with greater participation in current farm programs had higher ACRE enrollment rates, as more growers were likely more familiar with how farm programs worked and/or received more educational efforts. Similarly, as all owners and operators must sign ACRE election forms, counties with a greater proportion of farmers renting land and/or buildings had lower enrollment rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Mitchell, Paul D. & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Coble, Keith H. & Knight, Thomas O., 2011. "Analyzing Farmer Participation Intentions and Enrollment Rates for the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program," Staff Papers 116705, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:wisagr:116705
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.116705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/116705/files/stpap560.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.116705?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. David A. Hennessy, 1998. "The Production Effects of Agricultural Income Support Policies under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 46-57.
    2. Lubben, Bradley D. & Novak, James L., 2010. "Discussion: What Have We Learned from the New Suite of Risk Management Programs of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 537-541, August.
    3. Zulauf, Carl R. & Schnitkey, Gary D. & Langemeier, Michael R., 2010. "Average Crop Revenue Election, Crop Insurance, and Supplemental Revenue Assistance: Interactions and Overlap for Illinois and Kansas Farm Program Crops," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1-15, August.
    4. Woolverton, Andrea E. & Edwin, Young, 2009. "Factors Influencing ACRE Program Enrollment," Economic Research Report 55954, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Chen, Yunguang & Wang, H. Holly & Patrick, George F., 2010. "Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program or Traditional Government Payment Programs: What Factors Matter?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61490, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Fabienne Femenia & Alexandre Gohin & Alain Carpentier, 2010. "The Decoupling of Farm Programs: Revisiting the Wealth Effect," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(3), pages 836-848.
    7. Barry K. Goodwin & Ashok K. Mishra, 2006. "Are “Decoupled” Farm Program Payments Really Decoupled? An Empirical Evaluation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 73-89.
    8. Jensen, Kimberly L. & Clark, Christopher D. & Ellis, Pamela & English, Burton C. & Menard, R. Jamey & Walsh, Marie E., 2006. "Farmer Willingness to Grow Switchgrass for Energy Production," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21355, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Zulauf, Carl R. & Dicks, Michael R. & Vitale, Jeffrey D., 2008. "ACRE (Average Crop Revenue Election) Farm Program: Provisions, Policy Background, and Farm Decision Analysis," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(3), pages 1-7.
    10. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2009. "How Coupled Are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of the Evidence," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-24, April.
    11. Teresa Serra & David Zilberman & Barry K. Goodwin & Allen Featherstone, 2006. "Effects of decoupling on the mean and variability of output," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(3), pages 269-288, September.
    12. Campiche, Jody L. & Harris, Wesley L., 2010. "Lessons Learned in the Southern Region after the First Year of Implementation of the New Commodity Programs," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1-9, August.
    13. Hilker, James H. & Betz, Roger & Black, J. Roy, 2009. "Alert: Farmers Need To Sign Up For Acre!," Staff Paper Series 52208, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    14. Arathi Bhaskar & John C. Beghin, 2010. "Decoupled Farm Payments and the Role of Base Acreage and Yield Updating Under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(3), pages 849-858.
    15. Brian W. Gould & William E. Saupe & Richard M. Klemme, 1989. "Conservation Tillage: The Role of Farm and Operator Characteristics and the Perception of Soil Erosion," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(2), pages 167-185.
    16. Campiche, Jody & Harris, Wes, 2010. "Lessons Learned in the Southern Region after the First Year of Implementation of the New Commodity Programs," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 491-499, August.
    17. Barnaby, Glenn Arthur, Jr., 2010. "Should Basic Underwriting Rules be Applied to Average Crop Revenue Election and Supplemental Revenue?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & McBride, William D., 2002. "Adoption Of Bioengineered Crops," Agricultural Economic Reports 33957, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    19. Zulauf, Carl R., 2008. "2008 Farm Bill – Focus on ACRE (Average Crop Revenue Election)(PowerPoint)," Seminars 43907, USDA Economists Group.
    20. Bruce A. Babcock, 2010. "Costs and Benefits of Moving to a County ACRE Program," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 10-pb2, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    21. Paulson, Nick, 2011. "ACRE Program Enrollment in 2009 and 2010," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 1, April.
    22. Cooper, Joseph C., 2009. "ACRE: A Revenue-Based Alternative to Price-Based Commodity Payment Programs," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49180, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    23. Barnaby, G. Art, 2010. "Should Basic Underwriting Rules be Applied to Average Crop Revenue Election and Supplemental Revenue?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 517-535, August.
    24. Bruce Gardner & Ian Hardie & Peter J. Parks, 2010. "United States Farm Commodity Programs and Land Use," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(3), pages 803-820.
