Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:21:03.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Increased Energy Prices on Agriculture: A Differential Supply Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Charles B. Moss ,
Grigorios Livanis  and
Andrew Schmitz
Charles B. Moss
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Grigorios Livanis
Affiliation:
International Business and Strategy, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
Andrew Schmitz
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The increase in energy prices between 2004 and 2007 has several potential consequences for aggregate agriculture in the U.S. We estimate the derived input demand elasticities for energy as well as capital, labor, and materials using the differential supply formulation. Given that the derived input demand for energy is inelastic, it is more price-responsive than the other inputs. The results also indicate that the U.S. aggregate agricultural supply function is responsive to energy prices.

Keywords

differential input demandconcavity constrainedenergyC30Q11Q42
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 711 - 718
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

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

Featherstone, A.M., and Moss, C.B. “Measuring Economies of Scale and Scope in Agricultural Banking.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76,3(1994):655–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harkin, T. “Chairmen Harkin and Conrad, Senator Klobuchar Introduce the Farm-to-Fuel Investment Act.” Internet site: http://harkin.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=274367 (Accessed July 13, 2007).Google Scholar
Jorgenson, D.W. “Professor Dale Jorgenson's Data Sets.” Internet site: www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/jorgenson/data_sets_jorgenson (Accessed June 24, 2010).Google Scholar
Jorgenson, D.W., and Stiroh, K.J. “U.S. Economic Growth at the Industry Level.” The American Economic Review 90,2(2000):161–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, K. “Why Is Demand Homogeneity So Often Rejected?” Economics Letters 1,3(1978): 187–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, K., and Theil, H. “Supply and Demand of the Multiproduct Firm.” European Economic Review 11,2(1978):107–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livanis, G.T. “The Differential Production Model with Quasi-Fixed Inputs: A Panel Data Approach to U.S. Banking.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Florida, 2004.Google Scholar
Livanis, G.T. Moss, C.B. “Quasi-fixity and Multiproduct Firms.” Economics Letters 93(2): 228–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisner, J.F. “The Sad Fate of Asymptotic Slut-sky Symmetry Tests for Large Systems.” Economics Letters 2,3(1979):231–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, C.B., and Theil, H. “Homogeneity Testing Revisited.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 35(2003):3–4.Google Scholar
Schmitz, A. and Stevens, T. “Rising Energy Costs and Profitability of U.S. Agriculture.” Mimeographed paper, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, March 20, 2000.Google Scholar
Shumway, CR, Alexander, W.P., and Talpaz, H. “Texas Field Crops: Estimation with Curvature.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 15(1990):45–54.Google Scholar
Terrell, D. “Incorporating Monotonicity and Concavity Conditions in Flexible Functional Forms.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 11,2(1996):179–94.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, H. Theory and Measurement of Consumer Demand. Vol 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1981.Google Scholar