No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Regional and Functional Disaggregation of the Cotton Industry in a National Input-Output Model
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2015
Extract
Various classes of models possess characteristics essential for commodity analysis. One class, input-output (I-O) models, can complement more widely used ommodity models, such as econometric and mathematical programming, which are often directed at a few specific production and use markets for the commodity under analysis. I-O models either formally linked with, or used independently of, these other models provide an analytical framework for examining macroeconomic adjustments to commodity market shocks. Further, I-O allows the tracing of resource flows to and from the commodity market and among all secondary markets. These characteristics suggest that a commodity-oriented I-O model ought to be a component of a package of models designed to provide complete coverage of a commodity for economic analysis.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1981
References
Blakley, Leo V. and Shafter, Carl E. “History of Farm Structure: Cotton,” in U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Farm Structure: A Historical Perspective on Changes in the Number and Size of Farms. Committee Print 56-214 O, April 1980.Google Scholar
Chandler, Whitman M. Jr. and Ghetti, Joseph L.Cost of Storing and Handling Cotton at Public Storage Facilities, 1972–73, With Projections for 1974–75. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., ERS-554, June 1974.Google Scholar
Chandler, Whitman M. Jr. and Glade, Edward H. Jr.Shippers' Cost of Merchandising U.S. Cotton 1972–73 Season. Econ. Res. Ser., U.S. Dept. Agr., AER-317, October 1975.Google Scholar
DiPietre, Dennis, Walker, Rodney L., and Martella, David R. “Developing Regional Input-Output Models from the U.N. Format Adopted by the U.S. in the New 1972 Input-Output Model.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 12(1980): 143–49.Google Scholar
Evans, Sam. “Analysis of Upland Cotton Farm Programs Since 1965.” Cot. and Wool Sit. CWS-23, May 1980, pp. 18–21.Google Scholar
Ghetti, Joseph L.Cotton Gin Operating Costs in the Midsouth 1971/72 and 1972/73. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., ERS-589, December 1974.Google Scholar
Ghetti, Joseph L., Cleveland, O. A. Jr., and Bounds, Francis E.Charges for Ginning Cotton and Selected Services, 1971/72–1975/76 Seasons. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., Stat. Bull. No. 577, August 1977.Google Scholar
Jones, Clifford D. Jr.Input-Output Analysis Applied to Rural Resource Development Planning. ESCS-14, ESCS, USDA, April 1978.Google Scholar
McArthur, W. C., ed. The Cotton Industry in the United States, Farm to Consumer. College of Agr. Sci., Texas Tech. University, Publication No. T-l-186, April 1980.Google Scholar
Penson, John B. Jr. and Fulton, Murray E.Description and Use of A Quadratic Input-Output Model for the Texas Economy. Dept. of Agr. Econ., Texas A&M and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, DTR 79-5, 1979.Google Scholar
Ritz, Phillip. “The Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy, 1972.” Survey of Current Business. 59(1979):34–72.Google Scholar
Schluter, Gerald, Niles, Thomas A., Rountree, Helen W., and Chesley, Agnes. Preliminary Estimate of Agricultural Transactions for U.S. D.C. Interindustry Table for the 1972 United States Economy. NEAD Working Paper, Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. of Agr., May 1977.Google Scholar
Shaw, Dale L., Wilmot, Charles A., and Heron, Betty K.Cotton Gin Operating Costs in West Texas— 1971/72. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., Marketing Res. Rpt. No. 1002, July 1973.Google Scholar
Simpson, James R. and Adams, John W., “Disaggregation of Input-Output Models into Production Lines as an Economic Development Policy Tool.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 57(1975):584–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starbird, Irving R. “Costs of Producing Upland Cotton in 1972.” Cot. Sit., CS-265, April 1974, pp. 16–21.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Selected U.S. Crop Budgets Yields, Inputs, and Variable Costs. Econ. Res. Serv., ERS 457-461, Vol. I–V, April 1971, and ERS 514, Vol. VI, April 1973.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Structure Issues in American Agriculture. Econ., Stat., and Coop. Serv., Agr. Econ. Rpt. 438, November 1979.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, ASCS Commodity Fact Sheet 1980 Upland Cotton. Agr. Stab, and Conserv. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., April 1980.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. The Detailed Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy: 1972. 2 vols., Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. “Mathematical Derivation of the Total Requirements Tables for the 1972 Input-Output Study.” Mimeo., Washington, D.C, February 1979.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. “Value Produced, Capital Expenditures, Fixed Assets, Rental Payments, and Supplemental Labor Costs of Merchant Wholesalers.” 1972 Census of Wholesale Trade. Bureau of Census, WC 72-5-3, December 1975.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Costs of Producing Selected Crops in the United States, 1974. Committee Print 63-092, January 1976.Google Scholar
Wilmot, Charles A., Shaw, Dale L., and Heron, Betty K.Cotton Gin Operating Costs in the San Joaquin Valley of California—1971/72 and 1972/73. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., AER- 285, May 1975.Google Scholar
Young, Paula C. and Ritz, Philip M.Input-Output Table of the U.S. Economy: 1971. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Econ. Anal., Staff Paper No. 28, March, 1977.Google Scholar