Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:17:41.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Selected Fresh Vegetable Terminal Markets: A Stochastic Dominance Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Roger Hinson ,
Mooyul Huh  and
John G. Lee
Roger Hinson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Mooyul Huh
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
John G. Lee
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vegetable production can offer a high-valued cash crop alternative. While returns may be high, vegetables are perceived to have more risk than conventional row crops. This study used stochastic dominance analysis to evaluate terminal market price risk for four vegetable crops across five market locations. Results from the analysis identify differences in efficient market selection depending on the form which price risk follows. While vegetables as a whole are considered risky, substantial differences in the type of terminal market price variability existed between the commodities.

Keywords

market windowsvegetable price riskstochastic dominance
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 39 - 48
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

Anderson, J.R. Dillion, J.L., and Hardaker, J.B.. Agricultural Decision Analysis. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Bailey, D and Richardson, J.W.. “Analysis of Selected Marketing Strategies: A Whole-Farm Simulation Approach”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 67(1985): 813–820.Google Scholar
Cochran, M.J. and Raskin, R.. A User's Guide to Generalized Stochastic Dominance Program for the IBM PC: Version GSD2.1. Dept. Dept. of Agr. Fxon. and Rural Soc., Staff Paper SP0688, University of Arkansas, 1988.Google Scholar
Colette, WA and Wall, G.B.. “Evaluating Vegetable Production for Market Windows as an Alternative for Limited Resource Farmers”. So. J. Agr. Econ. 10(1978): 189–193.Google Scholar
Hinson, R and Lanclos, K.. Wholesale Market Opportunities for Louisiana-Produced Snap Beans, Sweet Corn, Irish Potatoes and Sweet Potatoes. AEA 65, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, 1988.Google Scholar
King, R.P and Robison, L.J.. “An Interval Approach to Measuring Decision Maker's Preferences”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 63(1981):510–520.Google Scholar
Kramer, R.A and Pope, R.D.. “Participation in Farm Commodity Programs: Stochastic Dominance Analysis”. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 63(1981): 119–128.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. “Stochastic Dominance, Increasing Risk and Risk Aversion”.; Working Paper No. 45, The Economic Series. Stanford University, July, 1974.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. “Choices Among Distributions”. J. Econ. Theory 14(1974): 154–171.Google Scholar
Mizelle, W.D. Market Windows of Selected Georgia Vegetables. University of Georgia, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 887,1983.Google Scholar
Mjelde, J.W. and Cochran, M.J.. “Obtaining Lower and Upper Bounds on the Value of Seasonal Climate Forecasts as a Function of Risk Preferences”. West. J. Agr. Econ. 13(1988):285–293.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, A.D. “Use of the Market Window Technique in Evaluation Potential for Interregional Trade”. Analyzing the Potential for Alternative Fruit and Vegetable Crop Production. Proceedings of Symposium Sponsored by S-178, New Orleans, LA, 1985.Google Scholar
Pratt, J.W. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large”. Econometrica 32(1964):122–136.Google Scholar
Raskin, R and Cochran, M.J.. “The Interpretations and Transformations of Scale for the Pratt-Arrow Absolute Risk Aversion Coefficient: Implications for Generalized Stochastic Dominance”.West J. Agr. Econ. 11(1986):204–210.Google Scholar
Reichers, R and Hinson, R.. “Price Relationships Between Regionally Important Fresh Vegetable Markets”. J. Food Distribution Res. 19(1988):45–53.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.W. and Nixon, C.J.. “Selecting Among Alternative Depreciation Methods: A Stochastic Dominance Approach”. Selected paper at AAEA meeting, Ithaca, New York, August, 1984.Google Scholar
Rister, M.E. Skees, J.R., and Black, J.R.. “Evaluating Use of Outlook Information in Grain Storage Decisions”.So. J. Agri. Econ. 16(1984):151–158.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marekting Service. “Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Wholesale Market Prices”. Annual summaries by selected city, 1980-1987.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative States Research Service, Inventory of Agricultural Research. Washington D.C, 1985 and 1987.Google Scholar
Venturella, J.G. Rathwell, P.J., Bauer, L.L., and Caines, R.. Potential Market Windows for Selected VegetableCrops in South Carolina. Bulletin 663, South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson, SC, 1988.Google Scholar
Whitmore, B.A. “Third Degree Stochastic Dominance”. Am. Econ. Rev. 60(1970):457–459.Google Scholar
Zwingli, M.E. Adrian, J.L., Hardy, W.E., and Free, W.J.. Wholesale Market Potential for Fresh Vegetables Grown in North Alabama. Bulletin 586, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, AL, 1987.Google Scholar