Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-24T01:27:12.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Politics and Markets in the Articulation of Preferences for Attributes of the Rapidly Changing Food and Agricultural Sectors: Framing the Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Charles W. Abdalla  and
James D. Shaffer
Charles W. Abdalla
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics, The Pennsylvania State University
James D. Shaffer
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Industrialization of the food and agricultural sectors changes the pattern of external effects. Participants helped or harmed in the process attempt to influence outcomes through markets and politics. Decisions about property rights and boundaries determine benefits and burdens and the relative cost of animal agriculture in different jurisdictions. Prescriptions to redefine property rights are influenced by selective perception of rights to share in the benefits and be protected from costs. Political choices about the appropriate jurisdiction (state versus local) for addressing environmental and nuisance effects of animal agriculture affect whose preferences count and will influence the development of these sectors.

Keywords

animal agricultureenvironmentexternalitiesindustrializationinstitutionsjurisdictional boundariesregulationstate versus local policy
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , July 1997 , pp. 57 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1997

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

Abdalla, C.W., and Kelsey, T.W.. “Breaking the Impasse: Helping Communities Cope with Change at the Rural-Urban Interface.” J. Soil and Water Consent. 51(November/December 1996):462-66.Google Scholar
Abdalla, C.W., Lanyon, L.E., and Hallberg, M.C.. “What We Know About Historical Trends in Firm Location Decisions and Regional Shifts: Policy Issues for an Industrializing Animal Agriculture Sector.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77,5(1995):1229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, T.D. Letter from Iowa Assistant Attorney General to Andrew Van Der Maaten, Winneshiek County Attorney, 30 January 1996 (7 pp.).Google Scholar
Bish, R.L. “Federalism: A Market Economics Perspective.” In Public Choice and Constitutional Economics, eds., Gwartney, J.D. and Wagner, R.E., pp. 351-68. Greenwich CT: Jai Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Breton, A.The Economic Theory of Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine, 1974.Google Scholar
Buggs, S. “Local Health Boards Make Own Farm Rules.” Raleigh [North Carolina] News and Observer, 2 May 1996.Google Scholar
Coase, R.H. “The Problem of Social Cost.” J. Law and Econ. 3(October 1960):1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, J.D. “Environmental Laws Affecting North Carolina Livestock Producers.” National Center for Agricultural Law, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 1994.Google Scholar
Dew, J. “Strict Hog Measures Get Final OK.” Raleigh [North Carolina] News and Observer, 21 June 1996.Google Scholar
Feitshans, T. Agricultural law specialist, Dept. of Agr. and Resour. Econ., North Carolina State University. Personal communication, 17 January 1997.Google Scholar
Gault, C., and Baumert, A.. “Iowa's 1995 Animal Feeding Operation Act (H.F. 519).” Joint pub. of the Public Policy Council/Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa Pork Producers Assoc. Undated (19 pp.).Google Scholar
Hallberg, M.C., Abdalla, C.W., and Thompson, R.B.. “Performance in Animal Agriculture: A Framework for Multi-Disciplinary Analysis.” Discus. Pap., Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics, Texas A&M University, September 1996.Google Scholar
Hamilton, N.D. “Trends in Environmental Regulation of Agriculture.” In Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies. Oak Brook IL: Farm Foundation, January 1995.Google Scholar
Heath, M.S. Jr. “Intensive Livestock Operations in North Carolina: Cases and Materials.” In Environmental and Conservation Law. Bull. No. 2, Institute of Government, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, March 1996.Google Scholar
Hendriks, M. “Manure Spills Threaten Waterways.” Kansas City [Missouri] Star, 24 September 1995.Google Scholar
Libecap, G.D. “The New Institutional Economics and Rural Development in the United States.” Paper presented at the New Institutional Economics and Growth Theory Workshop, Kansas City KS, September 1996.Google Scholar
Marbery, S. “Hog Industry Insider.” Feedstuffs. Various 1996 issues.Google Scholar
McEowen, R., and Wadley, J.B.. Kansas Agricultural Law Update 1,1(November 1994):3–4.Google Scholar
McEowen, R., and Wadley, J.B.. Kansas Agricultural Law Update 2,2(March 1996):3–4.Google Scholar
McKenzie, L.Governmental affairs specialist, South Carolina Farm Bureau. Personal communication, 16 September 1996.Google Scholar
Oakerson, R.J. “The Organization of Local Public Economies.” Rep. No. A-109, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), Washington DC, 1987.Google Scholar
Oates, W.E.Fiscal Federalism. New York: Har-court Brace Jovanovich, 1990.Google Scholar
Olson, M. Jr. “Big Bills Left on the Sidewalk: Why Some Nations are Rich and Others Poor.” J. Econ. Perspectives 10,2(Spring 1996):3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagano, A.P., and Abdalla, C.W.. “Clustering in Animal Agriculture: Economic Trends and Policy.” In Balancing Animal Production and the Environment. Proceedings of the Great Plains Animal Agriculture Task Force, Denver CO, October 1994.Google Scholar
Parshigian, P.B. “Environmental Regulation: Whose Self-interests Are Being Protected?” Econ. Inquiry 23(1985):551-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, W.J.Essays on the Economic Role of Government, Vols. 1 and 2. New York: New York University Press, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satchell, M. “Hog Heaven—and Hell: Pig Farming Has Gone High Tech, and That's Creating New Pollution Woes.” U.S. News and World Report, 22 January 1996, pp. 55–59.Google Scholar
Schmid, A.A.Property, Power, and Public Choice. New York: Praeger, 1987.Google Scholar
Shaffer, J.D. “On Institutional Obsolescence and Innovation: Background for Professional Dialogue on Public Policy.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 51(May 1969):245-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, J.D. “Selective Perceptions and the Politics of Agricultural Policy Analysis.” In The Political Economy of U.S. Agriculture, ed., Kramer, C.S., pp. 61–83. Washington DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy and Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
Smith, K.R., and Kuch, P.J.. “What We Know About Opportunities for Intergovernmental Institutional Innovation: Policy Issues for an Industrializing Animal Agriculture Sector.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77,5(1995):1244–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smothers, R. “Waste Spill Brings Legislative Action.” The New York Times, 30 June 1995, p. A-10.Google Scholar
Stith, P., and Warrick, J.. “For Murphy, Government and Business Were a Good Mix.” Raleigh [North Carolina] News and Observer, 11 February 1995.Google Scholar
Tiebout, C.M. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” J. Polit. Econ. 64(October 1956):416-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihanto, M. “Competition Between Governments as a Discovery Procedure.” J. Institutional and Theoretical Econ. 47(1992):411-36.Google Scholar