IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/201601010800006209.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New models to estimate costs of US farm programs

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Xiaohong

Abstract

In this study, I extended the stochastic model built by Babcock and Paulson (2012) to conduct a one-year cost projection for crop insurance in order to investigate its feasibility of being solely provided by private firms. Based on the 52 years’ yield data from 1961 to 2012, the risk consequences from insuring crop yield and revenue against losses are estimated to be far beyond what private insurers could bear on their own. However, reinsurance from the government provides an attractive incentive to insurance firms. Among the six insurance policies researched in this study, the minimum expected net underwriting gains to private firms with government reinsurance in 2013 was $289.9 million, which is about 9.30% of retained premiums. The maximum loss that firms could have borne in 2013 was $4.9 billion. In addition, the impact of a proposal to eliminate premium subsidy for the harvest price option is also estimated. The total savings for taxpayers are estimated to be $1.3 billion, which is about $400 million more than CBO’s estimate in 2013, but only 67% of its estimate in 2015.Based on the three-crop competitive storage model initiated by Lence and Hayes (2002), I also develop a better approach for a multiple-year cost projection by modeling the demand shock as a random walk. This approach is capable of preserving the correlations between national yields and prices, maintaining the relationships among national, county and farm yields, retaining the spatial correlations of yields across crops, and incorporating inter-temporal price correlations as well. More importantly, this approach is capable of simulating price draws with a desired volatility pattern: increasing over time but at a slower rate than square root of time t, as stated in Lence, Hart and Hayes (2009). Preserving these correlations and price-related features are crucial in conducting precise cost estimations and valid policy analysis. My analysis shows that the payments from Price Loss Coverage (PLC) with its time-invariant fixed guarantees would be significantly underestimated if both the price serial correlation and the increasing, concave price volatilities are ignored. For Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), their guarantees are adjusted to reflect market conditions so the difference in estimated payments is modest. An easy fix for estimating the cost of PLC is to inflate the price volatilities used to generate random prices for budget scoring purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Xiaohong, 2016. "New models to estimate costs of US farm programs," ISU General Staff Papers 201601010800006209, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:201601010800006209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6209&context=etd
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angus Deaton & Guy Laroque, 1992. "On the Behaviour of Commodity Prices," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 59(1), pages 1-23.
    2. Reimer, Jeffrey J. & Zheng, Xiaojuan & Gehlhar, Mark J., 2012. "Export Demand Elasticity Estimation for Major U.S. Crops," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Hikaru Hanawa Peterson & William G. Tomek, 2005. "How much of commodity price behavior can a rational expectations storage model explain?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 289-303, November.
    4. Miranda, Mario J & Helmberger, Peter G, 1988. "The Effects of Commodity Price Stabilization Programs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(1), pages 46-58, March.
    5. Kenneth L. Judd, 1998. "Numerical Methods in Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262100711.
    6. Deaton, Angus & Laroque, Guy, 1996. "Competitive Storage and Commodity Price Dynamics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 896-923, October.
    7. Sergio H. Lence & Dermot J. Hayes, 2002. "U.S. Farm Policy and the Volatility of Commodity Prices and Farm Revenues," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 335-351.
    8. Williams,Jeffrey C. & Wright,Brian D., 2005. "Storage and Commodity Markets," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521023399, October.
    9. Kenneth L. Judd & Lilia Maliar & Serguei Maliar, 2011. "Numerically stable and accurate stochastic simulation approaches for solving dynamic economic models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(2), pages 173-210, July.
    10. Nicholas Kaldor, 1939. "Speculation and Economic Stability," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27.
    11. Allen B. Paul, 1970. "The Pricing of Binspace—A Contribution to the Theory of Storage," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 52(1), pages 1-12.
    12. Cafiero, Carlo & Bobenrieth H., Eugenio S.A. & Bobenrieth H., Juan R.A. & Wright, Brian D., 2011. "The empirical relevance of the competitive storage model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 44-54, May.
    13. Na Jin & Sergio Lence & Chad Hart & Dermot Hayes, 2012. "The Long-Term Structure of Commodity Futures," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(3), pages 718-735.
    14. Binfield, Julian C.R. & Adams, Gary M. & Westhoff, Patrick C. & Young, Robert E., II, 2002. "A Stochastic Analysis of Proposals for the New US Farm Bill," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24913, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Roberts, Michael J. & Tran, A. Nam, 2012. "Commodity Price Adjustment in a Competitive Storage Model with an Application to the US Biofuel Policies," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124869, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Alan P. Ker & Keith Coble, 2003. "Modeling Conditional Yield Densities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 291-304.
    17. Michael K. Adjemian & Aaron Smith, 2012. "Using USDA Forecasts to Estimate the Price Flexibility of Demand for Agricultural Commodities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(4), pages 978-995.
    18. Vedenov, Dmitry V. & Miranda, Mario J. & Dismukes, Robert & Glauber, Joseph W., 2004. "Economic Analysis of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20345, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Piggott, Nicholas E. & Wohlgenant, Michael K., 2002. "Price elasticities, joint products, and international trade," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 0(Issue 4), pages 1-14.
    20. Mason, Chuck & Hayes, Dermot J. & Lence, Sergio H, 2003. "Systemic risk in U.S. crop reinsurance programs," ISU General Staff Papers 200304010800001293, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    21. Michael J. Roberts & Wolfram Schlenker, 2013. "Identifying Supply and Demand Elasticities of Agricultural Commodities: Implications for the US Ethanol Mandate," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2265-2295, October.
    22. Mario J. Miranda & Joseph W. Glauber, 1997. "Systemic Risk, Reinsurance, and the Failure of Crop Insurance Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 206-215.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:isu:genstf:201601010800006209. 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: (Curtis Balmer). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.html .

    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 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.

    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.