Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T03:13:54.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Examination of Demand Functions for Beef, Pork, and Broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

John F. Yanagida  and
Roger K. Conway
John F. Yanagida
Affiliation:
Forecast Support Group, Commodity Economics Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Roger K. Conway
Affiliation:
Forecast Support Group, Commodity Economics Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Get access

Extract

Empirical research on single equation, competitive demand models has employed either price dependent or quantity dependent forms. The price dependent models assume that total output is predetermined in the short-run due to the role of past prices and to production cycles as the case of the livestock industry (Heien). On the other hand, quantity dependency can be described as a supply response system.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , October 1979 , pp. 299 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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.)

Footnotes

The authors wish to give special thanks to John Baritelle for suggestions and support throughout this research process and acknowledge suggestions from Harry Baumes Jr., Lloyd Teigen, and an anonymous referee.

References

Friedman, Milton. “The Marshallian Demand Curve.” Journal of Political Economy, 57 (1949): 463–74.Google Scholar
Heien, Dale. “Price Determination Processes for Agricultural Sector Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59 (1977): 126–32.Google Scholar
Heien, Dale, Matthews, J., and Womack, A. “A Methods Note on the Gauss-Seidel Algorithm for Solving Econometric Models.” Agricultural Economics Research, 23 (1973): 71–80.Google Scholar
Hoerl, Arthur E. and Kennard, Robert W. “Ridge Regression: Applications to Nonorthogonal Problems.” Technometrics, 12 (1970): 69–82.Google Scholar
Hoerl, Arthur E. and Kennard, Robert W. “Ridge Regression: Biased Estimation of Nonorthogonal Problems.” Technometrics, 12 (1970): 55–67.Google Scholar
Houthakker, H.S. “Additive Preferences.” Econometrica, 28 (1960): 244–57.Google Scholar
Intrilligator, Michael D. Econometric Models, Techniques, and Applications. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.), 1978.Google Scholar
Kmenta, Jan. Elements of Econometrics. (New York: The MacMillan Company), 1971.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S. Econometrics. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company), 1977.Google Scholar
Phlips, L. Applied Consumption Analysis. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company), 1974.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. “Using Full Duality to Show that Simultaneously Additive Direct and Indirect Utilities Implies Unitary Price Elasticity of Demand.” Econometrica, 33 (1965): 781–96.Google Scholar
Theil, H. Applied Economic Forecasting. (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company), 1966.Google Scholar
Vinod, Hrishikesh D. “A Survey of Ridge Regression and Related Techniques for Improvements Over Ordinary Least Squares.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 60 (1978): 121–31.Google Scholar
Willis, Cleve Ε. and Perlack, Robert D., et. al. “Multicollinearity: Effects, Symptoms, and Remedies.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 7 (1978): 55–61.Google Scholar