Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T17:03:07.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Price Formation in the California Winegrape Economy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2012

Dale Heien
Dale Heien
Affiliation:
University of California Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Email:[email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a theory of price determination for winegrapes in California. As the California wine economy developed, winegrape contracts took on a role as one of the centerpieces of this transformation. The theory is presented and it is shown how two important factors, weather and fi nancial uncertainty, served to shape the contracts. Hence, long term planting contracts for new vineyards, specifying the price, helped ameliorate the uncertainty to growers. Similarly, shorter contracts played a similar role for established vintners. The model deals with two types of growers: those with contracts made well before the year in question and those who will sign a contract in the Spring of the year of harvest. This paper hopes to illuminate these elements and their interaction. The model is then empirically estimated and tested. (JEL classifi cation: K12, Q11)

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Fall 2006 , pp. 162 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2006

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

Goodhue, R., Heien, D., and Lee, H. (1999). Contract use in the California winegrape economy, Agricultural Issues Center Issues Brief, 11, December 1999.Google Scholar
Baumol, W.J. (1959). Economic dynamics. 2nd ed., London: Macmillian Co.Google Scholar
Brandt, J.A. and Bessler, D.A. (1981). Composite forecasting: an application with U.S. hog prices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
California Department of Food and Agriculture (1981a–2005a). Final Grape Crush Report. Sacramento.Google Scholar
California Department of Food and Agriculture (1981b–2005b). California Grape Acreage. Sacramento.Google Scholar
Chavas, J.P. and Holt, M.T. (1991). On nonlinear dynamics: the case of the pork cycle. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 819–828.Google Scholar
Hammig, M.D. and Mittelhammer, R.C. (1980). An imperfectly competitive market model of the U.S. lettuce industry. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 5, 1–12.Google Scholar
Heien, D.M. (1977). Price determination processes for agricultural subsector models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59, 126–132.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, J., White, H., and Davidson, R. (1983). Tests for model specifi cation in the presence of alternative hypothesis; some further results. Journal of Econometrics, 21, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P.J. (1961). Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sexton, R. and Zhang, M. (1996). A model of price determination for fresh produce with application to California iceberg lettuce. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78, 924–934.Google Scholar
Shonkwiler, J.S. and Pagoulatos, E. (1980). A model of weekly price discovery for Florida celery. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 12, 113–118.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.B. (1980). Aggregate dynamics and staggered contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 88, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T.G. and Kilmer, R.L. (1988). An analysis of market structure and pricing in the Florida celery industry. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 20, 35–43.Google Scholar
Williams, J. and Wright, B. (1991). Storage and Commodity Markets. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar