Handbook of Agricultural Economics Volume 1A Agricultural Production Handbooks in Economics 18 1st Edition Bruce L. Gardner Instant Download 2025
Handbook of Agricultural Economics Volume 1A Agricultural Production Handbooks in Economics 18 1st Edition Bruce L. Gardner Instant Download 2025
Available on ebookfinal.com
https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-agricultural-economics-
volume-1a-agricultural-production-handbooks-in-economics-18-1st-
edition-bruce-l-gardner/
★★★★★
4.9 out of 5.0 (74 reviews )
EBOOK
Available Formats
https://ebookfinal.com/download/agricultural-economics-3-ed-edition-
drummond/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-the-economics-of-
innovation-volume-1-volume-1-handbooks-in-economics-1st-edition-
bronwyn-h-hall/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-economics-of-production-2nd-
edition-bruce-r-beattie/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/agricultural-law-and-economics-in-sub-
saharan-africa-cases-and-comments-1st-edition-frederick-owusu-boadu/
Bioethanol Production Benefits and Economics Production
Benefits and Economics 1st Edition Jason B. Erbaum
https://ebookfinal.com/download/bioethanol-production-benefits-and-
economics-production-benefits-and-economics-1st-edition-jason-b-
erbaum/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-research-on-nonprofit-
economics-and-management-bruce-alan-seaman/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-the-economics-of-
education-volume-1-1st-edition-erik-a-hanushek/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-the-economics-of-
education-volume-2-1st-edition-erik-a-hanushek/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-computational-
economics-2-1st-edition-l-tesfatsion-and-k-l-judd-eds/
Handbook of Agricultural Economics Volume 1A
Agricultural Production Handbooks in Economics 18 1st
Edition Bruce L. Gardner Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Bruce L. Gardner, Gordon C. Rausser
ISBN(s): 9780444507280, 0444507280
Edition: 1st
File Details: PDF, 12.43 MB
Year: 2001
Language: english
INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES
The aim of the Handbooks in Economics series is to produce Handbooks for various
branches of economics, each of which is a definitive source, reference, and teaching
supplement for use by professional researchers and advanced graduate students. Each
Handbook provides self-contained surveys of the current state of a branch of economics
in the form of chapters prepared by leading specialists on various aspects of this branch
of economics. These surveys summarize not only received results but also newer devel-
opments, from recent journal articles and discussion papers. Some original material is
also included, but the main goal is to provide comprehensive and accessible surveys.
The Handbooks are intended to provide not only useful reference volumes for profes-
sional collections but also possible supplementary readings for advanced courses for
graduate students in economics.
PUBLISHER' S NOTE
For a complete overview of the Handbooks in Economics Series, please refer to the
listing on the last two pages of this volume.
