Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:39:25.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Economic Surplus and the Distributional Consequences of Deregulating Tobacco Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

S. Sureshwaran
Affiliation:
Department of Agribusiness and Economics, South Carolina State College
C.S. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University
M.S. Henry
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University
M.I. Loyd
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University

Abstract

Reservations on technical and theoretical grounds in the use of the consumer surplus approach to measure benefits of government programs have often appeared in the literature. Therefore, this paper uses an alternative approach in a case study to estimate the annual economic surplus created in South Carolina from deregulating tobacco production. Impacts of deregulation on cropping patterns and income on representative tobacco farms, and distribution of benefits in the economy are examined. Results of this study indicate that deregulation stimulates the economy and would increase the net value added by $5.8 million in the long run.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1990

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

Adams, R.M. King, G.A., and Johnston, W.E.. “Effects of Energy Cost Increases and Regional Allocation Policies on Agricultural Production”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 59(1977):444455.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E., and Strand, I.E.. “The Effects of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates”. Land Econ. 63(1987): 1120.Google Scholar
Cooke, S.C. “The Role of Value Added in Benefit/Cost Analysis”. Paper presented at the Conference on Input/Output Modeling and Economic Development Applications, Kansas City, Missouri, 1989.Google Scholar
Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service. “1984 Crop Budgets.” Extension Economic Report No. 66, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University, 1985.Google Scholar
Dangerfield, C.W. “The Market for Flue-Cured Tobacco Quota in South Carolina—An Econometric Approach to Risk Analysis.” Ph.D dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University, 1986.Google Scholar
Day, R.H. Recursive Programming and Production Response. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1963.Google Scholar
DiPietre, D. Walker, R.L., and Martella, D.R.. “Developing Regional Input/Output Models from the UN Format Adopted by the US in the New 1972 Input/Output Model”. So. J. Agr. Econ. 12(1980): 143149.Google Scholar
Epperson, J.E. Tyan, H.L., and Carley, D.H.. “Effects of Removal of the Peanut Program on Georgia Production and Distribution of Selected Fresh Produce”. So. J. Agr. Econ. 14(1982): 153159.Google Scholar
Gardner, B.L. “Futures Prices in Supply Analysis”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 58(1976):8184.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B.K. Sumner, D.A., and Sparrow, D.A.. “Identification and Estimation of Underlying Market Supply Function Parameters for a Commodity with Mandatory Output Controls”. A paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Michigan, 1987.Google Scholar
Hazell, P.B. and Scandizzo, P.L.. “Competitive Demand Structures Under Risk in Agricultural Programming Models”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 56(1974):235244.Google Scholar
Heady, E.O. Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use., New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952.Google Scholar
Holthausen, D.M. “Hedging and the Competitive Firm Under Price Uncertainty”. Am. Econ. Rev. 69(1979):989995 Google Scholar
Johnson, P.R. and Norton, D.T.. “Social Cost of the Tobacco Program”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 65(1983): 117119.Google Scholar
Jordan, J.W. “The Effects of Changing Tobacco Harvest Machinery Technology on Resource Allocation and Product-Product Adjustment in the Coastal Plains of South Carolina.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University, 1978.Google Scholar
Lee, G.K. Blackeslee, L.L., and Butcher, W.R.. “Effects of Exogenous Price Changes on a Regional Economy: an Input/Output Analysis”. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2(1977):1527.Google Scholar
Kramer, R.A. McSweeny, W.T., and Stavros, R.W.. “Soil Conversation with Uncertain Revenue and Input Supplies”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 65(1983):694702.Google Scholar
Lindner, R.K. and JarretL, F.G. “Supply Shifts and the Size of Research Benefits”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 60(1978):4858.Google Scholar
McSweeny, W.T. Kenyon, D.E., and Kramer, R.A.. “Toward an Appropriate Measure of Uncertainty in a Risk Programming Model”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 69(1987):8796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R.E. and Blair, P.D.. Input-Output Analysis—Foundations and Extensions Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
Miller, T.A. “Sufficient Conditions for Exact Aggregation in Linear Programming Models”. Agr. Econ. Res. 18(1966):5257.Google Scholar
Sato, R. “The Harrod-Domar Model vs. The Neo-Classical Growth Model”. Econ. J. 74(1964):380387.Google Scholar
Solow, R. Growth Theory, An Exposition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Sumner, D.A. and Alston, J.M.. “Consequences of Elimination of the Tobacco Program”. Bulletin No. 469, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1984.Google Scholar
South Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. “South Carolina Crop Statistics.” Selected issues.Google Scholar
South Carolina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. “South Carolina Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings.” Selected issues.Google Scholar
Sureshwaran, S. “Impacts of Alternative Sectors of the South Carolina Economy of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Price Support Program.” Ph.D dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University, 1989.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Statistical Reporting Services. Agricultural Statistics. Selected issues.Google Scholar
Ziemer, R.F. Musser, W.N., and Hill, R.C.. “Recreation Demand Equations: Functional Form and Consumer Surplus”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 62(1980):136141.Google Scholar