Article thumbnail

DECOUPLED PAYMENTS IN A CHANGING POLICY SETTING

By Mary Clare Ahearn, Robert N. Collender, Xinshen Diao, David H. Harrington, Robert A. Hoppe, Penelope J. Korb, Shiva S. Makki, Mitchell J. Morehart, Michael J. Roberts, Terry L. Roe, Agapi Somwaru, Monte Vandeveer, Paul C. Westcott and C. Edwin Young

Abstract

The studies in this report analyze the effects of decoupled payments in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act on recipient households, and assess land, labor, risk management, and capital market conditions that can lead to links between decoupled payments and production choices. Each study contributes a different perspective to understanding the response of U.S. farm households and production to decoupled income transfers. Some use new microdata on farm households collected through USDA's Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS), initiated in 1996, and its predecessor survey. These data are used to compare household and producer behavior and outcomes before and after the FAIR Act. Other studies use applied or conceptual models to characterize the impact of introducing decoupled payments. Collectively, the chapters represent an early stage in the empirical analysis of decoupled payments. The studies address many aspects of the payments' household impacts but remaining issues call for additional analysis. As the analytical paradigm changes with the evolution of farm programs, the development of appropriate data and models will improve our understanding of farm program impacts on the behavior and well-being of U.S. farm households, and the agricultural sector.Agricultural and Food Policy,

OAI identifier:
Downloaded from http://purl.umn.edu/33981

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1990). A Comparison of Risk Preference Measurements With Implications for Extension Programming.” Staff Paper61 Decoupled Payments in a Changing Policy
  2. (2000). A Conceptual Overview. Report for Working Party on Agricultural Policies and Markets of the Committee for Agriculture, Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development,
  3. A Synthesis of Forces Driving Structural Change,” in Farms, Farm Families, and Farm Communities,
  4. (1986). A Theoretical and Empirical Approach to the Value of Information in
  5. (2001). A Three Sector Growth Model With Three Assets and Sectoral Differences
  6. (2003). Agricultural Household Models: Genesis, Evolution,
  7. (1991). Agricultural Household Models: Survey and Critique,” in Multiple Job-Holding among Farm Families.
  8. (1997). Agricultural Statistics Service.
  9. Agricultural Statistics Service. Farm Labor.
  10. (2000). Almost Half of Hired Farmworkers 25 Years and Older Earn Poverty-Level
  11. An Empirical Test of the Interval Approach for Estimating Risk Preferences,”
  12. An Investigation of the Importance of Risk in
  13. (2001). Analysis of the U.S. Commodity Loan Program with Marketing Loan Provisions.
  14. (2002). and X.Diao. “Do Direct Payments Have Intertemporal Effects On U.S.
  15. Assessing Farmers’Attitudes Toward Risk Using the ‘Closing-in’
  16. Asset Fixity and the Distribution of Rents from
  17. (1992). Changing Economic Perspectives on the Farm Problem,”
  18. (1997). Coping with Risk in Agriculture.
  19. (1983). Costs and Returns: Economic and Accounting Concepts,”
  20. (2000). De La Torre Ugarte.
  21. (1995). Decoupled Payments in a Changing Policy Setting/AER-838 Economic Research Service/USDA
  22. Demand for Yield and Revenue Insurance: Factoring
  23. (2000). Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  24. (2002). Differentiated Policy Impacts on Agricultural Land Values,” Working Paper,
  25. (2003). Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth and Calibration for Risk in Agriculture,”
  26. (2000). Disentangling the Production and Export Consequences of Direct Farm Income Payments.” Paper presented at the 2000 AAEA meetings,
  27. Economic Behavior Under Uncertainty: A Joint Analysis
  28. (1971). Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing.
  29. (2001). Estimating the Effect of Unearned Income on Labor Supply, Earnings, Savings and Consumption: Evidence from a Survey of Lottery Players,”
  30. Evidence of capitalization of direct government payments into U.S. cropland values,”
  31. (2003). Explaining Regional Difference in the Capitalization of Policy Benefits into Agricultural Land Values,”
  32. Farm Household Incomes and U.S. Government Program Payments.” Selected paper for presentation at the 2002 AAEA meetings,
  33. (1998). Farm Income Support: Implications for Gains from Trade of Changes in
  34. Farm Income Variability and the Supply of Off-farm Labor,”
  35. (2003). Farm Payments: Decoupled Payments Increase Households’Well-Being,
  36. (1986). Fringe Benefits in Operator Off-farm Labor Supply.”
  37. (1998). Fundamental q, Cash Flow, and Investment: Evidence from Farm Panel Data,”
  38. (2001). Government Payments to Farmers Contribute to Rising Land Values,”
  39. (2001). Higher Cropland Values from Farm Program Payments:
  40. How Decoupled is U.S. Agricultural Support for Major Crops?”
  41. (2002). How Much Does Risk Really Matter to Farmers,”
  42. (2003). Implications of the U.S. Farm Bill of 2002 for Agricultural Trade and Trade Negotiations,”
  43. (1985). Information and Economic Analysis:
  44. (1992). Internal Net Worth and the Investment Process: An Application to U.S.
  45. (1996). Investment in U.S.
  46. Joint Estimation of Risk Preference Structure and Technology Using Expo-Power Utility,”
  47. Joint Risk Preference-Technology Estimation with a Primal System,”
  48. (1991). Life Cycle and Expectations
  49. (2004). Links Among Farm Productivity, Off-farm Work,
  50. (1999). Managing Risk
  51. (1991). Measuring the Effect of Farm
  52. (1995). Microeconomic Theory.
  53. (1999). More Farmers Contracting to Manage Risk.” Agricultural Outlook.
  54. North American Farm Programs and the WTO,”
  55. (2001). On Testing the Structure of Risk Preferences in Agricultural Supply Analysis,”
  56. On the Theory of the Competitive Firm Under Price
  57. (2001). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Decoupling: A Conceptual Overview.
  58. (1999). Policy Reform in American Agriculture: Analysis and Prognosis.
  59. (2001). Production and Price Impacts of U.S.
  60. Prospect Theory and Risk Preferences of Oregon Seed Producers,”
  61. Risk Attitudes and Farm/Producer Attributes: A Case Study of Texas Coastal Bend Grain Sorghum Producers,”
  62. Risk Attitudes Measured by the Interval Approach: A Case Study of Kansas Farmers,”
  63. Risk Management by Colorado Dryland Wheat Farmers and the Elimination of the Disaster Assistance Program,”
  64. Risk Preferences of Agricultural Producers: Their Use in Extension and
  65. Risk Preferences of Dairy Farmers,”
  66. (1993). Science for Agriculture.
  67. (1982). Some Estimates of Farmers’ Utility Functions. TB-335, Agricultural Experiment Station,
  68. Technological Uncertainty and the Theory of the Firm,”
  69. (1987). The Competitive Firm’s Response to Risk.
  70. (1940). The Determinants of the Migration of Labor Out of Agriculture in the United States,
  71. The Effects of Farm Price Supports on the Returns to Land and Labor in
  72. (1991). The Effects of Tax Policy on Investment in
  73. (2002). The Impact of Government Subsidies on the Off-farm Labor Supply of Farm Operators.” Selected paper at the 2002 AAEA meetings,
  74. (2003). The Impacts of Different Farm Programs on Cash Rents,”
  75. (2003). The Incidence of Government Program Payments on Agricultural Land Rents: The Challenges of Identification,”
  76. (2003). The Incidence of U.S. Agricultural Subsidies on Farmland Rental Rates.
  77. (2003). The Influence of Commodity Programs on Acreage Response to Market Price: With an Illustration Concerning Rice Policy in the United States,”
  78. The Production Effects of Agricultural Income Support Policies under Uncertainty,”
  79. (1981). The Theory of Commodity Price Stabilization: A Study in the Economics of Risk. Oxford:
  80. The Tradeoff Between Expected Return and Risk Among Cornbelt Farmers,”
  81. Using Consumption and Asset Return Data to Estimate Farmers’Time Preferences and Risk Attitudes,”
  82. Utility Measurement for Those Who Need to Know,”
  83. (2003). What’s Wrong with Our Models for Agricultural Land Values?”
  84. (2003). Who Benefits from Government Farm Payments? Relationships between Payments Received and Farm Household Well-Being,” Choices,3 rd Quarter,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.