Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-f9bf7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T11:43:48.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Production Contracts, Risk Shifting, and Relative Performance Payments in the Pork Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Laura L. Martin
Laura L. Martin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Actual performance records of production contract farmers are used to assess the extent to which contract production reduces the risk borne by pork producers. Comparisons of contracting relative to independent market production reveal that farmers who enter into production contracts based on absolute performance measures reduce risks associated with variable income. Weak evidence is found that relative performance contracts, similar to those used in the broiler chicken industry, further reduce income variability. The effectiveness of such relative performance contracts will rely on several factors; among these are increased contract production and a more uniform pork production and processing system.

Keywords

absolute performance paymentincome variabilitypork industryproduction contractsrelative performance paymentrisk shifting
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , December 1997 , pp. 267 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1998

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

Coase, R.H. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica (November 1937):386–405.Google Scholar
Green, J.R., and Stokey, N.L.. “A Comparison of Tournaments and Contracts.” J. Polit. Econ. 91,3(1983):349-64.Google Scholar
Grimes, G., and Rhodes, V.J.. “Characteristics of Contractors, Growers, and Contract Production.” Agr. Econ. Rep. No. 1995-6, Dept. of Agr. Econ., University of Missouri, 1995.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B. “Moral Hazard in Teams.” Bell J. Econ. 13(1982):324-40.Google Scholar
Johnson, C.S., and Foster, K.A.. “Risk Preferences and Contracting in the U.S. Hog Industry.” J. Agr. and Appl. Econ. 26(December 1994):393–405.Google Scholar
Kliebenstein, J.B., and Hillburn, C.. “Evaluation of Pork Production Contracts.” Staff Pap. No. 242, Dept. of Econ., Iowa State University, July 1992.Google Scholar
Knoeber, C.R., and Thurman, W.N.. “‘Don't Count Your Chickens . . .’: Risk and Risk Shifting in the Broiler Industry.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77(August 1995):486-96.Google Scholar
McDaniel, J.S., Hayenga, M., Mobley, E., and Rhodes, V.J.. “Producing and Marketing Hogs Under Contract.” In Pork Industry Handbook. Pub. No. PIH-6, North Carolina Agr. Ext. Ser., Raleigh, June 1988.Google Scholar
Morrison, D.F. Multivariate Statistical Methods, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.Google Scholar
Rhodes, V.J., and Grimes, G.. “U.S. Contract Production of Hogs: A 1992 Survey.” Agr. Econ. Rep. No. 1992-2, Dept. of Agr. Econ., University of Missouri, 1992.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS). Agricultural Prices. Various annual summaries and monthly issues. USDA Agricultural Statistics Board, Washington DC, 1985-92.Google Scholar
Warrick, J., and Stith, P.. “Boss Hog: North Carolina's Pork Revolution—Corporate Takeovers.” Raleigh [North Carolina] News and Observer, reprint ed., 19 March 1995.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. “Transactions-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relationships.” J. Law and Econ. 22(October 1979):233-61.Google Scholar
Zering, K.D., and Beals, A.. “Swine Production Contracts: Description and Financial Performance.” J. Amer. Soc. Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers 54,1(April 1990):43–53.Google Scholar