Article thumbnail


By Mingxia Zhang and Richard J. Sexton


We investigate the optimal collection and expenditure of funds for agricultural commodity promotion in markets where the processing and distribution sectors may exhibit oligopoly and/or oligopsony power. The conditions that characterize optimal advertising intensity under perfect competition for funds generated from either per-unit or lump-sum taxes do not, in general, hold when marketing is imperfectly competitive. Simulation analyses show that imperfect competition always reduces farmers' optimal advertising expenditure and that an imperfectly competitive marketing sector may capture half or more of the benefits from the funds that are expended.Marketing,

OAI identifier:
Downloaded from

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

Suggested articles


  1. Advertising Without Supply Control: Some Implications of a
  2. (1996). Assessing Competition
  3. (2000). Beggar-thy-Neighbor Advertising: Theory and Application to Generic Commodity Promotion Programs,” Working Paper,
  4. (1993). Commodity Advertising: The Economics and Measurement of Generic Programs,
  5. (1996). Department of Agriculture. “Concentration in Agriculture: A Report to the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration,” Agricultural Marketing Service,
  6. (1996). Department of Agriculture. “Concentration in the Red Meat Packing Industry,” Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration,
  7. Distribution of Generic Advertising Benefits Across Participating Firms.”
  8. Do Farmers Get an Equal Bang for Their Buck from Generic Advertising Programs?”
  9. Econometric Analysis of Collusive Behavior in a SoftDrink Market.
  10. Endogenous Product Differentiation and Trade Policy: Implications for the U.S.
  11. Estimating Market Conduct under Government Price Intervention: The Case of the U.S.
  12. Evaluating Generic Dairy Advertising Impacts on Retail, Wholesale,
  13. Evaluating Generic Milk Promotion Effectiveness with an Imperfect Competition Model.”
  14. Explaining the Differences Between two Previous Meat Generic Advertising
  15. (2000). Food Processing and Distribution: An Industrial Organization Approach,”
  16. Generic Promotion of Beef: Measuring the Impact of the U.S. Beef Checkoff.
  17. (1984). Impacts of National Generic Dairy Advertising on Dairy Markets,
  18. (1996). Incorporating Industrial Organization into Agricultural Trade Modelling,”
  19. Open Economy and Processor Oligopoly Power Effects of Beef Advertising in Canada.”
  20. Optimal Advertising and Optimal Quality.”
  21. Optimal Generic Advertising Decisions in Supply-managed Industries: Clarification and Some Further Results.”
  22. Optimal Producer Investment in Generic Advertising: The Case of Fluid Milk in Ontario and Quebec.”
  23. Returns to an Innovation in an Imperfectly Competitive Market: Application to Mechanical Harvesting of Processing Tomatoes in Taiwan.”
  24. Returns to Product Innovation in Agriculture with
  25. Testing Oligopolistic and Oligopsonistic Behavior.”
  26. (1998). The California Prune Board’s Promotion Program:
  27. (1997). The California Table Grape Commission’s Promotion Program:
  28. The Effects of Imperfect Competition on the Size and
  29. The Science and Art of Promotion Evaluation.”
  30. Trade Policy on Lamb Meat: Who Gets Fleeced?”