CONTENTS OF THE HANDBOOK
VOLUME 1A
Chapter 1
Production and Supply
YAIR MUNDLAK
Chapter 2
Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and Risk Management for Agricultural Producers
GIANCARLO MOSCHINI and DAVID A. HENNESSY
Chapter 3
Expectations, Information and Dynamics
MARC NERLOVE and DAVID A. BESSLER
Chapter 4
The Agricultural Innovation Process: Research and Technology Adoption in a Changing Agricultural Sector
DAVID SUNDING and DAVID ZILBERMAN
Chapter 5
Structural Change in Agricultural Production: Economics, Technology and Policy
JEAN-PAUL CHAVAS
Chapter 6
Land Institutions and Land Markets
KLAUS DEININGER and GERSHON FEDER
Chapter 7
Human Capital: Education and Agriculture
WALLACE E. HUFFMAN
Chapter 8
Women's Roles in the Agricultural Household: Bargaining and Human Capital Investments
T. PAUL SCHULTZ
Chapter 9
Human Capital: Migration and Rural Population Change
J. EDWARD TAYLOR and PHILIP L. MARTIN
Chapter 10
Agricultural Finance: Credit, Credit Constraints, and Consequences
PETER J. BARRY and LINDON J. ROBISON
vii
viii Contents of the Handbook
Chapter 11
Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research and Extension
ROBERT E. EVENSON
Chapter 12
The Agricultural Producer: Theory and Statistical Measurement
RICHARD E. JUST and RULON D. POPE
V O L U M E 1B
PART 2 - M A R K E T I N G , D I S T R I B U T I O N A N D C O N S U M E R S
Chapter 13
Commodity Futures and Options
JEFFREY C. WILLIAMS
Chapter 14
Storage and Price Stabilization
BRIAN WRIGHT
Chapter 15
Food Processing and Disacibution: An Industrial Organization Approach
RICHARD J. SEXTON and NATHALIE LAVOIE
Chapter 16
Marketing Margins: Empirical Analysis
MICHAEL K. WOHLGENANT
Chapter 17
Spatial Price Analysis
PAUL L. FACKLER and BARRY K. GOODWIN
Chapter 18
Duality for the Household: Theory and Applications
JEFFREY T. LaFRANCE
Chapter 19
Economic Analysis of Food Safety
JOHN M. ANTLE
Chapter 20
Marketing and Distribution: Theory and Statistical Measurement
JAMES VERCAMMEN and ANDREW SCHMITZ
Chapter 21
Production and Marketing
RACHAEL E. GOODHUE and GORDON C. RAUSSER
INTRODUCTION
The subject matter of agricultural economics has both broadened and deepened in re-
cent years, and the chapters of this Handbook present the most exciting and innovative
work being done today. The field originated early in the twentieth century with a focus
on farm management and commodity markets, but has since moved far into analysis
of issues in food, resources, international trade, and linkages between agriculture and
the rest of the economy. In the process agricultural economists have been pioneering
users of developments in economic theory and econometrics. Moreover, in the process
of intense focus on problems of economic science that are central to agriculture - mar-
ket expectations, behavior under uncertainty, multimarket relationships for both prod-
ucts and factors, the economics of research and technology adoption, and public goods
and property issues associated with issues like nonpoint pollution and innovations in
biotechnology - agricultural economists have developed methods of empirical investi-
gation that have been taken up in other fields.
The chapters are organized into five parts, contained in two volumes. Volume 1 con-
tains Part 1, "Agricultural Production", and Part 2, "Marketing, Distribution and Con-
sumers". These two parts include much of the traditional scope of agricultural eco-
nomics, emphasizing advances in both theory and empirical application of recent years.
Volume 2 consists of three parts: "Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment",
"Agriculture in the Macroeconomy", and "Agricultural and Food Policy". Although
agricultural economists have always paid attention to these topics, research devoted
to them has increased substantially in scope as well as depth in recent years.
A large-scale effort to review and assess the state of knowledge in agricultural eco-
nomics was previously undertaken by the American Agricultural Economics Associ-
ation (AAEA), with publication in four volumes from 1977 to 1992.1 Those earlier
survey volumes have strikingly different subject-matter content from that of the present
Handbook, especially considering that they described the same field only 20 years ago.
The AAEA volumes have extensive coverage of farm management issues, costs of pro-
duction in agriculture, and estimates of efficiency of marketing firms. In our judgment
little in any fundamental way has been added to our knowledge in these areas, and
applications have become routine rather than imaginative research. The largest AAEA
volume was devoted entirely to agriculture in economic development. This remains a
1 A Survey of Economics Literature, Lee Martin, ed., Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Vol-
ume 1, Traditional Field of Agricultural Economics(1977); Volume2, QuantitativeMethods in Agricultural
Economics (1977); Volume 3, Economics of Welfare, Rural Development,and Natural Resources (1981);
Volume4, Agriculture in EconomicDevelopment(1992).
ix
x Introduction
most important topic, but we cover it in only one complete chapter and parts of sev-
eral others. This reflects in part the integration of work on developing countries with
mainstream applied work. For example, our chapters on production economics, expec-
tations, and risk management also encompass applications to agriculture in developing
economies.
