Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:18:01.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Imperfect Competition Models and Commodity Promotion Evaluation: The Case of U.S. Generic Milk Advertising

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Nobuhiro Suzuki
Affiliation:
National Research Institute of Agricultural Economics, Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
Harry M. Kaiser
Affiliation:
Cornell Commodity Promotion Research Program in the Department of Agricultural, Ref source, and Managerial Economics, Cornell University

Abstract

This article examines whether the assumption of perfect competition in the U.S. dairy industry biases the findings of economic impacts of generic dairy advertising. An imperfect competition model based on an approach similar to that of Appelbaum is developed and used to evaluate generic milk advertising. The results are compared with a perfect competition model. The findings indicate positive price and quantity impacts due to generic advertising. The differences in magnitude of impacts between the two models are small, suggesting that the assumption of perfect competition for U.S. dairy models is plausible.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1998

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

Appelbaum, E.The Estimation of the Degree of Oligopoly Power.” J. Econometrics 19(1982):287-99.Google Scholar
Bureau of Economic Statistics, Inc. Handbook of Basic Economic Statistics. Washington DC: Bureau of Economic Statistics, Inc. Various issues, 1975-95.Google Scholar
Cranfield, J., and Goddard, E.. “Advertising and Oligopoly Power in the North American Beef Industry.” Paper presented at the NEC-63 spring meetings, Denver CO, 2 June 1995.Google Scholar
Forker, O.D., and Ward, R.W.. Commodity Advertising: The Economics and Measurement of Generic Programs. New York: Lexington Books, 1993.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H.M., Forker, O.D., Lenz, J.E., and Sun, C.-H.. “Evaluating Generic Dairy Advertising Impacts on Retail, Wholesale, and Farm Milk Markets.” J. Agr. Econ. Res. 44(1994):317.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W., and Forker, O.D.. “Allocation of Generic Advertising Funds Among Products: A Sales Maximization Approach.” Northeast. J. Agr. and Resour. Econ. 17(1988):6471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leading National Advertisers, Inc. Leading National Advertisers and Class/Brand QTR $. New York, various issues, 1975-95.Google Scholar
Liu, D.J., Kaiser, H.M., Forker, O.D., and Mount, T.D.. “An Economic Analysis of the U.S. Generic Dairy Advertising Program Using an Industry Model.” Northeast. J. Agr. and Resour. Econ. 19(1990):3748.Google Scholar
Liu, D.J., Sun, C.-H., and Kaiser, H.M.. “Market Conduct Under Government Price Intervention in the U.S. Dairy Industry.” J. Agr. and Resour. Econ. 20(1995):301-15.Google Scholar
Suzuki, N., Kaiser, H.M., Lenz, J.E., Kobayashi, K., and Forker, O.D.. “Evaluating Generic Milk Promotion Effectiveness with an Imperfect Competition Model.” Amer. J. Agr. 76(1994):296302.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Dairy Situation and Outlook Report. Washington DC, various issues, 1975-95.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index database. Washington DC, 1975-95.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment and Earnings. Washington DC, 1975-95.Google Scholar
Varian, H.R. Microeconomic Analysis, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1984.Google Scholar