Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:35:02.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Textile Manufacturers' Market Valuation of Cotton Fiber Attributes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Changping Chen ,
Don E. Ethridge  and
Stanley M. Fletcher
Changping Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia
Don E. Ethridge
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Texas Tech University
Stanley M. Fletcher
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study provides an analysis of the price-quality relationships of U.S. cotton using primary data collected from textile manufacturers, the end users of fiber. Hedonic prices of fiber attributes are estimated for three production regions—West, South Central, and South—over the 1992–95 study period. Results indicate that cotton price is determined by quality attributes and nonquality factors in the end-use market. There are similarities and differences in valuation of fiber attributes based on region of origin of the cotton.

Keywords

cottonfiber attributeshedonic pricesregional differences
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , July 1997 , pp. 185 - 195
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

Alonzo, W.Location and Land Uses. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, K., and Ethridge, D.. “Characteristic Supplies and Demands in a Hedonic Framework: U.S.Market for Cotton Attributes.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 74(1992):991–1002.Google Scholar
Brorsen, B.W., Grant, W.R., and Rister, M.E.. “A Hedonic Price Model for Rough Rice Bid/Acceptance Markets.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 66(1984):156-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J., and Ethridge, D.. “Functional Form Model Specification: An Application to Hedonic Pricing.” Agr. and Resour. Econ. Rev. 24(1995):166-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J., Ethridge, D., Hudson, D., and Engels, C.. “An Automated Econometric Approach for Estimating and Reporting Daily Cotton Market Prices.” J. Agr. and Appl. Econ. 27(1995):1–7.Google Scholar
Chiou, G., Chen, D., and Capps, O. Jr. “A Structural Investigation of Biotechnological Impacts on Cotton Quality and Returns.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 75(1993):467-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinosa, J.A., and Goodwin, B.K.. “Hedonic Price Estimation for Kansas Wheat Characteristics.” West. J. Agr. Econ. 16(1991):72–85.Google Scholar
Ethridge, D. “A Computerized Remote-Access Commodity Market: Telcot.” 5. J. Agr. Econ. 10(1978):177-82.Google Scholar
Ethridge, D., Brown, J., Engels, C., and Shaw, D.. “Discounts for Bark, Color, and Trash in Cotton: Evidence from the Texas-Oklahoma Market.” In 1993 Beltwide Cotton Conferences Proceedings, pp. 435-38. Cotton Economics and Marketing Conference, National Cotton Council, New Orleans LA, 10-14 January 1993.Google Scholar
Ethridge, D., and Chen, C.. “Cotton Price Responsiveness to Quality in the U.S.: Textile Mill Prices Paid vs. Producer Prices Received.” In 1993 Beltwide Cotton Conferences Proceedings, pp. 441-44. Cotton Economics and Marketing Conference, National Cotton Council, New Orleans LA, 10-14 January 1993.Google Scholar
Ethridge, D., and Davis, B.. “Hedonic Price Estimation for Commodities: An Application to Cotton.” West. J. Agr. Econ. 7(1982):293–300.Google Scholar
Ethridge, D., and Neeper, J.. “Producer Returns from Cotton Strength and Uniformity: A Hedonic Approach.” 5. J. Agr. Econ. 19(1987):91–97.Google Scholar
Hembree, J., Ethridge, D., and Neeper, J.. “Market Value of Fiber Properties in Southeastern Textile Mills.” Textile Res. J. 56(1986):140-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, D., Ethridge, D., and Brown, J.. “Producer Prices in Cotton Markets: An Evaluation of Reported Price Information Accuracy.” Agribus.: An Internat. J. 12(1996):353-62.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kravis, I., and Lipsey, R.. “International Price Comparisons by Regression Methods.” In Price Indexes and Quality Change, ed., Griliches, Z., pp. 150-79. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M.. Applied Linear Regression Models. Homewood IL: Richard D.Irwin, Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R., and Rubinfeld, D.. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation.” J. Polit. Econ. 82(1974):34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G., and Cochran, W.. Statistical Methods, 6th ed. Ames IA: Iowa State University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Starbird, I., Glade, E., McArthur, W., Cooke, F., and Townsend, T.. “The U.S.Cotton Industry.” Agr. Econ. Rep. No. 567, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, 1987.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Classification of Cotton. Agr. Handbook No. 688, USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton Division, Washington DC, April 1993.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture “Daily Spot Cotton Quotations.” USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton Division, Washington DC. Daily issues, 1992-95.Google Scholar