That integration points to another gradual but notable change in agricultural
economists' research. The AAEA surveys had most of the chapters of one volume de-
voted to quantitative methods. We do not have any separate methodological chapters.
In contrast, we have several chapters with substantial development of economic theory.
This reflects an evolution in the research priorities of leading agricultural economists
who, following the earlier work of Nerlove on supply and Griliches on technological
change, are working at the theoretical frontiers and simultaneously undertaking empiri-
cal work - not just purveying new theories to their more "applied" colleagues.
As its title indicates, the AAEA volumes were surveys of literature, and aimed at
completeness of coverage within their subject matter. We asked our authors to be se-
lective, to focus on what they saw as the main contributions to the area they covered,
and to assess the state of knowledge and what remains to be learned. This approach
has left some gaps in our coverage, and has given us some chapters that are perhaps
more idiosyncratic than is usual for a survey chapter. In order to pull things together at
a higher level of aggregation, we commissioned five "synthesis" chapters, one for each
of the five parts of the Handbook. And, to provide our own even broader overview, the
editors have written closing syntheses of each volume. Because these syntheses provide
capsule summaries of each Handbook chapter, we will not present further description
of content here.
Although advances in research in agricultural economics are increasingly being made
in many countries, our authors and coverage of applied topics is heavily U.S.-weighted
(only six authors work outside of the U.S.: two in Europe, two in Australia, one in
Canada, and one in Israel). Of those in the U.S., however, six are economists at the
World Bank, an international rather than American institution. Probably in another
twenty years or so one will have to become more international to capture the most
interesting and exciting developments in the field, but that day has not arrived yet.
Among the many debts we have accrued in the preparation of this Handbook, the most
important was Rachael Goodhue. She not only assessed the substance of many chapters,
but she persuaded many reviewers and authors alike to complete their assigned respon-
sibilities. Other critical contributors include the dedicated staff who provided support at
the University of California, Berkeley, and at the University of Maryland. At Maryland,
Liesl Koch served as copy editor and guided the authors' final revisions and preparation
of the manuscript with sure judgment and a finn but diplomatic hand, a job best likened
to driving a herd of cats. Coordination of correspondence with authors and reviewers
was organized and carried out at Berkeley with exemplary efficiency and organizational
skill by Jef Samp, Jessica Berkson, and Jennifer Michael, under the direction of Nancy
Lewis.
Introduction xi
We also want to recognize the comments and suggestions received from 45 review-
ers of chapter drafts: Julian Alston, Jock Anderson, Richard Barichello, Eran Beinen-
baum, Michael Boehlje, Dan Bromley, Steve Buccola, Allan Buckwell, David Bul-
lock, Michael Caputo, Jean-Paul Chavas, John Connor, Klaus Deiniuger, Jeffrey Doff-
man, Marcel Fafchamps, Gershon Feder, Joe Glauber, Dan Gilligan, Rachael Goodhue,
Tom Grennes, Zvi Griliches, Geoff Heal, Eithan Hochman, Matt Holt, Wallace Huff-
man, D. Gale Johnson, Zvi Lerman, Erik Lichtenberg, Ethan Ligon, Alan Love, Jill
McCluskey, Mario Miranda, Arie Oskam, Dick Perrin, Mark Rosegrant, Vern Ruttan,
Ed Schuh, Kathleen Segerson, Larry Sjaastad, Spiro Stefanou, Jo Swinnen, Frans van
der Zee, Finis Welch, Abner Womack, and Jacob Yaron.
