Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:13:56.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Role of expectations in land allocation towards fruit crops: the case of apple

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2010

Pradeep Kumar Mehta*
Affiliation:
Flat No.6, GH-8, Sector 5, MDC, Panchkula, 134109 Haryana, India
Get access

Abstract

Introduction. Higher allocation of land in favour of fruits is vital to raise the farm income and productivity, but such an opportunity is also complemented with higher risk and uncertainty. Economic expectation assumes a great role, while such decisions have an impact on the welfare of farmers in terms of their income and risk. In this paper, we examined the nature of price expectations, their relationship with other economic factors, and analysed the importance of price and income expectations of the fruit (apple) growers on their land allocation decisions. Materials and methods. In this paper, the elicitation technique was used to obtain both price and income expectations of apple growers. The price expectations were compared with the actual price of apple over the last three years and then linked with farmers' input-use propensities. A regression method was used to identify the role of expectations in the decision of land allocation in favour of apple crops. Results and conclusion. Our results showed that better price expectation improves the input-use (generally labour) propensities. However, for allocation of the inelastic factor of production, i.e., land, in favour of a fruit crop, it is the income expectations that explain farmers’ decisions. Farmers’ capacity to generate higher productivity along with the better market prospects together explain their decision regarding allocating land to high value fruit crops.

Type
Original article
Copyright
© 2010 Cirad/EDP Sciences

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

Anon., National horticultural board database, Nat. Hortic. Board (NHB), New Delhi, India, 2008.
Deodhar S.Y., What’s keeping the apple away? Addressing the market integration issue, Indian Inst. Manag., Work. Pap., Ahmedabad, India, 2005.
Heady, E.O., Diversification in resource allocation and minimization of income variability, J. Farm Econ. 34 (1952) 482496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D.B, Price expectations and reactions to uncertainty by farmers in Illinois, J. Farm Econ. 33 (1951) 2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowshirvani, V.F., Land allocation under uncertainty in subsistence agriculture, Oxf. Econ. Pap. 23 (1971) 445455.Google Scholar
Shackle G.L.S., Expectation in economics, Camb. Univ. Press, Camb., U.K., 1949.
Binswanger, H.P., Attitudes toward risk: theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India, Econ. J. 91 (1981) 86790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisley, W., Kellogg, E.D., Farmers’ subjective probabilities in northern Thailand: An elicitation analysis, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 65 (1983) 7482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardaker, J.B., Some issues in dealing with risk in agriculture, Work. pap. Ser. Agric. Res. Econ. (2000) 118. Google Scholar
Webster, J.P.G., Kennedy, J.O.S., Measuring farmers’ trade-offs between expected income and focus-loss income, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 57 (1975) 97105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roumasset J.A., Rice and risk: decision-making among low-income farmers, N. Holl. Publ. Co., N.Y., U.S.A., 1976.
Boussard, J.M., Petit, M., Representation of farmers’ behaviour under uncertainty with a focus-loss constraint, J. Farm Econ. 49 (1967) 869880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar