Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:44:42.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Risk and Autonomy on Independent Hog Producers' Contracting Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Jeffrey M. Gillespie  and
Vernon R. Eidman
Jeffrey M. Gillespie
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center
Vernon R. Eidman
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The introduction of vertical coordination in the hog industry has provided producers with new business arrangements for raising hogs. While some researchers have elicited utility functions for hog producers on the basis of income risk, none have addressed autonomy, a factor which appears to be important in business arrangement selection for independent family hog operations. In this study, a method is developed for eliciting a multi-attribute function with attributes of income and autonomy. Utility functions are elicited for a group of Minnesota farrow-to-finish hog producers. For these producers, autonomy dominated risk as the most important attribute in business arrangement selection.

Keywords

autonomycontractinghog industryrisk
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , July 1998 , pp. 175 - 188
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

Anderson, J.R., Dillon, J.L., and Hardaker, B.. Agricultural Decision Analysis. Ames IA: Iowa State University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Arrow, K.J.Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1971.Google Scholar
Foltz, J.C., Lee, J.G., Martin, M.A., and Preckel, P.V.. “Multiattribute Assessment of Alternative Cropping Systems.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77(May 1995):408-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, J.R., and Gillespie, J.M.. “Emerging Business Organizations in a Rapidly Changing Pork Industry.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77(December 1995):1219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J.M., and Fulton, J.R.. “ Entry, Exit, and Changes in the Size of Hog Production Firms in the U.S.: A Markov Chain Analysis.” Staff Pap. No. 97-12, Dept. Agr. Econ., Purdue University, July 1997.Google Scholar
Gunjal, K., and Legault, B.. “Risk Preferences of Dairy and Hog Producers in Quebec.” Can. J. Agr. Econ. 43,1(March 1995):23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, N.D., and Andrews, G.. “State Regulation of Contract Feeding and Packer Integration in the Swine Industry.” White Pap. No. 92-4, Drake University Law School, Des Moines IA, November 1992.Google Scholar
Hurt, C. “Industrialization in the Pork Industry.” Choices (4th Quarter 1994):9–13.Google Scholar
Johnson, C.S., and Foster, K.A.. “Risk Preferences and Contracting in the U.S. Hog Industry.” J. Agr. and Appl. Econ. 26,2(December 1994):393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H.. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976.Google Scholar
Kliebenstein, J., and Hillbum, C.. “Comparing Pork Production Contracts.” Staff Pap. No. 222, Dept. Econ., Iowa State University, May 1991.Google Scholar
Kliebenstein, J.B., and Lawrence, J.D.. “Contracting and Vertical Coordination in the United States Pork Industry.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77(December 1995):1213–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, G.J. “Estimating Utility of Gain Functions for Southwest Minnesota Farmers.” Un-pub. Ph.D. diss., Dept. Agr. and Appl. Econ., University of Minnesota, 1980.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.D., and Kaylen, M.S.. “Risk Management for Livestock Producers: Hedging and Contract Production.” Staff Pap. No. P90-49, Dept. Agr. and Appl. Econ., University of Minnesota, July 1990.Google Scholar
Machina, M.J. “‘Expected Utility’ Analysis Without the Independence Axiom.” Econometrica 50(March 1982):277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Officer, R.R., and Halter, A.N.. “Utility Analysis in a Practical Setting.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 50(May 1968):257-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, G., Blake, B., and Whitaker, S.. “Farmers' Goals: Uni- or Multidimensional?” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 65,2(May 1983):315-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J.S. “Risk Aversion in the Small and Large.” Econometrica 32(1964):122-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robison, L.J., and Barry, P.J.. The Competitive Firm's Response to Risk. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1987.Google Scholar
Saha, A. “Expo-Power Utility: A ‘Flexible’ Form for Absolute and Relative Risk Aversion.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 75(November 1993):905-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spetzler, C.S., and von Holstein, C.S. Stael. “Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis.” Management Sci. 22,3(November 1975):340-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varian, H.R.Microeconomic Analysis, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1984.Google Scholar
Wilson, P., and Eidman, V.R.. “An Empirical Test of the Interval Approach for Estimating Risk Preferences.” West. J. Agr. Econ. 8(December 1983):170-82.Google Scholar
Zering, K., and Beals, A.. “Swine Production Contracts: Description and Financial Performance.” J. Amer. Soc. Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers 54,1(April 1990):43–53.Google Scholar