Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T19:24:23.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interregional Competitive Impact of Urban Influenced Farmland Prices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

John H. Foster
John H. Foster*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts/Amherst
Get access

Abstract

The paper's hypothesis is that the farmers using land with urban influenced prices are at a competitive disadvantage because their land input cost exceeds it calitialized earning power while land prices for other farmers are based on earning ability. This hypothesis was investigated by comparing rates of return to land in Massachusetts and two non-urban dairy regions in Wisconsin. Both areas have low rates of return compared to contemporary market interest rates with Massachusetts rates somewhat below those in Wisconsin. When additional factors are considered, the hypothesis is weakly supported, at best.

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , October 1985 , pp. 122 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Comments by Thomas Stevens and Daniel Dudek on an earlier draft are gratefully acknowledged.

References

Babb, Emerson, 1981. “Analysis of Regional Milk Prices and Production Costs.” Journal of Dairy Science 64 (1981):2043–2047.Google Scholar
Bailey, M. R., Rosenberger, L. J. and Kolman, M. R. Massachusetts Agricultural Viability Study, Washington D.C. USDA, ERS, SCS, and Forest Service, 1982.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. and Wells, G. Interregional Competition Analysis in Peaches: How Industry Changes Affect South Carolina Marketing and Prices. Bul. 639, South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, 1981.Google Scholar
Brown, K. C. and Brown, D. J. “Heterogenous Expectations and Farmland Prices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984):164–169.Google Scholar
Castle, E. N. and Hoch, I., 1982. “Farm Real Estate Price Components, 1920–1978.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (1982):8–18.Google Scholar
Clapp, Arthur. Assistant Vice President and Chief Reviewing Appraiser. Federal Land Bank, Springfield, Massachusetts. Office conversation, 1984.Google Scholar
Cobb, Charles, ERS, USDA. Telephone conversation, 1984.Google Scholar
Downs, D., Smith, M. G. and Raup, P. M. “The Minnesota Rural Real Estate Market in 1983.” Minnesota Agricultural Economist. 645 (1984):1–8.Google Scholar
Foster, J. H. and MacConnell, W. Agricultural Land Use Changes in Massachusetts, 1951–1971. Bulletin 640, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, 1977.Google Scholar
Gray, R. J. National Agricultural Land Study: Massachusetts Fact Sheet. U.S. Superintendent of Documents, 1980.Google Scholar
Greig, W. Smith. Economic Potential for Producing and Processing High-Value Cash Crops from New Irrigated Lands in Washington. College of Agriculture Research Center, Circular 603, Washington State University, 1977.Google Scholar
Luening, R. Wisconsin Department of Agricultural Economics, telephone conversation, 1984.Google Scholar
Phipps, T. T. “Land Prices and Farm-Based Returns.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984):442–429.Google Scholar
Scott, J. T. “Factors Affecting Land Price Decline.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65 (1984):796–800.Google Scholar
Trembley, Ray. Personal letter, University of Vermont, 1984.Google Scholar
USDA, ERS. Farm Real Estate Market Development. CD-88 1983 and CD-89, 1984.Google Scholar
Wisconsin Agricultural Reporting Service (WARS). Agricultural Land Sales and Rental Rates, 1976 to 1983.Google Scholar
Zepp, G. Costs of Producing Potatoes—1980 and 1981 with Projections to 1982. USDA Agricultural Economics Report No. 491, 1982.Google Scholar