IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/00-wp238.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals

Author

Abstract

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis, which analyzed the impacts of two alternative risk management proposals, the Farmers' Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms, dryland wheat farms, and a corn farm. The authors look at several factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans, including farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios; additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing; and the implications of within-year price shocks. The study shows increased crop insurance participation under S. 1580 and increased coverage levels for both yield and revenue insurance buy-up coverage.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce A. Babcock & Chad E. Hart & Gary M. Adams & Patrick C. Westhoff, 2000. "Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 00-wp238, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:00-wp238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/00wp238.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=283
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hongyun Han & Ye Jiang, 2019. "Systemic Risks of Climate Events and Households’ Participation in Mariculture Mutual Insurance: A Case Study of Shrimp Producers in Zhejiang Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.

    More about this item

    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:ias:cpaper:00-wp238. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.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.