Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:26:55.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supply Response and Impact of Government-Supported Crops on the Texas Vegetable Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Fermin Ornelas  and
C. Richard Shumway
Fermin Ornelas
Affiliation:
American Express in Phoenix, AZ
C. Richard Shumway
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University
Get access

Abstract

Supply functions, elasticity estimates, and nonjointness test results consistently indicated that few commodities compete economically in the production of six major Texas vegetables (cabbage, cantaloupes, carrots, onions, potatoes, and watermelons). Significant bias effects caused by government-supported commodities, fixed inputs, and technological change were observed and measured. Nonnested test results for the hypothesis of sequential decision making by vegetable producers were inconclusive, but they gave greater likelihood support to sequential than to contemporaneous decision making.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , April 1993 , pp. 27 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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.)

References

Antle, J.M., and Capalbo, S.M. “An Introduction to Recent Developments in Production Theory and Productivity Measurement.” Chapter 2 in Agricultural Productivity: Measurement and Explanation (eds., Capalbo, S.M. and Antle, J.M.). Washington: Resources for the Future, 1988.Google Scholar
Fawson, C., Shumway, C.R., and Basmann, R.L. “Agricultural Production Technologies with Systematic and Stochastic Technical Change.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 (1990): 182–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, S.W., Capps, O., Bello, H., and Hall, C. “U.S. Tariffs and the Import of Fresh Vegetables from Mexico: Effect of Alternative Tariff Levels on Texas Spring Dry Onion Producers.” TAMRC International Market Research Report No. IM-1-92, Texas A&M University, January 1992.Google Scholar
Hammig, D.M., and Mittelhammer, R.C. “An Imperfectly Competitive Market Model of the U.S. Lettuce Industry.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 5 (1980): 1–12.Google Scholar
Huffman, E.W., and Evenson, R. “Research Bias Effects for Input and Output Decisions: An Application to U.S. Cash-Grain Farms.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (1989): 761–73.Google Scholar
Houck, J.P., and Ryan, M.E. “Supply Elasticities of Corn in the United States: The Impact of Changing Government Programs.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54 (1972): 878–92.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, D.W., and Lau, L.J. “The Structure of Consumer Preferences.” Annals of Economic and Statistical Measurement 4 (1975): 49–101.Google Scholar
Lim, H. “Profit Maximization, Returns to Scale, Separability, and Measurement Error in State-Level Agricultural Technology.” Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1989.Google Scholar
Lim, H., and Shumway, C.R. “Separability in State-Level Agricultural Technology.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74 (1992): 120–31.Google Scholar
McIntosh, C.S. “Specification of Government Policy Variables for Feed Grains, Wheat, Soybeans, Rice, Cotton, Peanuts, Tobacco, Sugar Beets, and Milk 1950–1986.” Division of Agricultural Economics FS89-61, University of Georgia, 1989.Google Scholar
McIntosh, C.S. “Evaluating Alternative Methods of Including Government Policy Information for Multiproduct Supply Analysis.” Working paper, University of Georgia, 1990.Google Scholar
Miller, S.E., Capps, O., and Wells, G.J. “Confidence Intervals for Elasticities and Flexibilities from Linear Equations.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984): 392–96.Google Scholar
Moschini, G. “A Model with Supply Management for the Canadian Agricultural Sector.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (1988): 318–29.Google Scholar
Ornelas, Fermin. “Functional Form Selection and Impact of Government-Supported Crops on Vegetable Supplies in Texas.” Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, 1991.Google Scholar
Pesaran, M.H., and Deaton, A.S. “Testing Non-Nested Nonlinear Regression Models.” Econometrica 46 (1978): 677–94.Google Scholar
Romain, R.F.J. “A Commodity-Specific Policy Simulation Model for U.S. Agriculture.” Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1983.Google Scholar
Shonkwiler, J.S., and Emerson, R.D. “Imports and the Supply of Winter Tomatoes: An Application of Rational Expectations.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (1982): 634–41.Google Scholar
Shumway, C.R. “Supply, Demand, and Technology in a Multiproduct Industry: Texas Field Crops.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 4 (1983): 748–60.Google Scholar
Talpaz, H., Alexander, W.P., and Shumway, C.R. “Estimation of Systems of Equations Subject to Curvature Constraints.” Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 32 (1989): 201–16.Google Scholar
Teigen, L.D., and Singer, F. “Weather in U.S. Agriculture: Monthly Temperature and Precipitation by State and Farm Production Region, 1950–1986.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Statistical Bulletin No. 765, Washington, D.C., 1988.Google Scholar
Texas Department of Agriculture. Texas Vegetable Statistics, 1958–87. Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, Washington, DC, 1978, 1990.Google Scholar
Villezca, P., and Shumway, C.R. “Multiple-Output Production Modeled with Three Functional Forms.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 17(1992a): 13–28.Google Scholar
Villezca, P., and Shumway, C.R. “State-Level Output Supply and Input Demand Elasticities for Agricultural Commodities.” Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 44(1992b): 22–34.Google Scholar
Weaver, R.D. “Multiple Input, Multiple Output Production Choices and Technology in the U.S. Wheat Region.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65 (1983): 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar