Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T21:15:11.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revenue Impacts of MPP Branded Funds: A Firm-Level Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Paul M. Jakus ,
Kimberly L. Jensen  and
George C. Davis
Paul M. Jakus
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Utah State University
Kimberly L. Jensen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Tennessee
George C. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
Get access

Abstract

The USDA's Market Access Program (formerly Market Promotion Program) recently underwent a major change to redirect all branded products export promotion funds to small domestic firms and cooperatives. The redirection responded to criticisms by the General Accounting Office of past allocations of branded products export promotion funds to large, experienced exporters. This study uses a firm-level analysis to examine whether firm size and export experience matter in how effectively firms use the promotion funds to increase their revenues. The results support neither the GAO criticisms nor the recent program redirection.

Keywords

export promotion programsexport salesMarket Promotion Program
Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , October 2003 , pp. 184 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amemiya, T. (1985). Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brownstone, D., Bunch, D. S., and Train, K. E. (2000). “Joint Mixed Logit Models of Stated and Revealed Preferences for Alternative Fuel Vehicles.” Transportation Research: Part B: Methodological 34, 315–338.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. C. (1997, July). “Combining Actual and Contingent Behavior Data to Model Farmer Adoption of Water Quality Protection Practices.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22, 30–43.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys—The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Earnhart, D. (2001). “Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods to Value Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations.” Land Economics 77, 12–29.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric Analysis, 4th edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Google Scholar
Grunfield, Y., and Griliches, Z. (1960, February). “Is Aggregation Necessarily Bad?” Review of Economics and Statistics XLII(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Haener, M. K., Boxall, P. C., and Adamowicz, W. L. (2001). “Modeling Recreation Site Choice: Do Hypothetical Choices Reflect Actual Behavior?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83, 629–642.Google Scholar
Halliburton, K., and Henneberry, S. R. (1995, July). “The Effectiveness of U.S. Nonprice Promotion of Almonds in the Pacific Rim.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 20, 108–121.Google Scholar
Hensher, D., Louviere, J., and Swait, J. (1999). “Combining Sources of Preference Data.” Journal of Econometrics 89, 197–221.Google Scholar
Hubbell, B. J., Marra, M. C., and Carlson, G. A. (2000). “Estimating the Demand for a New Technology: Bt Cotton and Insecticide Policies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82, 118–132.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H., and Christian, J. (1997, July). “A Method for Measuring Nonprice Export Promotion with Application to Almonds.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22, 120–132.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A. L. (1986). “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” Review of Economics and Statistics 68, 715–719.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, T., and Patterson, P. (1997, December). “Dynamic Complementarity in Export Promotion: The Market Access Program in Fruits and Vegetables.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23, 319–337.Google Scholar
Richards, T., Van Ispelen, P., and Kagan, A. (1997). “A Two-Stage Analysis of the Effectiveness of Market Promotion Programs for U.S. Apples.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, 825–837.Google Scholar
Smith, V. (1993, May). “Welfare Effects, Omitted Variables, and the Extent of the Market.” Land Economics 69(2), 121–131.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. B. (1983). “On Least Squares Estimation when the Dependent Variable Is Grouped.” Review of Economic Studies 50, 737–753.Google Scholar
Thurman, W., and Wohlgenant, M. (1989, November). “Consistent Estimation of General Equilibrium Welfare Effects.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 1041–1045.Google Scholar
Tsokos, C. (1972). Probability Distributions: An Introduction to Probability Theory with Applications. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. (1998). “Market Access Program.” USDA/FAS, Washington, DC. Online. Available at http://www.fas.gov.usda/mos/mapprog.html. [Retrieved February 8, 1999.]Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993a, June). “International Trade: Effectiveness of Market Promotion Program Remains Unclear” Report No. GAO/NSLAD-93-103, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993b, July). “International Trade: Changes Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of the Market Promotion Program” Report No. GAO/GGD-93-12, report to Congressional requesters, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995, May). “Export Promotion: Rationale For and Against Government Programs and Expenditures.” Pub. No. GAO/T-GGD-95-169, Testimony to Congress, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997, September). “U.S. Agricultural Exports: Strong Growth Likely, but U.S. Export Assistance Programs’ Contribution Uncertain.” Pub. No. GAO/NSIAD-97-260, Testimony to Congress, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). “Export Promotion: Issues for Assessing the Government-wide Strategy.” Pub. No. GAO/T-NSIAD-98-105, Testimony to Congress, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999, April). “Agricultural Trade: Changes Made to Market Access Program, but Questions Remain on Economic Impact.” Letter Report No. GAO/NSIAD-99-38, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Weiss, K., Green, R., and Havenner, A. (1996). “Walnuts in Japan: A Case Study of Generic Promotion Under the USDA's Market Promotion Program.” In Ferraro, J., Ackerman, K., and Nichols, J. (eds.), Agricultural Promotion Policies and Programs in the Global Agri-Food System (pp. 47–80). Ithaca, NY: National Institute for Commodity Research and Evaluation, Cornell University.Google Scholar