Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:17:36.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Economic Analysis Of The Effectiveness of Thoroughbred Breeder/Owner Incentive Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

J. Shannon Neibergs  and
Richard Thalheimer
J. Shannon Neibergs
Affiliation:
Equine Industry Program, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
Richard Thalheimer
Affiliation:
Equine Industry Program, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thoroughbred incentive programs are subsidy policies funded from state parimutuel tax revenue designed to promote regional race horse breeding and ownership. At issue is an ongoing debate concerning the effectiveness of alternative policies. Empirical results indicate that incentive programs have a positive economic effect, but gains to Thoroughbred breeders can be obtained by reallocating tax revenue to non-restricted purses. A policy allocating tax revenue to non-restricted purses shifts yearling demand and increases prices, while breeder subsidies shift only the supply function and therefore lower prices. Consequently, breeder revenues increase in response to a policy that favors non-restricted purses over subsidies.

Keywords

incentive programsparimutuel horse racingsubsidytaxThoroughbred
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , December 1999 , pp. 581 - 592
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1999

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

Alston, Julian M., Carter, Colin A., and Smith, Vincent H.. “Rationalizing Agricultural Export Subsidies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(1993): 1000–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Horse Council, Summary Thoroughbred and Standardbred Breeder/Owner Incentive Program Payments In Parimutuel States, Washington DC, various issues.Google Scholar
The Blood-Horse. Annual Auction Review. Lexington KY: The Blood-Horse Inc., various issues.Google Scholar
The Blood-Horse. Annual Stallion Register. Lexington KY: The Blood-Horse Inc., various issues.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Eugene M. “The United States Gross Annual Wager.” International Gaming & Wagering Business August (1998): 1–35.Google Scholar
Citibase Macroeconomic Database. Dexter MI: FAME Information Services, 1997.Google Scholar
Commerce Clearing House, Inc., Tax Law Editors. Standard Federal Tax Reports: Depreciation Guide. Chicago IL: Commerce Clearing House, Inc., various issues.Google Scholar
Degennaro, Ramon P. “Determinants of Wagering Behavior.” Management & Decision Economics 10(1989):221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, John. “Marketing The Thoroughbred Horse.” Distinguished Guest Lecture Series, Department of Equine Administration, School of Business, University of Louisville, Louisville Kentucky, 1990.Google Scholar
Hall, R. and D. Jorgenson, . “Tax Policy and Investment Behavior.” American Economics Review 57(1967):391–414.Google Scholar
Halliburton, Karen and Henneberry, Shida Rastegari. “The Effectiveness of U.S. Nonprice Promotion of Almonds in the Pacific Rim.” Journal of Agricultural Resources Economics 20(1995):108–121.Google Scholar
The Jockey Club. Fact Book: A Guide to the Thoroughbred Industry in North America. New York: The Jockey Club, various issues.Google Scholar
Kmenta, J.Elements of Econometrics, 2nd ed. NY: MacMillan, 1986.Google Scholar
Neibergs, J. Shannon and Thalheimer, Richard. “Price Expectations and Supply Response in the Thoroughbred Yearling Market.” Journal of Agricultural Applied Economics 29(1997):419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasour, E. C. Jr. Agriculture and the State: Market Processes and Bureaucracy, The Independent Institute. Oakland, California, 1990.Google Scholar
Shumway, C. Richard, Smith, Edward G., and Richardson, James W.. “Impact of Target Prices and Payment Limits on the Supply Function.” Review of Agricultural Economics 17(1995): 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Chin-Hwa, Kaiser, Harry M., and Forker, Olan D.. “Analysis of Seasonal Milk Price Incentive Plans.” Review of Agricultural Economics 17(1995):383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thalheimer, Richard and Ali, M.M.. “An Economic Analysis Of A Racetrack-Racebook.” Working Paper, Equine Industry Program, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Louisville, 1998.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States, Bureau of the Census, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service. Agricultural Statistics. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, various issues.Google Scholar