IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eps/fmwppr/142.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Effects of Economic Factors on Adoption of Robotics and Consequences of Automation for Productivity Growth of Dairy Farms

Author

Listed:
  • Heikkilä, Anna-Maija
  • Myyrä, Sami
  • Pietola, Kyösti

Abstract

In the long term, productivity and especially productivity growth are necessary conditions for the survival of a farm. In this paper, we focus on the technology choice of a dairy farm, i.e. the choice between a conventional and an automatic milking system. Our aim is to reveal the extent to which economic rationality explains investing in new technology. The adoption of robotics is further linked to farm productivity to show how capital-intensive technology has affected the overall productivity of milk production. In our empirical analysis, we apply a probit model and an extended Cobb-Douglastype production function to a Finnish farm-level dataset for the years 2000–10. The results show that very few economic factors on a dairy farm or in its economic environment can be identified to affect the switch to automatic milking. Existing machinery capital and investment allowances are among the significant factors. The results also indicate that the probability of investing in robotics responds elastically to a change in investment aids: an increase of 1% in aid would generate an increase of 2% in the probability of investing. Despite the presence of non-economic incentives, the switch to robotic milking is proven to promote productivity development on dairy farms. No productivity growth is observed on farms that keep conventional milking systems, whereas farms with robotic milking have a growth rate of 8.1% per year. The mean rate for farms that switch to robotic milking is 7.0% per year. The results show great progress in productivity growth, with the average of the sector at around 2% per year during the past two decades. In conclusion, investments in new technology as well as investment aids to boost investments are needed in low-productivity areas where investments in new technology still have great potential to increase productivity, and thus profitability and competitiveness, in the long run.

Suggested Citation

  • Heikkilä, Anna-Maija & Myyrä, Sami & Pietola, Kyösti, 2012. "Effects of Economic Factors on Adoption of Robotics and Consequences of Automation for Productivity Growth of Dairy Farms," Factor Markets Working Papers 142, Centre for European Policy Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:eps:fmwppr:142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.factormarkets.eu/system/files/FM%20No%2032%20Dairy%20Farming%20Keikkilaetal%20et%20al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petrick, Martin & Kloss, Mathias, 2012. "Drivers of agricultural capital productivity in selected EU member states," Factor Markets Working Papers 137, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    2. David Zilberman & Doug Parker, 1996. "Explaining Irrigation Technology Choices: A Microparameter Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 1064-1072.
    3. Kyösti Pietola & Anna‐Maija Heikkilä, 2005. "Switching toward capital‐intensive technologies in Finnish dairy farms," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(s3), pages 381-387, November.
    4. Sipilainen, Timo & Kuosmanen, Timo & Kumbhakar, Subal C., 2008. "Measuring productivity differentials – An application to milk production in Nordic countries," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44277, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Ky–sti Pietola & Minna V”re & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2003. "Timing and type of exit from farming: farmers' early retirement programmes in Finland," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 99-116, March.
    6. Kumbhakar, Subal C & Heshmati, Almas & Hjalmarsson, Lennart, 1999. " Parametric Approaches to Productivity Measurement: A Comparison among Alternative Models," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(3), pages 405-424, September.
    7. Subal C. Kumbhakar & Almas Heshmati & Lennart Hjalmarsson, 1999. "Parametric Approaches to Productivity Measurement: A Comparison among Alternative Models," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(3), pages 405-424, 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. Lukáš Čechura & Zdeňka Žáková Kroupová & Irena Benešová, 2021. "Productivity and Efficiency in European Milk Production: Can We Observe the Effects of Abolishing Milk Quotas?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Petrick, Martin & Kloss, Mathias, 2013. "Synthesis Report on the Impact of Capital Use," Factor Markets Working Papers 169, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    3. Floridi, Matteo & Bartolini, Fabio & Peerlings, Jack & Polman, Nico & Viaggi, Davide, 2013. "Modelling the adoption of automatic milking systems in Noord-Holland," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-18, April.

