IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

ARPA Subsidies, Unit Choice, and Reform of the U.S. Crop Insurance Program



The Agricultural Risk Protection Act (ARPA) has largely met its objectives of inducing farmers to increase their use of the crop insurance program. Both insured acreage and coverage levels have increased dramatically in response to ARPA's large increase in premium subsidies. An unintended consequence of the larger subsidies is a dramatic increase in the incentive for farmers to insure their crops under optional units, that is, insurance at the field level rather than at the farm or crop level. The expected rate of return to farmers who choose to invest additional premium dollars to move to optional unit coverage ranges from a low of 61 percent at the 85 percent coverage level to 144 percent at the 65 percent coverage level. This explains why the majority of farmers choose optional unit coverage even though the alternative unit structures provide identical insurance guarantees at a substantially lower cost. We consider two policy options to eliminate the unintended consequences of ARPA subsidies. The first would simply eliminate the ability of farmers to insure their crops under optional units. This change would save taxpayers more than $300 million (if 90 percent of current acreage is insured under optional units) and would not decrease the insurance guarantee of any farmer. However, transfers to farmers, crop insurance companies, and crop insurance agents would all fall under this policy option, decreasing its political attractiveness. The second alternative would decouple per-acre premium subsidies from a farmer's choice of unit coverage. Farmers would benefit from the ability to capture all the premium savings that would occur as they move to other unit structures. It is likely that there is a level of decoupled subsidy that would make both farm groups and taxpayers better off. Splitting farm groups off the blocking coalition increases the likelihood of acceptance of this proposal. Program integrity would be increased by dramatically increasing the incremental cost of farmers insuring their crops under optional units.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce A. Babcock & Chad E. Hart, 2005. "ARPA Subsidies, Unit Choice, and Reform of the U.S. Crop Insurance Program," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-bp45, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:05-bp45

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Butt, Tanveer A. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2004. "Farm and Forest Carbon Sequestration: Can Producers Employ it to Make Some Money?," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 19(3).
    2. Andrew J. Plantinga & JunJie Wu, 2003. "Co-Benefits from Carbon Sequestration in Forests: Evaluating Reductions in Agricultural Externalities from an Afforestation Policy in Wisconsin," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 74-85.
    3. Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Zhao, Jinhua, 2003. "Multiple Benefits of Carbon-Friendly Agricultural Practices: Empirical Assessment of Conservation Tillage in Iowa," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10194, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Schneider, Uwe A. & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through Agriculture," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(1).
    5. Matthews, Stephen & O'Connor, Raymond & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2002. "Quantifying the impacts on biodiversity of policies for carbon sequestration in forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 71-87, January.
    6. Hongli Feng & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Catherine L. Kling & Philip W. Gassman, 2004. "Environmental Conservation in Agriculture: Land Retirement versus Changing Practices on Working Land," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-wp365, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Agricultural Risk Protection Act (ARPA); crop insurance; optional units.;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:05-bp45. 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: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.