Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:19:59.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supply Response in the Northeastern Fresh Tomato Market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Rigoberto A. Lopez  and
Arnold O. Munoz
Rigoberto A. Lopez
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Arnold O. Munoz
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines the forces that affected the Northeastern fresh tomato supply in the post-WWII period. A simultaneous equation model is developed which incorporates a composite price expectation model, supply response, and factors affecting regional price. Findings reveal that data are consistent with the Rational Expectation Hypothesis. Urban pressure played a major role in shifting supply response while shipments from competing areas had a modest impact on regional production or price. The positive elasticity of producers' revenue with respect to local production highlights the aggregate benefits of increasing yields.

Type
Research Article
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , April 1987 , pp. 35 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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 are grateful to J.S. Shonkwiler, Jim Seagraves, Judith Lisansky, James Dunn, and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on an earlier draft. The authors are also grateful to Claire Kuncewitch for her efficient word processing assistance.

New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Publication No. D-02260-1-86, supported by State and U.S. Hatch Act funds.

References

Berry, D. “The Effects of Suburbanization on Agricultural Activities.” Growth and Change 9 (1978): 2–8.Google Scholar
Cain, J. L. and Toensmeyer, U. C. Interregional Competition in Maryland Fresh Market Production. Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. Research Report No. 741, University of Maryland, 1969.Google Scholar
Chern, W. S. and Just, R. E. Econometric Analysis of Supply Response and Demand for Processing Tomatoes in California. Giannini Foundation, Monograph 37, University of California, 1978.Google Scholar
Dhillon, P.S. Cost of Producing Selected Fresh Market Vegetables in South Jersey. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. B-853, 1979.Google Scholar
Dhillon, P.S. An Economic Analysis of Fresh Vegetable Farms in Southern New Jersey. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. Agricultural Economics Report No. 377, 1980.Google Scholar
Dhillon, P.S. and Latimer, R.G. Cost Producing Fresh Market Vegetables on Small Farms in Southern New Jersey. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No. P-02131-1-84, 1984.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. “The Effect of Higher Energy Prices on the Competitive Position of Northeast Agriculture.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council 10 (1981): 83–86.Google Scholar
Goodwin, T. H. and Sheffrin, S. M. “Testing the Rational Expectations Hypothesis in an Agricultural Market.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 64 (1982): 658–667.Google Scholar
Lopez, R. A. “The Use of Composite Price Expectations in Supply Response Models.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 34(November 1986): 455–474.Google Scholar
Lopez, R. A., Adelaja, A. O., and Andrews, M. S. “Suburbanization and Agricultural Production Choices.” Working paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University, 1987.Google Scholar
Naisbitt, J. Megatrends. New York: Warner Books, 1984.Google Scholar
Nuckton, C. F. Demand Relationships for Vegetables: A Review of Past Studies. Giannini Foundation, University of California, Special Publication No. 3247, 1978.Google Scholar
Nuckton, C. F., “The State of Commodity Demand Analysis: What Do We Know About Demand Relationships for Fruits and Vegetables?” Proceedings of Analyzing the Potential for Alternative Fruit and Vegetable Crop Production Seminar, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 1985.Google Scholar
Porter, C. W. The American Vegetable Industry in the 1970s. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, TVS 197, 1975.Google Scholar
Shonkwiler, J. S. and Emerson, R. D., “Imports and the Supply of Winter Tomatoes, An Application of Rational Expectations.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (1982): 634–640.Google Scholar
Simmons, R. L., Pearson, J. L., and Smith, E. B., Mexican Competition for the U.S. Winter Vegetable Market. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AER-348, 1976.Google Scholar
Stallings, J. L. “Weather Indexes,” Journal of Farm Economics. 42 (1960): 180–186.Google Scholar
Swackhamer, G. L. “Competitive Position of Northeast Agriculture.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council 10 (1981): 9–16.Google Scholar
Takos, I. P. Interregional Competition and Seasonal Discrimination in the U.S. Fresh Tomato Market. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University, 1986.Google Scholar
Theil, H. Principles of Econometrics. New York: Marce Dekker, Inc., 1976.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector, Agricultural Research Service. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Unloads in Eastern Cities. Agricultural Marketing Service. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1961–1983.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, Agricultural Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1949–83.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vegetable Situation: Summary, Crop Reporting Service, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1949–80.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States. Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1949–1983.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1949–1983.Google Scholar
Wallis, K. F. “Econometric Implications of the Rational Expectations Hypothesis.” Econometrica 48 (1980): 49–74.Google Scholar
Wegge, L. and Feldman, M. “Identifiability Criteria for Muth-Rational Expectation Models.” Journal of Econometrics 21 (1983): 245–261.Google Scholar
Westcott, E. R. Cost of Ground and Staked Fresh Market Tomatoes. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Economics Report 303, 1963.Google Scholar
Wysong, J. W., Leigh, M. G., and Ganguly, P. “The Economic Viability of Commercial Fresh Vegetable Production in Northeastern United States.” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council. 13 (1984): 65–72.Google Scholar