Negative Leakage

We build a simple analytical general equilibrium model and linearize it, to find a closed-from expression for the effect of a small change in carbon tax on leakage – the increase in emissions elsewhere. The model has two goods produced in two sectors or regions. Many identical consumers buy both goods using income from a fixed stock of capital that is mobile between sectors. An increase in one sector’s carbon tax raises the price of its output, so consumption shifts to the other good, causing positive carbon leakage. However, the taxed sector substitutes away from carbon into capital. It thus absorbs capital, which shrinks the other sector, causing negative leakage. This latter effect could swamp the former, reducing carbon emissions in both sectors.

Empowering Women through Education and Influence: An Evaluation of the Indian Mahila Samakhya Program

This paper shows that participation in a community-level female empowerment program in India significantly increases participants' physical mobility, political participation, and access to employment. The program provides support groups, literacy camps, adult education classes, and vocational training. We use truncation-corrected matching and instrumental variables on primary data to disentangle the program's mechanisms, separately considering its effect on women who work, and those who do not work but whose reservation wage is increased by participation. We also find significant spillover effects on non-participants relative to women in untreated districts.women's empowerment, community-level interventions, impact evaluation, India

Agricultural Market Liberalization and Household Food Security in Rural China

Recent World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes have brought China’s agricultural trade policy back into the spotlight. In November 2008, China issued the nation’s first Outline of Medium and Long-term Plan for National Food Security (China Central People’s Government, 2008), in which they stipulate that the country will seek to stabilize the area sown to grain and achieve more than 95% grain self-sufficiency. Trade restrictions are argued to support implementing this plan because increased imports of grains and soybeans will lower prices, causing grain and soybean farmers to leave farming, thereby generating food insecurity (Wong and Huang, 2012). Others suggest that China may not have a comparative advantage in grain or soybean production, and switching to higher-value agriculture or working offfarm could increase the incomes of both rich and poor farmers (Zhu, Hare, and Zhong, 2010). In this article, we evaluate the effect of past agricultural market liberalization on rural Chinese household food security as a measure of household welfare. Because market liberalization is likely to differ in its effect across households, we explore the distributional effect of liberalization on rural household food security. We find that liberalization primarily improves household food security by increasing off-farm income, and the effects vary greatly by initial food security status and producer types

Negative Leakage

We build a simple analytical general equilibrium model and linearize it, to find a closed-from expression for the effect of a small change in carbon tax on leakage – the increase in emissions elsewhere. The model has two goods produced in two sectors or regions. Many identical consumers buy both goods using income from a fixed stock of capital that is mobile between sectors. An increase in one sector’s carbon tax raises the price of its output, so consumption shifts to the other good, causing positive carbon leakage. However, the taxed sector substitutes away from carbon into capital. It thus absorbs capital, which shrinks the other sector, causing negative leakage. This latter effect could swamp the former, reducing carbon emissions in both sectors.

Something Fishy in Seafood Trade?

The safety of food imports continues to be in the spotlight. Globally, each year, contaminated food causes almost 1 in 10 people to fall ill and 420 thousand people to die (WHO, 2017). Protecting consumers from unsafe foods is complicated by the increased role of international trade in our food system. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that disease outbreaks associated with imported food increased from 1996 to 2014, with fish and produce being the main culprits (Gould et al., 2017). For example, in 2019, two separate cases of tuna from Vietnam were found to have sickened over 60 people in the United States (FDA, 2020), and two years before, over 40 people were sickened by an outbreak of histamine poisoning in France caused by tuna imported from Reunion Island (Velut et al., 2019). Although increased scrutiny at the border has the laudable goal of protecting health, food import rejections may be subject to pressure for import protection. Given that border inspections are limited, if food inspections are directed to products that threaten the domestic industry, they may not be optimally targeting products that threaten domestic health. In the article titled “Something Fishy in Seafood Trade? the Relation between Tariff and non-Tariff Barriers” recently published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, we ask whether the application of food import rules has been influenced by demand for protection

What determines the effectiveness of national protected area networks?

