Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:34:26.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subsidy Incidence in Factor Markets: An Experimental Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Amy M. Nagler ,
Dale J. Menkhaus ,
Christopher T. Bastian ,
Mariah D. Ehmke  and
Kalyn T. Coatney
Amy M. Nagler
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
Dale J. Menkhaus
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
Christopher T. Bastian
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
Mariah D. Ehmke
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
Kalyn T. Coatney
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Laboratory market experiments are used to estimate the incidence of a stylized subsidy in factor market negotiations with university student and agricultural professional subjects. In separate sessions with both groups, prices converged approximately four and a half tokens higher when a 20-token per-unit subsidy was paid to buyers; this equates to 44% of the predicted 10-token split. A proportional market incentive treatment clarifies this subsidy effect. Discrepancies between predicted and observed incidence are similar to previous empirical estimates of subsidy incidence in agricultural land rental markets. A behavioral anomaly as well as buyer-buyer market competition may contribute to experimental results.

Keywords

agricultural policyex-ante policy analysisfactor marketlaboratory market experimentsland rental marketprofessional vs. student subject poolssubsidy incidenceQlQ15Q18C92
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 17 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2013

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.)

Footnotes

*Southern Agricultural Economics Association members

References

Ashenfelter, O., Currie, J., Farber, H.S., and Spiegel, M.. “An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 60,6(1992):1407–33.10.2307/2951527Google Scholar
Bastian, CT., Menkhaus, D.J., Nagler, A.M., and Ballenger, N.S.. “Ex Ante Evaluation of Alternative Agricultural Policies in Laboratory Posted Bid Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90,5(2008):1208–15.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01205.xGoogle Scholar
Bastian, CT., Nagler, A.M., Menkhaus, D.J., Ehmke, M.D., Whitaker, J.B., and Young, CE.. “Decoupled Programs, Payment Incidence, and Factor Markets: Evidence from Market Experiments.” Selected paper, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, July 24-26, 2011.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, A., and Beghin, J.C. “How Coupled Are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of the Evidence.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 34,1(2009):130–53.Google Scholar
Ciaassen, R., Cooper, J.C., and Carriazo, F.. “Crop Insurance, Disaster Payments, and Land Use Change: The Effect of Sodsaver on Incentives for Grassland Conversion.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 43,2(2011):195–211.Google Scholar
Davis, D.D., and Holt, CA.. Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Environmental Working Group. 2011 Farm Subsidy Database. Internet site: http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000 (Accessed August 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Fehr, E., and Schmidt, K.M.. “The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism-Experimental Evidence and New Theories.” Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Foundations Volume 1. Kolm, S-C and Ythier, J.M., eds. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2006.Google Scholar
Feichtinger, P., and Salhofer, K.. “The Valuation of Agricultural Land and the Influence of Government Payments.” Working paper, Factor Markets Coordination: Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, Belgium, December 2011.Google Scholar
Floyd, J.E. “The Effects of Farm Price Supports on the Returns to Land and Labor in Agriculture.” The Journal of Political Economy 73,2(1965):148–58.10.1086/259003Google Scholar
Goodwin, B.K., Mishra, A.K., and Ortalo-Magn, F.N.é. “What's Wrong with Our Models of Agricultural Land Values?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85,3(2003):744–52.10.1111/1467-8276.00479Google Scholar
Grether, D.M., and Plott, CR.. “The Effects of Market Practices in Oligopolistic Markets: An Experimental Investigation of the Ethyl Case.” Economic Inquiry 22,4(1984):479–507.10.1111/j.1465-7295.1984.tb00700.xGoogle Scholar
Haydu, J.J., Myers, R.J., and Thompson, S.R.. “Why Do Farmers Forward Contract in Factor Markets?” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 24,1(1992):145–52.Google Scholar
Herberich, D.H., and List, J.A.. “Digging into Background Risk: Experiments with Farmers and Students.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94,2(2012):457–63.10.1093/ajae/aar070Google Scholar
Hong, J.T., and Plott, CR.. “Rate Filing Policies for Inland Water Transportation: An Experimental Approach.” The Bell Journal of Economics 13,1(1982):1–19.10.2307/3003426Google Scholar
Kirwan, B., and Roberts, M.J.. “Who Really Benefits from Agricultural Subsidies? Evidence from Field-Level Data.” Selected Paper, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, July 25-27, 2010.Google Scholar
Kirwan, B.E. “The Incidence of U.S. Agricultural Subsidies on Farmland Rental Rates.” The Journal of Political Economy 117,1(2009):138–64.10.1086/598688Google Scholar
Kostov, P., Patton, M., and McErlean, S.. “Non-parametric Analysis of the Influence of Buyers’ Characteristics and Personal Relationships on Agricultural Land Prices.” Agribusiness 24,2(2008):161–76.10.1002/agr.20152Google Scholar
Luckstead, J., Devadoss, S., and Rodriguez, A.. “The Effects of North American Free Trade Agreement and United States Farm Policies on Illegal Immigration and Agricultural Trade.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 44,1(2012):1–19.Google Scholar
Menkhaus, D.J., Bastian, C.T., Phillips, O.R., and O'Neill, P.D.. “Supply and Demand Risks in Laboratory Forward and Spot Markets: Implications for Agriculture.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32,1(2000):159–73.Google Scholar
Menkhaus, D.J., Phillips, O.R., and Bastian, CT.. “Impacts of Alternative Trading Institutions and Methods of Delivery on Laboratory Market Outcomes.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85,5(2003):1323–29.10.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00550.xGoogle Scholar
Menkhaus, D.J., Phillips, O.R., Bastian, CT., and Gittings, L.B.. “The Matching Problem (and Inventories) in Private Negotiation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89,4(2007):1073–84.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01033.xGoogle Scholar
Mishra, A.K., and Perry, J.E.. “Forward Contracting of Inputs: A Farm-Level Analysis.” Journal of Agribusiness 17,2(1999):77–91.Google Scholar
Noussair, C.N., Plott, CR., and Riezman, R.G.. “An Experimental Investigation of the Patterns of International Trade.” The American Economic Review 85,3(1995):462–91.Google Scholar
Parks, R.W. “Efficient Estimation of a System of Regression Equations When Disturbances Are Both Serially and Contemporaneously Correlated.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 62,318(1967):500–9.10.1080/01621459.1967.10482923Google Scholar
Phillips, O.R., Menkhaus, D.J., and Krogmeier, J.L.. “Laboratory Behavior in Spot and Forward Auction Markets.” Experimental Economics 4,3(2001):243–56.10.1023/A:1013269304544Google Scholar
Phillips, O.R., Nagler, A.M., Menkhaus, D.J., and Bastian, CT.. “Experimental Work on Subsidies, Moral Hazard, and Market Power in Agricultural Markets.” Contemporary Economic Policy 28,4(2010):488–501.Google Scholar
Plott, CR. “Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 20(1982):1485–527.Google Scholar
SAS. SAS/ETS User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., 1999.Google Scholar
Smith, V.L. “Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory.” The American Economic Review 66,2(1976):274–79.Google Scholar
Sumner, D.A. “Farm Subsidy Tradition and Modern Agricultural Realities.” Working Paper, American Enterprise Institute Policy Series: The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond. Washington D.C: AEI Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Tweeten, L., and Zulauf, C.. “Farm Price and Income Policy: Lessons from History.” Agribusiness 24,2(2008):145–60.10.1002/agr.20153Google Scholar
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture Demographics Fact Sheet. Internet site: www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Fact_Sheets/Demographics/demographics.pdf (Accessed August 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Young, H.P., and Burke, M.A.. “Competition and Custom in Economic Contracts: A Case Study of Illinois Agriculture.” The American Economic Review 91,3(2001):559–73.10.1257/aer.91.3.559Google Scholar