Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T06:47:45.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decomposition Analysis of Factor Cost Shares: The Case of Greek Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Giannis Karagiannis ,
Stelios Katranidis  and
Kostas Velentzas
Giannis Karagiannis
Affiliation:
Foundation of Economic and Industrial Research
Stelios Katranidis
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece
Kostas Velentzas
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An alternative version of decomposition analysis, based on factor cost shares rather than input demand functions, is presented and applied to Greek agriculture. Decomposition analysis shows that most of the changes in factor cost shares during the period from 1973 to 1989 are attributed to technical change and factor substitution, while the role of the scale effect is small, except that of fertilizer. The decomposition analysis results are then used to analyze the implications of Greece's fertilizer and feed subsidy removal, which took place in 1990.

Keywords

decomposition analysisfactor cost sharesGreek agriculture
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , December 1996 , pp. 369 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1996

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

Agricultural Bank of Greece (ABG). Description of Common Agricultural Policy: Statistical Data for Greek Agriculture. Athens: ABG, 1994 (in Greek).Google Scholar
Andrikopoulos, A.A., and Brox, J.A.. “Cost Structure, Interfactor Substitution and Complementarity, and Efficiency in the Canadian Agricultural Sector.” Can. J. Agr. Econ. 40(1992):253–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antle, J.M., and Capalbo, S.M.. “An Introduction to Recent Developments in Production Theory and Productivity Measurement.” In Agricultural Productivity: Measurement and Explanation, eds., Antle, J.M. and Capalbo, S.M., pp. 17–95. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1988.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, E. “On the Choice of Functional Forms.” Internat. Econ. Rev. 20(1979):449–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baffes, J., and Vasavada, U.. “On the Choice of Functional Forms in Agricultural Production Analysis.” Appl. Econ. 21(1989):1053–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, V.E., and Chambers, R.. “An Economic Analysis of Technology in the Meat Product Industry.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 64(1982):699–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, R.E., and Khaled, M.S.. “Parametric Productivity Measurement and Choice Among Flexible Functional Forms.” J. Polit. Econ. 87(1979):1220–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, R.E., and Savin, N.E.. “Estimation and Hypothesis Testing in Singular Equation Systems with Autoregressive Disturbances.” J. Econometrics 43(1975):937–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binswanger, H.P. “A Cost Function Approach to the Measurement of Factor Demand Elasticities and Elasticities of Substitution.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 56(1974a):377–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binswanger, H.P. “Measuring the Impact of Technical Change with Many Factors of Production.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 64(1974b):964–76.Google Scholar
Blackorby, C, and Russell, R.R.. “Will the Real Elasticity of Substitution Please Stand Up? (A Comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima Elasticities).” Amer. Econ. Rev. 79(1989):882–88.Google Scholar
Chalfant, J.A. “Comparison of Alternative Functional Forms with Application to Agricultural Input Data.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 66(1984):216–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R.G.Applied Production Analysis: A Dual Approach. New York/London: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Christensen, L.R., Jorgenson, D.W., and Lau, L.J.. “Conjugate Duality and the Transcendental Logarithmic Production Function.” Econometrica 39(1971):255–56.Google Scholar
Christensen, L.R., Jorgenson, D.W., and Lau, L.J.. “Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers.” Rev. Econ. and Statis. 55(1973):28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Despotakis, K. “Economic Performance of Flexible Functional Forms.” Eur. Econ. Rev. 30(1986):1107–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewert, W.E. “Exact and Superlative Index Numbers.” J. Econometrics 4(1976):115–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewert, W.E., and Wales, T.J.. “Flexible Functional Forms and Global Curvature Conditions.” Econometrica 55(1987):43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewert, W.E., and Wales, T.J.. “Flexible Functional Forms and Tests of Homogeneous Separability.” J. Econometrics 67(1995):259–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, P.J. “When Flexible Forms Are Asked to Flex Too Much.” J. Agr. and Resour. Econ. 19(1994):183–96.Google Scholar
Eurostat. Economic Accounts for Agriculture and Forestry. Brussels/Luxembourg, various years.Google Scholar
Gardner, B.L.The Economics of Agricultural Policies. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987.Google Scholar
Glass, J.C., and McKillop, D.G.. “A Multi-Product Cost Function Analysis of Northern Ireland Agriculture, 1955-85.” J. Agr. Econ. 40(1989):57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, J.C., and McKillop, D.G.. “Production Interrelationships and Productivity Measurement in Irish Agriculture.” Eur. Rev. Agr. Econ. 17(1990):271–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilkey, D.K., Loveli, C.A.K., and Sickels, R.. “A Comparison of the Performance of Three Flexible Functional Forms.” Internat. Econ. Rev. 24(1983):591–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kako, T. “An Application of the Decomposition Analysis of Derived Demand for Factor Inputs in U.S. Manufacturing.” Rev. Econ. and Statis. 62(1980):300–01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kako, T. “Decomposition Analysis of Derived Demand for Factor Inputs: The Case of Rice Production in Japan.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 60(1978):628–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karagiannis, G., and Furtan, H.W.. “Production Structure and Decomposition of Biased Technical Change: An Example from Canadian Agriculture.” Rev. Agr. Econ. 15(1993):21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Y. “The Production Structure and Demand for Labor in Postwar Japanese Agriculture, 1952-1982.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 69(1987):328–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean-Meyinsse, P.E., and Okunade, A.A.. “Factor Demands of Louisiana Rice Producers: An Econometric Investigation.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 20(1988):127–35.Google Scholar
Mergos, G.J., and Yotopoulos, P.A.. “Demand for Feed Inputs in the Greek Livestock Sector.” Eur. Rev. Agr. Econ. 15(1988):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of National Economy (Greece). Net Fixed Capital Stock and Depreciation of Fixed Capital Stock. Athens, 1983, 1989.Google Scholar
Moschini, G. “The Cost Structure of Ontario Dairy Farms: A Microeconomic Analysis.” Can. J. Agr. Econ. 36(1988):187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moschini, G., and Moro, D.. “Autocorrelation Specification in Singular Equation Systems.” Econ. Letters 46(1994):303–09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG). Agricultural Price Indices. Athens, various issues.Google Scholar
National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG). Agricultural Statistics. Athens, various issues.Google Scholar
National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG). Structural Research on Crop and Livestock Production. Athens, 1980 (in Greek).Google Scholar
Rask, K. “The Structure of Production in Brazilian Sugarcane Production, 1975-87.” J. Appl. Econometrics 10(1995):221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, S.C. “Translog Cost Function Analysis of U.S. Agriculture, 1939-1977.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 64(1982):490–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shumway, C.R, and Lim, H.. “Functional Form and U.S. Agricultural Production Elasticities.” J. Agr. and Resour. Econ. 18(1993):266–76.Google Scholar