IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/497.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Framework for Analyzing Specific Agricultural Policy Reform

Author

Listed:
  • Just, Richard E.
  • Rausser, Gordon C.
  • Zilberman, David

Abstract

The agricultural sectors of the United States and other developed countries have been subjected to a myriad of policies and regulations that have contributed to unsatisfactory production patterns and resource allocations both within and between countries. Furthermore, such policies have imposed heavy financial burdens on governments that have transferred substantial resources to support the farm sector. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) strives to improve the efficiency of agricultural trade and production patterns globally. It is proposed that GATT will reduce the set of permissible agricultural policy instruments, thereby eliminating some policy options that have contributed to several of the undesired consequences of the past. Used correctly, the feasible set of policies is believed to allow for a gradual down scaling of agriculture's excess supply and to make the sector more flexible and progressive. Ultimately, once the restricted set of policies is introduced, it is expected that a sustainable growth path will be achieved.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Just, Richard E. & Rausser, Gordon C. & Zilberman, David, 1992. "Framework for Analyzing Specific Agricultural Policy Reform," Staff General Research Papers Archive 497, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haidacher, Richard C. & Craven, John A. & Huang, Kuo S. & Smallwood, David M. & Blaylock, James R., 1982. "Consumer Demand For Red Meats, Poultry, And Fish," Staff Reports 276749, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    3. Richard E. Just & Rulon D. Pope, 1979. "Production Function Estimation and Related Risk Considerations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 276-284.
    4. Fisher,Anthony C., 1982. "Resource and Environmental Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521285940, September.
    5. Erik Lichtenberg & David Zilberman, 1988. "Efficient Regulation of Environmental Health Risks," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(1), pages 167-178.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tristan Le Cotty & Elodie Maître d’Hôtel & Raphael Soubeyran & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Linking Risk Aversion, Time Preference and Fertiliser Use in Burkina Faso," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 1991-2006, November.
    2. Tamer El-Shater & Amin Mugera & Yigezu A. Yigezu, 2020. "Implications of Adoption of Zero Tillage (ZT) on Productive Efficiency and Production Risk of Wheat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Freudenreich, H., 2018. "Explaining Mexican Farmers Adoption of Hybrid Maize Seed - The Role of Social Psychology, Risk and Ambiguity Aversion," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277410, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Pietrobon, Davide, 2024. "The dual role of insurance in input use: Mitigating risk versus curtailing incentives," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    5. Dercon, Stefan & Christiaensen, Luc, 2011. "Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 159-173, November.
    6. Tristan Le Cotty & Elodie Maître d'Hôtel & Moctar Ndiaye & Sophie S. Thoyer, 2021. "Input use and output price risks: the case of maize in Burkina Faso [Utilisation d'intrants et risques de prix : le cas du maïs au Burkina Faso]," Working Papers hal-03252026, HAL.
    7. Ogada, Maurice Juma & Nyangena, Wilfred & Yesuf, Mahmud, 2010. "Production risk and farm technology adoption in the rain-fed semi-arid lands of Kenya," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Gregory D. Graff & David Roland-Holst & David Zilberman, 2005. "Biotechnology and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2005-27, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Boisvert, Richard N., 1998. "Optimal Voluntary "Green" Payment Programs To Limit Nitrate Contamination Under Price and Yield Risk," Research Bulletins 122687, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    10. Bakhshoodeh, Mohamad & Shajari, S., 2006. "Adoption of New Seed Varieties Under Production Risk: An Application to Rice in Iran," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25578, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Haim Shalit, 1995. "Mean-Gini analysis of stochastic externalities: The case of groundwater contamination," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 37-52, July.
    12. Ward, Patrick S. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Thiagu Ranganathan & Sarthak Gaurav & Ashish Singh, 2014. "Anomaly in Decision Making Under Risk:Violation of Stochastic Dominance Among Farmers in Gujarat, India," IEG Working Papers 343, Institute of Economic Growth.
    14. Kim, Tae-Kyun, 1989. "The factor bias of technical change and technology adoption under uncertainty," ISU General Staff Papers 1989010108000010138, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Juma, Maurice & Nyangena, Wilfred & Yesuf, Mahmud, 2090. "Production Risk and Farm Technology Adoption in Rain-Fed, Semi-Arid Lands of Kenya," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-22-efd, Resources for the Future.
    16. Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis, 2015. "Is fertilizer use really suboptimnal in sub-Saharan Africa? The case of rice in Nigeria," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212053, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Ouma, James Okuro & De Groote, Hugo & Owuor, George, 2006. "Determinants of Improved Maize Seed and Fertilizer Use in Kenya: Policy Implications," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25433, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Alexander, Corinne E., 2002. "The Role Of Seed Company Supplied Information In Farmers' Decisions," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19617, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    20. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mungoma, Catherine, 2008. "The effect of household wealth on the adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 550-559, December.

    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:isu:genres:497. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.