BRUCE GARDNER
GORDON RAUSSER
Chapter 1
YAIR MUNDLAK
Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
Contents
Abstract 4
1. Primal estimates or the Cobb-Douglas culture 5
1.1. The setting of the agenda 5
1.2. A simple production model 9
1.3. Productivity 12
1.4. The productivity of capital 16
1.5. Productivity and heterogeneous technology 16
1.6. Heterogeneous technology 18
1.7. Cross-country studies 20
1.8. The rate of technical change 26
1.9. Primal estimates - summary 27
2. The duality culture 28
2.1. Studies based on cost functions 32
2.2. What is the message? 35
2.3. Studies based on profit functions 36
2.4. Dual estimates - summary 39
3. Multiproduct production 40
4. Nonparametric methods 43
4.1. Description 43
4.2. Discussion 45
5. Supply analysis 47
5.1. Background 47
5.2. Static analysis 49
6. Dynamics 51
6.1. The firm's problem 51
6.2. Discussion 53
6.3. The role of prices and technology 53
6.4. Disinvestment 55
6.5. Empirical investment analysis 56
6.6. Exogenous dynamics 57
Abstract
The work of more than 50 years aimed at gaining empirical insight into the production
structure of agriculture and the related modes of farmers' behavior is reviewed, and
orders of magnitude of the various parameters of interest are quoted. The review follows
the lines of the evolution of the pertinent research, and it builds on it in forming a
general framework for empirical work. This approach broadens the scope of producers'
decisions to include the choice of the implemented technology and it also overcomes
statistical problems that have accompanied the relevant research for a long time.
Technology along with the competitive conditions constitute the core of the supply side
of the economy. There is hardly a subject in economics that can be discussed with pro-
duction sitting in the balcony rather than playing center stage. To mention the main
favorable subjects in agricultural economics research: product supply, factor demand,
technical change, income distribution, the relationships between factor prices and prod-
uct prices, the competitive position of agriculture, returns to scale, the size distribution
of firms, and capital accumulation. The nature of the relationships and the conclusions
derived in any particular analysis depend on the order of magnitude of the parameters
in question. Hence, whether we want it or not, the empirical analysis of technology and
its changes is of cardinal importance, and measurement problems are pertinent even if
on the surface it seems that the subject matter is not 'technical'.
In this review, we deal with the various aspects of the analysis. As will become clear,
much of the discussion in the literature is methodology driven, not always accompanied
by substantive applications. Inasmuch as methodological innovations are desirable, the
question is how do they help us to think of, or deal with, specific issues of interest.
This is a question that the reader should try to answer for himself, depending on his
particular interest. To assist in this endeavor, we summarize here the empirical findings
that bear on the main parameters of interest and address some important methodological
issues essential to the interpretation of empirical studies and to future research. In many
cases, the empirical results display a wide range and thus highlight the need for an
appropriate framework for their evaluation. The choice of subjects and the coverage in
the discussion are carried out with the purpose of constructing a uniform framework to
meet the purpose. This is built on the cumulative experience and contributions provided
by numerous studies and on the evolution of the thinking that is so valuable in the
reading and the interpretation of the data. To emphasize this aspect, the subjects are
introduced largely in an Order that highlights this evolution.
There are two fairly distinct periods in the study of agricultural production functions:
before and after duality. The changing of the guard was in the early 1970s, although
a few studies employing direct estimation continue to appear after 1970. The appear-
ance of duality changed not only the method of estimation but also the questions asked
to the extent that there is little continuity in the subjects of interest. This can be ac-
counted for by the fact that much of the work is methodology-driven rather than being
an indication that the old questions had been adequately answered or of any explicit
agenda.
E c o n o m i c s and was followed by a full size paper by Heady (1946). This work was
influenced by the work of Cobb and Douglas (1928). 1 It thus took about fifteen years to
adopt the work of Cobb and Douglas in agricultural economics application.
These studies used data from a random sample of Iowa farms for 1939. The data were
classified by area of the state, type, and also size of farm. The inputs included were land,
labor, equipment, livestock and feed, and miscellaneous operating expense, a classifi-
cation that is still applicable today. Interestingly, this early work anticipated some of
the more difficult subjects in the empirical work of production functions. Management
was recognized as an input, but "[t]he productive agent management has been excluded
since there is no satisfactory index of inputs for this factor" [Tintner and Brownlee
(1944, p. 566)]. Allusions were also made to the importance of input quality. 2 Heady
(1946) expressed similar concerns about the quality issue and the omission of man-
agement. 3 Also, based on the criticism of the Cobb--Douglas work that appeared at
that time by Reder (1943 ), Bronfenbrenner (1944), and Marschak and Andrews (1944),
Heady (1946) noted that "It]he functions which have been derived ... are of the inter-
firm rather than intrafarm variety ... it can he expected that a multitude of functions
exists ... because of the varying combinations of techniques employed and commodi-
ties produced" (p. 999). This is a recognition of the problems caused by aggregation
over techniques. Similarly, Smith (1945) observed that firms in cross section may em-
ploy different techniques, particularly due to fixed plants inherited from the past, and the
long-run production functions so derived may represent "mongrels" or hybrids. Aside
from the question of input quality, Bronfenbrenner (i 944) raised the point that capital
and labor are not on the same footing because labor is a flow ("quantity used"), whereas
capital is a stock (representing the "available quantity"). This can be interpreted as an
early recognition of the conceptual problem of the evaluation of the productivity of
durable inputs.
These studies were concerned with the contribution of inputs to output variations and
with a comparison of the factor productivity on different farm types and the relationship
to their returns. The estimated production elasticities reported by Tintner and Brownlee
(1944) for the sample as a whole are: land, 0.34; labor, 0.24; and other assets and vari-
able inputs, 0.41. The sum is 0.99. Heady used a larger sample and a somewhat different
classification of inputs to obtain for the sample as a whole: land, 0.23; labor, 0.03; and
other assets and variable inputs, 0.59. The sum is 0.85.
1 A regression equation linear in the logarithms "[is] similar to the production function employedby Paul
Douglas in his empirical studies" [Tintnerand Brownlee (1944, p. 567)]. On the history of the Cobb-Douglas
production function, see [Douglas(1976)].
2 "Usingthe number of acres in the farms as a measure of inputs of land ignores variations in the quality of
land. Measuring inputs of labor in terms of months of labor also ignores variations in the quality and intensity
of labor, particularly that of operator and his family" [Tintner and Brownlee (1944, p. 566)].
3 At the time the issue of management bias was unrecognized, therefore both papers speculated that had
management been included, the sum of the elasticities, as a measure of returns to scale, would have increased
[Tintuer and Brownlee (1944, p. 569), Heady (1946, p. 995)]. However,Heady also indicates that the sum of
the elasticities might have decreased due to the introduction of management (Ibid,, p. 997).
Ch. 1: Production and Supply 7
Several points are of interest. First, these studies were prompted by a methodological
innovation introduced by Cobb and Douglas (1928). Yet, their orientation is applicative
in nature, and they address substantive issues related to the efficient use of inputs. Sec-
ond, sampling from the same data source yields different elasticities. The sum of the
elasticities of labor and land vary between 0.58 and 0.25 in the two studies respectively.
This difference suggests sensitivity of the estimates to output composition and perhaps
differences in the physical environment. Third, the sum of the elasticities is smaller
than 1.
The approach formulated by the foregoing studies served as a framework for the
production function estimation for more than two decades, where attention was focused
on the following issues: the contribution of the various factors to the explanation of
output variations in the cross section or over time, the production elasticities and their
significance, the robustness of the estimates, the role of economies of scale, as judged
by the sum of the elasticities, the importance of the quality of inputs, the treatment
of management and its relations to the properties of the estimates, the functional forms,
and the role of technical change. The data base of these studies varied from observations
on individual farms to cross-country comparisons.
The question of efficient use of inputs is the objective of many studies. 4 Lack of ro-
bustness of empirical results was raised by Hildebrand (1960) who found that annual
cross-section regressions are not robust and any hypothesis can be supported by some
results. Lack of robustness is also evident in some other studies that present more than
one set of results. Heady and Dillon (1961, Chapter 17) review and summarize 32 stud-
ies in various countries based on farm data. The mean elasticities and their coefficient of
variation (in parentheses) are: land 0.38 (0.58), labor 0.21 (0.80), and "other services"
0.39 (0.59). In all these studies the sum of all the elasticities is near 1. The magnitude
of the coefficient of variation indicates a wide spread in the results among the studies.
They compare their results with those obtained in the pioneering cross-country study by
Bhattacharjee (1955) and with assumptions made in the literature. 5 All of this indicates
an effort to get a definitive substantive solution. But as this target was realized to be
elusive, they concluded that "[s]till, the variations shown among the elasticities of Table
17.14 bear witness to the dangers associated with the use of any such global production
function" [Heady and Dillon (1961, p. 633)]. 6 The discussion is then shifted to the ex-
amination of the efficiency of the resource use. For instance, their Table 17.17 presents
a ratio of the marginal productivity of labor to its opportunity cost with values varying
between 2.84 observed in Taiwan to negative values obtained in dairy farming in Swe-
den. The median value of this ratio is 0.67. They present similar calculations for land
4 See, for instance, Hopper (1965), Chennareddy (1967), Sahota (1968), and Herdt (1971) for India;
Yotopoulos(1967) for Greece;Huang(1971) for Malaya; and Headley(1968)for the US.
5 Bhattacharjee(1955, regression4) reports elasticities of 0.36 and 0.3 for land and labor respectively.
6 Clark(1973) assemblesmanyresults of factorshares in an informalframeworkbut with goodinternational
coverage. It is very clear that the estimates depend on the economicenvironmentwhich is a majortheme of
our discussion.
8 Y. Mundlak
and capital services, but these are more problematic for conceptual reasons which need
not be discussed at this point. To get a view of the diversity of the results, the reader is
advised to check some of the country studies based on the primal approach. 7
In 1944 Marschak and Andrews pointed out that the inputs are endogenous, and
therefore Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimates of the production function are bi-
ased. Their paper extended the scope of the analysis by introducing issues related to the
statistical properties of the estimates. Their work and Haavelmo's (1947) work on the
consumption function were early examples of the problems of simultaneity in economic
analysis and thus revived the question that had been asked by Working (1927) about the
meaning of statistical demand equations. That opened up a route of work centered on
methodological issues with a life of its own. 8
The simultaneity problem in the estimation of production functions was overcome
by the factor share estimator proposed by Klein (1953) and applied by Wolfson (1958).
This estimator is based on the assumption that firms always employ all their inputs so
as to satisfy the first order conditions for profit maximization given the current ex p o s t
prices. As such, the factor share estimator is subject to a major conceptual difficulty in
that it cannot answer the original question of Cobb and Douglas about the empirical rel-
evance of the competitive conditions because they are imposed in the derivation of the
estimator. 9 Although this is seldom explicitly recognized, or acknowledged, all the esti-
mators that use the first order conditions for profit maximization - and to be sure, these
include the estimators based on duality as well as on the axioms of revealed preferences
- use the very same property and thus are subject to the same limitation.
A different line of attack on the simultaneity problem was taken by Mundlak (1961)
and Hoch (1962) through the use of covariance analysis, l° Applying this method to
a sample of family farms in Israel gave lower estimates for the elasticities compared
7 For instance,in additionto the studies mentionedin footnote 5, US: Tintnerand Brownlee(1944), Heady
(1946), Hildebrand (1960), Griliches (1963a, 1963b, 1964), Kislev (1966), Tweeten and Quance (1969),
Kislev and Peterson (1996); India: Lau and Yotopoulos(1972); Israel: Mundlak(1961), Sadan (1968); Mex-
ico: Ulveling and Fletcher (1970); Colombia: Colyer and Jimenez (1971); Taiwan: Yotopoulos, Lau, and
Lin (1976), Shih, Hushak, and Rask (1977), Wu (1977); Thailand:Mittelhammer, Young,Tasanasanta,and
Donnelly(1980).
8 The early work on productionfunctions,up to the early 1960s, is surveyedby Walters (1963).
9 I found the followingstatementby Clark (1973, fn 8, p. 21) to be interesting:"Douglas told me that when
the functionwas first prepared in the 1920s, he was expecting it to show that wages then actuallyreceived
by labourwere considerablybelow its true marginalproduct; and was surprisedto find that they were in fact
extremely close to the levelpredicted by the function".
10 Hoch (1958) examineda solutionto the simultaneityproblem based on identificationthi'oughthe second
moments of the equations disturbances.There is no reference in the literature to an empirical application
of this method, perhaps for a good reason because, as indicated by Mundlak and Hoch (1965), it is very
sensitive to the specificationand in the case of a likely specificationerror can have an unboundedbias. In
another paper, Hoch (1955) suggestedthe use of covarianceanalysis.However,the method was not discussed
in connectionwith the simultaneityproblem. This is probablythe reason that covariance analysiswas not
mentioned in [Hoch (1958)], which deals head-on with that problem. It is only in [Hoeh (1962)] that the
covariance analysisis seen as a solutionto the simultaneityproblem.
Ch. 1: Productionand Supply 9
to OLS without allowance for firm effect, and their sum declined from roughly 1 to
roughly 0.8. Mundlak (1961) interpreted the difference between 1 and the sum of the
elasticities as the factor share of management.I] The method was also used to estimate
the managerial capacity and its empirical distribution in [Mundlak (1964a)]. Another
substantive result of that study is an elasticity of land near zero. The farms in the sample
are very small, and on the surface one would have expected a higher elasticity for land.
However, a low elasticity for land is indicative of low profitability of agriculture. This
interpretation is supported by the fact that a negligible elasticity for land in Israel was
also obtained for a sample of large farms (kibbutzim) in [Sadan (1968)], so the result is
unrelated to farm size.
The observations made so far are:
O. 1 The estimates are not robust.
0 . 2 Often, results show a gap between marginal productivity and real factor prices.
0 . 3 Specifically, there is a difference between estimates based on inter and intrafarm
observations.
0 . 4 Firms use different techniques.
0 . 5 Input quality is not addressed.
0 . 6 A lack of clarity on whether to use stock or flow variables.
0 . 7 Inputs are endogenous, and therefore OLS estimates are inconsistent.
0 . 8 It is possible to overcome the problem of inconsistency.
0 . 9 A need to further explore the role and scope of factor-share estimates.
Y = A X E e m°+u°, (1)
where m0 is the firm effect, or management, a firm-specific factor known to the firm but
not to the econometrician (private information), and u0 is a random term whose value is
not known at the time the production decisions are made. The conditional expectation
of output, given the input, of firm i is ]2
11 Other sources of farm-specific effects are differences in land quality, micro-climate, and so on. However,
the emphasis has been placed on management. The firm effect is observed not only in production functions
estimated from farm data; it is also a common phenomenon in cross-section analysis of manufacturing data.
Thus, it seems that differences due to farming environment are not the main reason for the firm effects.
12 Note that E(e uo) ~ (1 + o'020/2);crg0 = E(u2). This term is ignored in (2).
1o Y. Mundlak
At this stage we assume that the price is known, and the firm chooses the input so as to
maximize the expected profit:
where P and W are the product and input prices respectively. The first order condition
is met up to the stochastic terms m 1 and u 1
where m I is known to the firm but not to the econometrician, and u 1 is a transitory com-
ponent. The term ml reflects the firm's expectation formation and its utility function. In
what follows, we will deal with real prices, so that W is the wage in output units, and
P is the product price in input units.