    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. Oh, Dong-hyun, 2015. "Productivity growth, technical change and economies of scale of Korean fossil-fuel generation companies, 2001–2012: A dual approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 113-121.
    2. Ghulam, Yaseen, 2021. "Institutions and firms’ technological changes and productivity growth," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Badi H. Baltagi & Peter H. Egger & Michaela Kesina, 2016. "Firm‐Level Productivity Spillovers in China's Chemical Industry: A Spatial Hausman‐Taylor Approach," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 214-248, January.
    4. Almas Heshmati, 2003. "Productivity Growth, Efficiency and Outsourcing in Manufacturing and Service Industries," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(1), pages 79-112, February.
    5. Almas Heshmati & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2014. "A general model of technical change with an application to the OECD countries," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 25-48, January.
    6. Fuller, Frank & Huang, Jikun & Ma, Hengyun & Rozelle, Scott, 2006. "Got milk? The rapid rise of China's dairy sector and its future prospects," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 201-215, June.
    7. Williams, Jonathan & Nguyen, Nghia, 2005. "Financial liberalisation, crisis, and restructuring: A comparative study of bank performance and bank governance in South East Asia," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(8-9), pages 2119-2154, August.
    8. Songqing Jin & Hengyun Ma & Jikun Huang & Ruifa Hu & Scott Rozelle, 2010. "Productivity, efficiency and technical change: measuring the performance of China’s transforming agriculture," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 191-207, June.
    9. Timothy Dunne & Shawn Klimek & James Schmitz, Jr., 2010. "Competition and Productivity: Evidence from the Post WWII U.S. Cement Industry," Working Papers 10-29, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    10. Heikkilä, Anna-Maija & Myyrä, Sami, 2014. "Productivity growth of dairy farms having conventional vs. automatic milking system," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182648, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Almas Heshmati & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2010. "Technical Change and Total Factor Productivity Growth: The Case of Chinese Provinces," TEMEP Discussion Papers 201054, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Feb 2010.
    12. Shiu, Alice & Heshmati, Almas, 2006. "Technical Change and Total Factor Productivity Growth for Chinese Provinces: A Panel Data Analysis," Ratio Working Papers 98, The Ratio Institute.
    13. Achraf TARSIM, 2008. "L’efficience du secteur ferroviaire européen : Analyse stochastique des effets de la réforme et de la qualité des services," CIRIEC Working Papers 0809, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    14. Allan N. Rae & Hengyun Ma & Jikun Huang & Scott Rozelle, 2006. "Livestock in China: Commodity-Specific Total Factor Productivity Decomposition Using New Panel Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 680-695.
    15. Subal Kumbhakar & Kai Sun, 2012. "Estimation of TFP growth: a semiparametric smooth coefficient approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 1-24, August.
    16. Dewitte, Ruben & Dumont, Michel & Merlevede, Bruno & Rayp, Glenn & Verschelde, Marijn, 2020. "Firm-Heterogeneous Biased Technological Change: A nonparametric approach under endogeneity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 1172-1182.
    17. Khaled Elmawazini & Elias G. Saleeby & Ahmed Ibn el Farouk & Bashayer AL-Naser, 2018. "Tripartite decomposition of labor productivity growth, FDI and human development: evidence from transition economies," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 153-171, May.
    18. Sangho Kim & Gwangho Han, 2001. "A Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Growth in Korean Manufacturing Industries: A Stochastic Frontier Approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 269-281, November.
    19. Oh, Dong-hyun & Lee, Yong-Gil, 2016. "Productivity decomposition and economies of scale of Korean fossil-fuel power generation companies: 2001–2012," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-9.
    20. Shawn Klimek & James Schmitz & Timothy Dunne, 2010. "Does Foreign Competition Spur Productivity? Evidence From Post WWII U.S. Cement Manufacturing," 2010 Meeting Papers 805, Society for Economic Dynamics.

    More about this item

    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:eps:fmwppr:142. 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: Eleni Kaditi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepssbe.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.