More than 15% of global terrestrial area is under some form of protection and there is a growing impetus to increase this coverage to 30% by 2030. But not all protection is effective and the reasons some countries\u27 protected areas (PAs) are more effective than others\u27 are poorly understood. We evaluate the effectiveness of national PA networks established between 2000 and 2012 globally in avoiding forest loss, taking into account underlying deforestation threats using a combination of matching methods and cross-sectional regressions. We then assess which demographic, agricultural, economic, and governance factors are most strongly associated with national PA effectiveness using machine learning methods. We estimate that national PAs established between 2000 and 2012 reduced deforestation in those areas by 72%, avoiding 86 062 km² of forest loss. The effectiveness of national PAs varied by strictness of protection based on International Union for Conservation of Nature category. Strictly PAs reduced forest loss by 81% compared to what would have occurred without protection, while less strictly PAs reduced forest loss by 67%. Thus, the 26% of new PAs that were strictly protected contributed 39% of the total forest loss avoided within PAs between 2000 and 2012. If every country\u27s PAs were as effective as the country with the most effective PAs within the same region, they would have increased the area of deforestation avoided by 38%, saving a further 119 082 km² of forest. Part of the variation in PA effectiveness across countries is explained by the placement of PA in areas facing higher deforestation threat. Countries with lower agricultural activity, higher economic growth and better governance are most strongly associated with greater country-level PA effectiveness

Is closing the agricultural yield gap a risky endeavor?

CONTEXT: Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has the climatic and biophysical potential to grow the crops it needs to meet rapidly growing food demand; however, agricultural productivity remains low. While potential maize yields in Zambia are 9 t per hectare (t/ha), the average farmer produces only 1–2. OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the contribution of responses to weather risk to that gap by decomposing the yield gap in maize in Zambia. While we know that improved seed and fertilizer can expand yield and profit, they may also increase the variance of yield under different weather outcomes, reducing their adoption. METHODS: We use a novel approach combining crop modeling and statistical analysis of survey data to obtain the yield gap components in Zambia driven by input cost and input risk. We use a crop model to simulate district-level marginal effects of fertilizer and seed maturity choice on the mean and variance of expected yield and profit under all-weather outcomes for each district for the past 30 years. We compare input levels that maximize expected yield to those that maximize expected profit and maximize the expected mean-variance trade-off assuming risk-aversion. To determine how much farmers\u27 input choices are made to reduce risk, we then quantify differences in the expected riskiness of inputs by district. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We find approximately one-quarter of the yield gap can be explained by risk-reducing behavior, albeit with a substantial geographic variation. Given this finding, under present conditions, we expect that the average maximum yield that farmers can obtain without increasing risk is 6.75 t/ha compared to a potential profit-maximizing level of 8.84 t/ha. SIGNIFICANCE: The risk-related yield gap is only expected to increase with weather extremes driven by climate change. Promoting “one-size-fits all” solutions to closing the yield gap could underestimate the effect of risk mitigation on agricultural production while increasing farmers\u27 risk exposure. © 2023 The Author

Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?

CONTEXT: Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has the climatic and biophysical potential to grow the crops it needs to meet rapidly growing food demand; however, agricultural productivity remains low. While potential maize yields in Zambia are 9 t per hectare (t/ha), the average farmer produces only 1–2. OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the contribution of responses to weather risk to that gap by decomposing the yield gap in maize in Zambia. While we know that improved seed and fertilizer can expand yield and profit, they may also increase the variance of yield under different weather outcomes, reducing their adoption. METHODS: We use a novel approach combining crop modeling and statistical analysis of survey data to obtain the yield gap components in Zambia driven by input cost and input risk. We use a crop model to simulate district-level marginal effects of fertilizer and seed maturity choice on the mean and variance of expected yield and profit under all-weather outcomes for each district for the past 30 years. We compare input levels that maximize expected yield to those that maximize expected profit and maximize the expected mean-variance trade-off assuming risk-aversion. To determine how much farmers' input choices are made to reduce risk, we then quantify differences in the expected riskiness of inputs by district. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We find approximately one-quarter of the yield gap can be explained by risk-reducing behavior, albeit with a substantial geographic variation. Given this finding, under present conditions, we expect that the average maximum yield that farmers can obtain without increasing risk is 6.75 t/ha compared to a potential profit-maximizing level of 8.84 t/ha. SIGNIFICANCE: The risk-related yield gap is only expected to increase with weather extremes driven by climate change. Promoting “one-size-fits all” solutions to closing the yield gap could underestimate the effect of risk mitigation on agricultural production while increasing farmers.CONTEXTO: El África subsahariana (ASS) tiene el potencial climático y biofísico para aumentar los cultivos que necesita para satisfacer la creciente demanda de alimentos; sin embargo, la productividad agrícola sigue siendo baja. Si bien los rendimientos potenciales del maíz en Zambia son de 9 t por hectárea (t/ha), el agricultor promedio produce sólo 1-2. OBJETIVO: Evaluamos la contribución de las respuestas al riesgo climático a esa brecha descomponiendo la brecha de rendimiento del maíz en Zambia. Si bien sabemos que las semillas y los fertilizantes mejorados pueden aumentar el rendimiento y las ganancias, también pueden aumentar la variación del rendimiento en diferentes condiciones climáticas, lo que reduce su adopción. MÉTODO: Utilizamos un enfoque novedoso que combina modelos de cultivos y análisis estadístico de datos de encuestas para obtener los componentes de la brecha de rendimiento en Zambia impulsados por el costo y el riesgo de los insumos. Utilizamos un modelo de cultivo para simular los efectos marginales a nivel de distrito de la elección de la madurez de las semillas y los fertilizantes sobre la media y la varianza del rendimiento y la ganancia esperados bajo resultados en cualquier condición climática para cada distrito durante los últimos 30 años. Comparamos los niveles de insumos que maximizan el rendimiento esperado con aquellos que maximizan el beneficio esperado y maximizan la compensación esperada entre media y varianza suponiendo aversión al riesgo. Para determinar en qué medida los agricultores eligen insumos para reducir el riesgo, luego cuantificamos las diferencias en el riesgo esperado de los insumos por distrito. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Encontramos que aproximadamente una cuarta parte de la brecha de rendimiento puede explicarse por un comportamiento de reducción de riesgos, aunque con una variación geográfica sustancial. Dado este hallazgo, en las condiciones actuales, esperamos que el rendimiento máximo promedio que los agricultores pueden obtener sin aumentar el riesgo sea de 6,75 t/ha en comparación con un nivel potencial de maximización de ganancias de 8,84 t/ha. SIGNIFICADO: Sólo se espera que la brecha de rendimiento relacionada con el riesgo aumente con los extremos climáticos impulsados por el cambio climático. Promover soluciones únicas para cerrar la brecha de rendimiento podría subestimar el efecto de la mitigación de riesgos en la producción agrícola y al mismo tiempo aumentar los agricultores.Centro de Investigación en Economía y ProspectivaFil: Gatti, Nicolás. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Centro de Investigación en Economía y Prospectiva (CIEP); ArgentinaFil: Gatti, Nicolás. Universidad del Centro de Estudios Macroeconómicos de Argentina (UCEMA); ArgentinaFil: Cecil, Michael. Clark University. Department of Geography; Estados UnidosFil: Baylis, Kathy. University of California Santa Barbara. Department of Geography; Estados UnidosFil: Estes, Lyndon. Clark University. Department of Geography; Estados UnidosFil: Blekking, Jordan. Indiana University. Bloomington Department of Geography; Estados UnidosFil: Heckelei, Thomas. Universitaet Bonn. Institute for Food and Resource Economics; AlemaniaFil: Vergopolan, Noemi. Princeton University. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program; Estados UnidosFi: Evans, Tom. University of Arizona. School of Geography, Development & Environment; Estados Unido

How effective are biodiversity conservation payments in Mexico?

We assess the additional forest cover protected by 13 rural communities located in the southern state of Chiapas, Mexico, as a result of the economic incentives received through the country's national program of payments for biodiversity conservation. We use spatially explicit data at the intra-community level to define a credible counterfactual of conservation outcomes.We use covariate-matching specifications associated with spatially explicit variables and difference-in-difference estimators to determine the treatment effect. We estimate that the additional conservation represents between 12 and 14.7 percent of forest area enrolled in the program in comparison to control areas. Despite this high degree of additionality, we also observe lack of compliance in some plots participating in the PES program. This lack of compliance casts doubt on the ability of payments alone to guarantee long-term additionality in context of high deforestation rates, even with an augmented program budget or extension of participation to communities not yet enrolled. (Résumé d'auteur

The intensity of adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe

This article assesses the intensity of technology adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) techniques by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. It seeks to understand the drivers of CA adoption intensity in terms of the number of practices implemented using count data analysis. On average, the farmers in our sample adopt five out of eight possible CA practices while only 7.4% use all eight practices in any one year. Practices such as digging planting basins (81.9%), applying manure (73.2%) and timely post-planting weeding (70.1%) are relatively popular, while adoption of crop rotation (22.8%) is comparatively rare. Productivity is positively correlated to the number of techniques used. Farmers adopting all the CA practices are the most productive, with an estimated maize yield of 2.50 tons/ha, compared with a yield of less than 1 tons/ha for those using three techniques or fewer. Results from a Poisson regression indicate that education, agro-ecology, non-governmental input support and extension support have a significant impact on adoption intensity. Subsidised inputs increase the number of components used, although access to those inputs was uneven across regions of Zimbabwe. Further, the number of CA components used in the previous season positively impacts current season adoption intensity, implying that promotions of CA technologies do have a persistent effect, even after those promotions end.http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ragr202016-12-31hb201