IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/253146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Investigation into the Factors which Determine Farmers’ Acceptance of Supply Contracts: The Ethanol Beet Example

Author

Listed:
  • Mußhoff, Oliver
  • Hirschauer, Norbert
  • Fahlbusch, Markus

Abstract

Little is known about the actual behavior of farmers who are offered forward contracts for renewable resources. The present survey explores farmers’ acceptance of sugar beet supply contracts. We find that the farmers’ responses are not in line with forecasts that are based on critical prices derived from naïve gross margin comparisons. Instead, farmers take into account that the contractual obligation to supply a certain amount of beets in combination with the volumetric production risk produces an asymmetry in revenues. They also consider risk and dynamic changes of the relative competitiveness of sugar beet and competing crop alternatives. We furthermore find that the past matters: a subsequent improvement of a contract offer that is made after an initial offer has been rejected by farmers finds lower acceptance than an initially better offer. Bislang ist wenig über die Kalküle und das Verhalten von Landwirten bei Vertragsangeboten für die Lieferung nachwachsender Rohstoffe bekannt. In der vorliegenden Studie wird deshalb die Akzeptanz von Landwirten für Industrierübenlieferverträge im Rahmen einer Umfrage untersucht. Die von den Landwirten gemachten Angaben entsprechen nicht den Schlussfolgerungen, wie sie häufig aus gängigen (naiven) Deckungsbeitragsvergleichen gezogen werden. Vielmehr berücksichtigen Landwirte, dass eine vertragliche Lieferverpflichtung in Kombination mit unsicheren Produktionserfolgen zu einer Erlösasymmetrie führt. Sie antizipieren außerdem das Risiko sowie Veränderungen der relativen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Zuckerrüben und konkurrierenden Feldfrüchten. Zudem kommt es durch die Nachbesserung eines zunächst erfolglosen Vertragsangebots zu einer geringeren Akzeptanz als ein sofortiges höheres Vertragsangebot.

Suggested Citation

  • Mußhoff, Oliver & Hirschauer, Norbert & Fahlbusch, Markus, 2014. "An Investigation into the Factors which Determine Farmers’ Acceptance of Supply Contracts: The Ethanol Beet Example," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 63(01), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:253146
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.253146
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/253146/files/1_Musshoff.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.253146?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amit, Raphael & MacCrimmon, Kenneth R. & Zietsma, Charlene & Oesch, John M., 2001. "Does money matter?: Wealth attainment as the motive for initiating growth-oriented technology ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 119-143, March.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    3. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    4. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    5. George W. J. Hendrikse, 2007. "On the co-existence of spot and contract markets: the delivery requirement as contract externality," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(2), pages 257-282, June.
    6. Key, Nigel, 2004. "Agricultural Contracting and the Scale of Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-271, October.
    7. Matthias Benz, "undated". "Entrepreneurship as a non-profit-seeking activity," IEW - Working Papers 243, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. van Winden, Frans & Krawczyk, Michal & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2011. "Investment, resolution of risk, and the role of affect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 918-939.
    9. Joseph L. Parcel & Michael R. Langemeijer, 1997. "Feeder-pig Producers and Finishers: Who Should Contract?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 45(3), pages 317-327, November.
    10. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    11. Abebe, Gumataw K. & Bijman, Jos & Kemp, Ron & Omta, Onno & Tsegaye, Admasu, 2013. "Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 14-24.
    12. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    13. Alexandre Gohin & Jean-Christophe Bureau, 2006. "Modelling the EU sugar supply to assess sectoral policy reforms," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(2), pages 223-247, June.
    14. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    15. Fehr, Ernst & Gachter, Simon, 1998. "Reciprocity and economics: The economic implications of Homo Reciprocans1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 845-859, May.
    16. Lisa A. Cameron, 1999. "The Importance of Learning in the Adoption of High-Yielding Variety Seeds," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(1), pages 83-94.
    17. Brian Roe & Thomas L. Sporleder & Betsy Belleville, 2004. "Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 115-123.
    18. Ani L. Katchova & Mario J. Miranda, 2004. "Two-Step Econometric Estimation of Farm Characteristics Affecting Marketing Contract Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 88-102.
    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. Mußhoff, Oliver & Hirschauer, Norbert & Fahlbusch, Markus, 2014. "An Investigation into the Factors which Determine Farmers’ Acceptance of Supply Contracts: The Ethanol Beet Example," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 63(1).
    2. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Design of substrate supply contracts for biogas plants," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124428, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 61(03), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 61(3).
    5. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Jana Sadeh, 2021. "Experimental evidence on the effect of incentives and domain in risk aversion and discounting tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 203-224, June.
    6. Jinkwon Lee & Uk Hwang, 2016. "Hypothetical Bias in Risk Preferences as a Driver of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Pay: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 789-811, December.
    7. Marielle Brunette & Jonas Ngouhouo-Poufoun, 2022. "Are risk preferences consistent across elicitation procedures? A field experiment in Congo basin countries," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 47(1), pages 122-140, March.
    8. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    9. Marielle Brunette & Jonas Ngouhouo-Poufoun, 2019. "Are risk preferences stable ? A field experiment in Congo Basin countries," Working Papers of BETA 2019-18, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    10. Villacis, Alexis H., 2023. "Inconsistent choices over prospect theory lottery games: Evidence from field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    11. Buckell, John & White, Justin S. & Shang, Ce, 2020. "Can incentive-compatibility reduce hypothetical bias in smokers’ experimental choice behavior? A randomized discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    12. Stefani, Gianluca & Scarpa, Riccardo & Lombardi, Ginevra V., 2014. "An addendum to: a meta-analysis of hypothethical bias in stated preference valuation," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(2), pages 1-10, August.
    13. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. Félix Muñoz-García & Tongzhe Li, 2018. "Explaining Hypothetical Bias Variations Using Income Elasticity of Demand," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 207-224, September.
    15. Booij, Adam S. & van Praag, Bernard M.S., 2009. "A simultaneous approach to the estimation of risk aversion and the subjective time discount rate," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 374-388, May.
    16. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Zhai, Qianqian & Kassas, Bachir & Zhao, Shuoli & Chen, Lijun & Chen, Chao, 2020. "Investigating Preference Inconsistencies in Incentive Structures that Account for House Money Effects," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304584, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    19. Marielle Brunette & Jonas Ngouhouo-Poufoun, 2021. "Are risk preferences consistent across elicitation procedures? A field experiment in Congo basin countries," Post-Print hal-03132834, HAL.
    20. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    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:ags:gjagec:253146. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.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.