Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T21:24:09.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factor Demands of Louisiana Rice Producers: An Econometric Investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Patricia E. McLean-Meyinsse  and
Albert Ade. Okunade
Patricia E. McLean-Meyinsse
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Southern University(Baton Rouge)
Albert Ade. Okunade
Affiliation:
Economics at Memphis State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A Diewert-flexible (dual) cost function was used to derive a system of conditional factor demand equations for Louisiana rice producers. Generalized Leontief cost and factor share equations were fitted for the 1955-87 period using Zellner's SURE system estimation procedure. The Aitken parameter estimates reveal that: (1) the optimal input mix of rice farmers varies with production scale, (2) the factor-augmenting technical change is labor and chemical saving but seed using, (3) pairwise input substitutions are limited, and (4) factor demands are own-price inelastic. An implication is that Louisiana rice farmers will not appreciably alter their factor utilizations when relative input prices change.

Keywords

rice productionconditional factor demandsdual cost functionflexible functional specificationfactor-augmenting technical changefactor substitution possibilitiesnonhomothetic production technology
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , December 1988 , pp. 127 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1988

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

Allen, R.D.G.. Mathematical Analysis for Economists. London: MacMillan Book Co., 1938.Google Scholar
Barnett, W.A., Lee, Y. W., and Wolfe, M. D.. “The Three-Dimensional Global Properties of the Miniflex-Laurent, Generalized Leontief, and Translog Flexible Functional Forms.” J. Econometrics, 30(1985):3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, E.R. and Christensen, L. R.. “The Internal Structure of Functional Relationships: Separability, Substitution and Aggregation.” Rev. Econ. Stud., 40(1973):403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binswanger, H.P.. “A Cost Function Approach to the Measurement of Elasticities of Factor Demand and Elasticities of Substitution.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 56(1974):377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, K.C., Sanders, F.B., Wetzstein, M.E., and Perry, C. E.. “An Analysis of the Demand for> Inputs in Cotton Production at the Southeast Georgia Branch Station.” University of Georgia, College of Agriculture, Research Bulletin 312, June 1984.+Inputs+in+Cotton+Production+at+the+Southeast+Georgia+Branch+Station.”+University+of+Georgia,+College+of+Agriculture,+Research+Bulletin+312,+June+1984.>Google Scholar
Chalfant, J.A.. “Comparisons of Alternative Functional Forms with Application to Agricul tural Input Data.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., (1984):216–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewert, W.E.. “Applications of Duality Theory.” In Frontiers of Quantitative Economics. Ed. Intriligator, M.D..and Kendrick, D. A.. Vol. II, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974.Google Scholar
Fielder, L., and Nelson, B.. Agricultural Statistics and Prices for Louisiana, 1924-1981 and 1978-1983. Dept. of Agr. Econ. Res. Rept. No. 600 and No. 631, respectively. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agr. Center, 1980 and 1984.Google Scholar
Fielder, L., and Osagie, E.. An Analysis of Changes in the Acreage and Yield of Cotton, Rice, Sugarcane, Soybeans, Corn, Wheat, and Sorghums in Louisiana. Dept. Agr. Econ. Res. Rept. No. 635. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agr. Center, 1983.Google Scholar
Guilkey, D.K., Knox, C. A., and Sickles, R. C.. “A Comparison of the Performance of Three Flexible Functional Forms.” Int. Econ. Rev, (1983):591–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, J.Econometric Methods. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1984.Google Scholar
Kako, T. “Decomposition Analysis of Derived Demand for Factor Inputs: The Case of Rice Production in Japan.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 60(1978):628–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lianos, T.P.. “The Relative Share of Labor in United States Agriculture, 1949-1968.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 53(1971):411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, D.F.. Multivariate Statistical Methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1976.Google Scholar
Okunade, A.A. “An Econometric Analysis of Steam-Electric Power Production Technology under a Flexible Functional Specification and Duality.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arkansas; Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1986.Google Scholar
Parks, R.W. “Price Responsiveness of Factor Utilization in Swedish Manufacturing, 1870-1950.” Rev. Econ. & Stat, 53(1971):129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paxton, K.W., and Lavergne, D. R.. Projected Costs and Returns for Rice and Soybeans: Southwest Louisiana. Dept. Agr. Econ. Res. Rept. No. 625. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agr. Center, 1984.Google Scholar
Paxton, K.W., Lavergne, D. R., Zacharias, T., and McManus, B.. Projected Costs and Returns-Cotton, Soybeans, Rice, Corn, Milo, and Wheat - Northeast Louisiana. Dept. Agr. Econ. Res. Rept. No. 645 and No. 665. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University, 1986 and 1987.Google Scholar
Pope, R.D. “Estimating Functional Forms with Special Reference to Agriculture: Discussion.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 66(1984):223–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, S.C. “A Translog Cost Function Analysis of United States Agriculture, 1939-77.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 64(1982):223–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shephard, R.W.. Theory of Cost and Production Function. Princeton N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1953.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics. Washington D.C., various issues.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: States Financial Survey, 1986. Document ECIFF-6-4. Washington D.C., 1986.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Fertilizer Use and Price Statistics 1960-1985. Statistical Bulletin No. 750. Washington D.C., 1987.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture, RICE: Background for 1985 Farm Legislation. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 470, Washington D.C., 1984.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Rice Outlook and Situation. Washington D.C., various selected issues.Google Scholar
Uzawa, H.. “Duality Principles in the Theory of Cost and Production.” Int. Econ. Rev., 5(1964):216–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacharias, T., and McManus, B.. Projected Costs and Returns - Rice and Soybeans - Southwest Louisiana. Dept. Agr. Econ. Res. Rept. No. 635. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agr. Center, 1985.Google Scholar
Zacharias, T., and McManus, B.. Projected Costs and Returns - Rice, Soybeans, Corn, Milo, Wheat, Wheat-Soybean Double Crop, Rice - Crawfish Double Crop, and Selected Irrigation Enterprises -Southwest Louisiana. Dept. Agr. Econ. Res. Rept. No. 666. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agr. Center, 1987.Google Scholar
Zadeh, A.H.. “The Use of Exact Versus Approximation Analysis to Test for Separability and the Existent of Consistent Aggregates.” Paper presented at the Econometrics Session, the Midwest Economics Association Conference, St. Louis, Mo., March 26-28, 1987.Google Scholar
Zellner, A.. “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias.” J. Amer. Stat. Assoc., 57(1962):348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar