Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T06:24:38.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Extraneous Information in the Development of a Policy Simulation Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Daryll E. Ray
Daryll E. Ray*
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A number of highly aggregated policy simulation models have been developed for the U.S. agricultural sector. While these models are useful in providing broad-stroke sketches of the effects of alternative farm policies, they have been criticized for their lack of commodity detail. Individuals, organizations and congressmen from a cattle producing state, as an example, are more interested in the impact of a changed agricultural policy on cattle prices and incomes than its effect on the income of all farmers. The reason most often given for not disaggregating by commodity groups is the researcher's reluctance to quantify opportunities for substitution among commodities in production and consumption. However, there may be more agreement on the relative magnitudes of supply and demand elasticities for individual commodities than the price elasticities of supply and demand for all farm output. Hence, a disaggregated model may distort reality much less than a highly aggregated model and at the same time provide detail on indirect effects of proposed policies that is so often sought by policy makers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , July 1973 , pp. 167 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1973

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

[1]Blakley, Leo V., Quantitative Relationships in the Cotton Economy with Implications for Economic Policy, Oklahoma Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. T-95, May 1962.Google Scholar
[2]Bowlen, B. J., “The Wheat Supply Function,” Journal of Farm Economics 37:1177-85, Dec. 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Brandow, George E., Interrelations Among Demands for Farm Products and Implications for Control of Market Supply, Pennsylvania Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 680, Aug. 1961.Google Scholar
[4]Cochrane, Willard W., “Conceptualizing the Supply Relation in Agriculture,” Journal of Farm Economics 37:1161-76, Dec. 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Colyer, Dale and Irwin, George D., Beef, Pork and Feed Grains in the Cornbelt: Supply Response and Resource Adjustments, University of Missouri Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Bull. 921, Aug. 1967.Google Scholar
[6]Cromarty, William A., “An Econometric Model for United States Agriculture,” Journal of American Statistical Association 54:556-74, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Culver, David W. and Chai, J. C., “A View of Food and Agriculture in 1980,” Agricultural Economic Research 22:61–68, July 1970 and Statistical Supplement.Google Scholar
[8]Fox, Karl A., The Analysis of Demand for Farm Products, USDA Tech. Bull. 1081, 1953.Google Scholar
[9]George, P. S. and King, G. A., Consummer Demand for Food Commodities in the United States with Projections for 1980, University of California Giannini Foundation Monograph 26, March 1971.Google Scholar
[10]Gomme, Frank, Wheat Feeding in the United States, USDA Wheat Situation WS-219, Feb. 1972.Google Scholar
[11]Heady, Earl O., and Rao, V. Y., Acreage Response and Production Supply Functions of Soybeans, Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Bull. 555, Sept. 1967.Google Scholar
[12]Hildreth, Clifford and Jarrett, F. G.Statistical Study of Livestock Production and Marketing, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Houck, James P. and Mann, Jitendar S., An Analysis of Domestic and Foreign Demand for U.S. Soybeans and Soybean Products, University of Minnesota Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 256, 1968.Google Scholar
[14]Houck, James P. and Ryan, M. E., “Supply Analysis for Corn in the United States: The Impact of Changing Government Programs,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54:184–191, May 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Houck, James P. and Subotnik, Abraham, “The U.S. Supply of Soybeans: Regional Acreage Functions,” Agricultural Economic Research 21:99–108, October 1969.Google Scholar
[16]Lowenstein, Frank, “Factors Affecting the Domestic Mill Consumption of Cotton,” Agricultural Economic Research 4:41–51, 1952.Google Scholar
[17]Nerlove, Marc, “Distributed Lags and the Estimation of Long-Run Supply and Demand Elasticities,” Journal of Farm Economics 40:301-11, May 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Ray, Daryll E., “An Econometric Simulation Model of United States Agriculture with Commodity Submodels,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, 1971.Google Scholar
[19]Vandenborre, R. J., “An Econometric Analysis of the U.S. Soybean Sector,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, 1964.Google Scholar
[20]Walsh, Robert M., “Response to Price in Production of Cotton and Cottonseed,” Journal of Farm Economics 26:359-72, 1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar