ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT DESIGNS FOR FARMLAND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

Four alternative payment rules were examined to evaluate their ability to accomplish the objectives of the development rights purchase program. Paying the true economic value for the development rights does not allow the program to target high quality agricultural land. Modifying the payment strategy by offering a minimum payment will provide some extra incentive for high quality agricultural land in areas with little development pressure, but will provide little help in areas with high development pressure. Indexing the payment to a representative agricultural-use value for an area will provide premiums to high quality agricultural land and discounts to low quality agricultural land which provides additional incentives (disincentives) for high (low) quality land to enter the program. This representative payment rule can be modified in order to increase the participation incentives to owners of targeted land.Land Economics/Use,

A SIMPLE FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING THE FUNDAMENTAL AGRICULTURAL-USE VALUE OF MICHIGAN FARMLAND

There is considerable interest in the determination of farmland values. Although alternative models exist, present value models have played a central role in recent studies of agricultural land markets. Alston (1986) uses a present value model to examine the effects of inflation and real growth in net rental income on farmland prices (see also Melichar, 1979). Present value models also underlie analysis of the dynamic behavior of farmland prices by Burt (1986); investigation of causality relations between farmland rents and prices by Phipps (1984); and analysis of the relationship between agricultural and nonagricultural land markets by Robison et al. (1985).Land Economics/Use,

2001 MICHIGAN LAND VALUES

Land Economics/Use,

2002 MICHIGAN LAND VALUES

Land Economics/Use,

DIVERSITY OF SOURCES FOR FRESH PRODUCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL MARKETS

Number of suppliers, approximation of equal-shares market condition and market share held by in-state sources were calculated to determine diversity of sources for 10 fresh fruits and vegetables in eight U.S. wholesale markets. Specificity of growing conditions is associated with few supply sources, unequal market shares and limited purchases from in-state suppliers. For crops with few sources, lower perishability and greater transportability are correlated with greater balance in market shares. For crops with many supply sources, greater perishability and greater transportability are consistent with large market share from imports. Diversity across all commodities can increase market share for local producers.Concentration index, Fruits and vegetables, Source diversity, Marketing,

1998 MICHIGAN LAND VALUES

Land Economics/Use,

2000 MICHIGAN LAND VALUES

Land Economics/Use,

1999 MICHIGAN LAND VALUES

Land Economics/Use,

IMPACTS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL ON INVESTMENT BEHAVIOR UNDER RISK

Implicit in most applications of the expected utility (EU) model is the assumption that only the decision maker's own income matters. Moreover, studies that estimate risk preferences typically measure how individuals respond to changes in the level and likelihood of having their own income altered (Young). The focus on own income in the EU model is consistent with the assumption most often applied in the neoclassical economic paradigm; namely, that the identity of participants in an economic exchange does not affect the outcome (Telser and Higinbotham).Institutional and Behavioral Economics, Risk and Uncertainty,

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND RISK RESPONSES

The economic well-being of economic agents is assumed to be interpersonally dependent. The extent of this interpersonal dependency varies according to the strength of relationships, values, and social bonds and is measured using social capital coefficients in a neoclassical model in which agents with stable preferences maximize utility. The model's predictions are tested empirically by asking agents how their willingness to bear a risk is altered when their refusal to accept the risk increases the risk faced by others.Institutional and Behavioral Economics, Risk and Uncertainty,