    25. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-632, Nov.-Dec..
    26. Olson, Kent D. & DalSanto, Matthew R., 2008. "Provisions and Potential Impacts of the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program," Staff Papers 42980, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    27. Christopher R. McIntosh & Jason F. Shogren & Erik Dohlman, 2007. "Supply Response to Countercyclical Payments and Base Acre Updating under Uncertainty: An Experimental Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1046-1057.
    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. Coble, Keith H. & Barnett, Barry J. & Riley, John Michael, 2013. "Challenging Belief in the Law of Small Numbers," 2013 AAEA: Crop Insurance and the Farm Bill Symposium 156958, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Lefebvre, Marianne & Raggi, Meri & Gomez Y Paloma, Sergio & Viaggi, Davide, 2014. "An analysis of the intention-realisation discrepancy in EU farmers’ land investment decisions," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 95(01), pages 51-75, March.

    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. Mitchell, Paul D. & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Coble, Keith H. & Knight, Thomas O., 2010. "A Real Options Framework for Analyzing Program Participation as Human Capital Investments: The Case of the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program," Staff Paper Series 547, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Moro, Daniele & Sckokai, Paolo, 2013. "The impact of decoupled payments on farm choices: Conceptual and methodological challenges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 28-38.
    3. Andreas Wagener & Juliane Zenker, 2021. "Decoupled but Not Neutral: The Effects of Counter‐Cyclical Cash Transfers on Investment and Incomes in Rural Thailand†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1637-1660, October.
    4. Voica, Daniel C., 2014. "Are Subsidies Decoupled from Production in the Presence of Incomplete Financial Markets?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169788, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2009. "How Coupled Are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of the Evidence," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-24, April.
    6. Marian Rizov & Jan Pokrivcak & Pavel Ciaian, 2013. "CAP Subsidies and Productivity of the EU Farms," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 537-557, September.
    7. Fabienne Femenia & Alexandre Gohin & Alain Carpentier, 2010. "The Decoupling of Farm Programs: Revisiting the Wealth Effect," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(3), pages 836-848.
    8. Robert G. Chambers & Daniel C. Voica, 2017. "“Decoupled” Farm Program Payments are Really Decoupled: The Theory," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 99(3), pages 773-782, April.
    9. Prifti, Ervin & Daidone, Silvio & Pace, Noemi & Davis, Benjamin, 2019. "Unconditional cash transfers, risk attitudes and modern inputs demand," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 53, pages 100-118.
    10. Wagener, Andreas & Zenker, Juliane, 2018. "Decoupled but not neutral: The effects of stochastic transfers on investment and incomes in rural Thailand," TVSEP Working Papers wp-008, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade, Project TVSEP.
    11. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: Methodological issues in assessing policy impacts," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    12. Andrius Kazukauskas & Carol Newman & Johannes Sauer, 2014. "The impact of decoupled subsidies on productivity in agriculture: a cross-country analysis using microdata," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 327-336, May.
    13. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2007. "Decoupled Farm Payments and the Role of Base Updating Under Uncertainty," Working Papers 7350, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2007. "How Coupled are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of Coupling Mechanisms and the Evidence," Working Papers 7347, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Arathi Bhaskar & John C. Beghin, 2010. "Decoupled Farm Payments and the Role of Base Acreage and Yield Updating Under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(3), pages 849-858.
    16. Basnet, Shyam Kumar & Jansson , Torbjorn & Heckelei, Thomas, 2021. "A Bayesian econometrics and risk programming approach for analysing the impact of decoupled payments in the European Union," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(03), January.
    17. Girante, Maria Joana & Goodwin, Barry K. & Featherstone, Allen M., 2008. "Farmers' Crop Acreage Decisions in the Presence of Credit Constraints: Do Decoupled Payments Matter?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6335, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Barrett E. Kirwan & Michael J. Roberts, 2016. "Who Really Benefits from Agricultural Subsidies? Evidence from Field-level Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1095-1113.
    19. Carpentier, Alain & Gohin, Alexandre & Heinzel, Christoph, 2012. "Production Effects of Direct Payments to Active Farmers: a Microeconomic Dynamic and Stochastic Analysis," 123rd Seminar, February 23-24, 2012, Dublin, Ireland 122447, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Kehinde Oluseyi Olagunju & Myles Patton & Siyi Feng, 2020. "Estimating the Impact of Decoupled Payments on Farm Production in Northern Ireland: An Instrumental Variable Fixed Effect Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management; Risk and Uncertainty;

    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:wisagr:116705. 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/dauwius.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.