IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2023-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Well Can Experts Predict Farmers’ Choices in Risky Gambles?

Author

Listed:
  • Henning Schaak

    (Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna)

  • Jens Rommel

    (Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

  • Julian Sagebiel

    (Biodiversity Economics, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig)

  • Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé

    (European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC))

  • Douadia Bougherara

    (CEE-M, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, INRAE, Institut Agro)

  • Luigi Cemablo

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II)

  • Marija Cerjak

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb)

  • Tajana Čop

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb)

  • Mikołaj Czajkowski

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • María Espinosa-Goded

    (Faculty of Economic and Business Science, University of Sevilla)

  • Julia Höhler

    (Business Economics Group, Wageningen University & Research)

  • Carl-Johan Lagerkvist

    (Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

  • Macario Rodriguez-Entrena

    (WEARE - Water, Environmental, and Agricultural Resources Economics Research Group, Universidad de Córdoba)

  • Annika Tensi

    (Business Economics Group, Wageningen University & Research)

  • Sophie Thoyer

    (CEE-M, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, INRAE, Institut Agro)

  • Marina Tomić Maksan

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb)

  • Riccardo Vecchio

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II)

  • Katarzyna Zagórska

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

Abstract

Risk is ubiquitous in agriculture and a core interest of agricultural economists. While farmers’ risk preferences are well studied, there is limited knowledge on the perspectives of other stakeholders on farmers’ risk preferences. We address this gap by eliciting predictions for a multiple-price-list task from 561 students, farm advisors, and experts from Italy, Poland, Croatia, Spain, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands. First, we investigate whether the risk preferences of farmers from different European production systems differ in terms of predictability for the experts. Second, we compare the predictions of different groups of experts, as well as their accuracy. Third, we evaluate whether the accuracy of predictions can be improved by changing incentive mechanisms. Overall, we find substantial variation in individual predictions. Yet, average predictions are close to the averages of the observed responses of farmers. We find that an international group of researchers in experimental economics provides more accurate predictions than farm advisors and other experts or students of agriculture. Differences in predictions by production systems are small. Incentivizing predictions by either a tournament scheme (the best prediction receives a reward) or high accuracy (randomly selected participants are paid depending on the quality of their prediction) do not strongly affect the accuracy, but may slightly reduce noise in the predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Henning Schaak & Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cemablo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa-Goded & Julia Höhler & Car, 2023. "How Well Can Experts Predict Farmers’ Choices in Risky Gambles?," Working Papers 2023-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
  • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2023-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/download_file/2547/0
    File Function: First version, 2023
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc F. Bellemare & Yu Na Lee & David R. Just, 2020. "Producer Attitudes Toward Output Price Risk: Experimental Evidence from the Lab and from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(3), pages 806-825, May.
    2. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    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. Boyd, Chris M. & Bellemare, Marc F., 2022. "Why not insure prices? Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 580-631.
    2. repec:hal:journl:hal-04677299 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Wright, Austin L. & Sonin, Konstantin & Driscoll, Jesse & Wilson, Jarnickae, 2020. "Poverty and economic dislocation reduce compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place protocols," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 544-554.
    4. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    5. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    6. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    7. Salvatore Di Falco & Ferdinand M Vieider, 2022. "Environmental Adaptation of Risk Preferences," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2737-2766.
    8. Mechtel, Mario & Hett, Florian & Kröll, Markus, 2014. "Endogenous Social Identity and Group Choice," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100307, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    10. Yayan Hernuryadin & Koji Kotani & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Time Preferences of Food Producers: Does “Cultivate and Grow” Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 132-148.
    11. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Meier, Stephan & Sprenger, Charles D., 2013. "Discounting financial literacy: Time preferences and participation in financial education programs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 159-174.
    13. Meier, Stephan & Sprenger, Charles, 2010. "Stability of Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 4756, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    15. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    16. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Meissner, Thomas, 2021. "Adoption of retrofit measures among homeowners in EU countries: The effects of access to capital and debt aversion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    17. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    19. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2020. "Linking subjective and incentivized risk attitudes: The importance of losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 187-206, April.
    20. 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.
    21. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk attitudes; Expert predictions; Expert forecasts; Multiple prices lists; Meta-science; Experimental economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q19 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Other
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C99 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Other

    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:war:wpaper:2023-03. 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: Marcin Bąba (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.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.