We write Equations (2) and (4) in logarithms, with the variables measured as devia-
tions from their overall mean, and introduce time notations:
When prices are exogenous the reduced form for x (note that p = - w ) is
The four error components are assumed to be IID with the following first two moments:
where/z0 = 0 and/,t 1 is unrestricted. The expected value of all cross products of the
error components is zero. 13
Several of the observations made above are related to the endogeneity of the input.
Equation (7) shows that the input is a function of the firm effect, m o i , which is also
part of the production function shock, and therefore the input is not exogenous. The
bias caused by this dependence contributes to the lack of robustness. Specifically, it
contributes to the differences between intra and interfirm estimates (0.3). Also, when
biased coefficients are used to test the efficiency of resource use, an erroneous conclu-
sion of an inefficient use of resources (0.2) might be reached even when the firms use
resources efficiently, or conversely.
13 Shocks that affect all firms generate time effects that can be treated in the same way as the firm effect. The
extension to include time effects is straightforwardand need not be reviewed here (see [Mundlak (1963a)]).
Ch. 1: Production and Supply 11
Several approaches are offered to overcome the problem of input endogeneity (0.7).
When the sample consists of panel data, covariance analysis transforms the variables
to deviations from the firm mean, and thereby the firm effect is eliminated from Equa-
tion (7). Let the sample average over the time observations be xi ; then Equation (7) is
transformed to
and it is seen that the firm effect has disappeared. The estimator is referred to as a
"within" estimator (because it is based on within-firm variations).
An alternative approach is to use the price as an instrumental variable for estimating
Equation (5). This is basically the dual approach to estimation, to be discussed below.
This estimator is likely to be less efficient than the covariance estimator because it does
not use all the pertinent information [Mundlak (1996a)]. This can be seen intuitively
from Equation (7). The variability of the input in the sample is generated by four com-
ponents: P i t , u lit, m l i, a n d m o i . The last term causes the bias and should be eliminated,
whereas the other three terms provide the information for the estimation. Hence, the
most efficient procedure would be to use the first three components as instrumental
variables. However, this cannot be done directly because, of the three variables, only p
is observed. The within estimator uses the within-firm variations of p and u I as instru-
ments, whereas the dual estimator uses as an instrumental variable the total variations
of p but does not utilize the information in u I. The point is that any variability of input,
regardless of whether or not it is consistent with the first order condition for profit max-
imization, generates points on the production function and therefore helps to trace it, or
more technically, helps to identify the production function.
The use of price as an instrument is subject to some limitations. If the sample consists
of competitive firms, the between variability of the prices should be nil. If the sample
consists of market (rather than micro) data, then the prices are not necessarily exoge-
nous and therefore cannot be used as instrumental variables. In any case, it is possible to
combine the two estimators by using the within-input variable and the price as two in-
strumental variables. Other possible modifications are suggested in [Mundlak (1996a)].
However, all these have not been tried out. The empirical experience is limited to the
'within' and the dual estimators. Some of the results with respect to the 'within' es-
timator have been mentioned above, whereas the empirical experience with the dual
estimator will be discussed below.
The factor-share estimator imposes the first order conditions for profit maximization,
in which case the factor share is equal to the production elasticity,/3, up to a stochastic
term. Using Equation (6) it is easy to see that this estimator is inconsistent.
An important issue in the empirical investigation is whether the function displays
constant returns to scale (CRT). If it does, in the case of the single-input function,/3
is equal to 1, and there is nothing to estimate. Thus the problem is more pertinent to
the more realistic case with more than one input. To see this, assume now that there
are k inputs. In this case, the model consists of Equation (5) where x and/3 will be
Other documents randomly have
different content
Physical Education - Concept Map
Spring 2021 - Laboratory
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebookfinal.com