Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:54:16.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multidimensional Evaluation of Flexible Functional Forms for Production Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Fermin S. Ornelas  and
C. Richard Shumway
C. Richard Shumway
Affiliation:
Texas A&M
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several common flexible functional forms are evaluated for Texas agricultural production utilizing three procedures. Nested hypothesis tests indicate that the normalized quadratic is the marginally-preferred functional form followed by the generalized Leontief. Predictive accuracy results are ambiguous between the generalized Leontief and the normalized quadratic. Statistical performance favors the normalized quadratic. These two functional forms consistently dominate the translog.

Keywords

Box-Coxfunctional formpredictionproductionstatistical performance
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , December 1993 , pp. 106 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1993

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. “On the Choice of Functional Forms.” Intern. Econ. Rev. 20(1979):449–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baffes, J., and Vasavada, U.. “On the Choice of Functional Forms in Agricultural Production Analysis.” Appi. Econ. 21(1989):1053-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, V. E. “Modeling Supply Response in a Multiproduct Framework.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 70(1988):813-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, E. R., and Khaled, M. S.. “Parametric Productivity Measurement and Choice among Flexible Functional Forms.” J. Polit. Econ. 87 (1979):1221-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalfant, J. A. “Choosing among Flexible Functional Forms: An Application of the Generalized Box-Cox and the Fourier Flexible Functional Forms in U.S. Agriculture.” Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, 1983.Google Scholar
Dutta, J. “On Predictive Evaluation of Econometric Models.” Intern. Econ. Rev. 21(1980):379-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottret, P. E. “A Regional Approach to the Estimation of Multiproduct Input Demand and Output Supply Functions in the U.S.” Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, 1987.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H.Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Second Edition, 1993.Google Scholar
Griffin, R. C., Montgomery, J.M., and Rister, M. E.. “Selecting Functional Form.” West. J. Agr. Econ. 18(1987):216-27.Google Scholar
Guilkey, D. K., Lovell, C. A. K.,and Sickles, R. C.. “A Comparison of the Performance of Three Flexible Functional Forms.” Intern. Econ. Rev. 24(1983):591–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houck, J.P., and Ryan, M.E.. “Supply Elasticities of Corn in the United States: The Impact of Changing Government Programs.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 54(1972):878-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, E. W., and Evenson, R.. “Research Bias Effects for Input and Output Decisions: An Application to U.S. Cash-Grain Farms.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 71(1989):761–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorgenson, D. W., and Lau, L. J.. “The Structure of Consumer Preferences.” Ann. Econ. and Soc. Meas. 4(1975):49–101.Google Scholar
Lau, L. J. “Testing and Imposing Monotonicity, Convexity, and Quasi- Convexity Constraints.” pp. 409-53 in Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications (eds., Fuss, M. and McFadden, D.), Volume 1, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1978.Google Scholar
Lim, H., “Profit Maximization, Returns to Scale, Separability, and Measurement Error in State-Level Agricultural Technology.” Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, 1989.Google Scholar
Lim, H. and Shumway, C.R.. “Separability in State-Level Agricultural Technology.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 74(1992):120-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, E. R. “Estimating Substitution and Expansion Effects Using a Profit Function Framework.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 66(1984):358-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, C.S. “Evaluating Alternative Methods of Including Government Policy Information for Multiproduct Supply Analysis.” Working Paper, University of Georgia, 1990.Google Scholar
McIntosh, C.S. “Specification of Government Policy Variables.” Division of Agricultural Economics FS89-61, University of Georgia, 1989.Google Scholar
Miller, S. E., Capps, O., and Wells, G. J.. “Confidence Intervals for Elasticities and Flexibilities from Linear Equations.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 66(1984):392-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moschini, Giancarlo. “A Model with Supply Management for the Canadian Agricultural Sector.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 70 (1988):318-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ornelas, F. S., Shumway, C.R., and Ozuna, T.. “Functional Form Selection and Dual Profit Functions for U.S. Agriculture.” Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association annual meetings, Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1991.Google Scholar
Romain, R.F.J. “A Commodity Specific Policy Simulation Model for U.S. Agriculture.” Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, 1983.Google Scholar
Shumway, C.R., and Alexander, W.P.. “Agricultural Product Supplies and Input Demands: Regional Comparisons.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 65(1988):153-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shumway, C. R., and Lim, H.. “Functional Form and U.S. Agricultural Production Elasticities.” J. Agr. and Res. Econ. 18(1993):forthcoming.Google Scholar
Swamy, G., and Binswanger, H.. “Flexible Consumer Demand Systems and Linear Estimation: Food in India.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 65(1983):675-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talpaz, H., Alexander, W.P., and CR. Shumway. “Estimation of Systems of Equations Subject to Curvature Constraints.” J. Stat. Comp. and Simul. 32(1989):201-16.Google Scholar
Teigen, L. D., and Singer, F.. “Weather in U.S. Agriculture: Monthly Temperature and Precipitation by State and State Farm Production Region, 1950-1986.” USDA, Economic Research Service Statistical Bulletin No. 765, Washington, 1988.Google Scholar
Texas Department of Agriculture. Texas Vegetable Statistics, Austin, various issues.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. G. “Choice of Flexible Functional Form and Appraisal.” W. J. Agr. Econ. 13(1988): 169-83.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, Washington, various issues.Google Scholar
Villezca, P. A. “Functional Form, Model Specification, and Analytical Simplification in Multiple-Output Production Analysis.” Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, 1991.Google Scholar