Search results

The purpose of this paper is to use simulation analysis to assess farmer choice between crop insurance and supplemental revenue options as proposed during development of the Agricultural Act of 2014.

The certainty equivalent of wealth is used to rank farm choices and assess the effects of supplemental revenue options on the crop insurance plan and coverage level chosen by the producer under a range of farm attributes. The risk-reducing effectiveness of the select programs is also examined through their impact on the farm revenue distribution. The dependence structure of yield and prices is modeled by applying copula techniques on historical data.

Farm program supplemental revenue programs generally have no effect on crop insurance choices. Crop insurance supplemental revenue programs typically reduce crop insurance coverage at high coverage levels. An individual plan of crop insurance combined with a supplemental revenue insurance plan may substitute for incumbent area crop insurance plans.

The analysis provides insights into farmers’ possible choices by focussing on alternative crops and farm attributes and extensive scenarios, using current data, crop insurance plans and programs contained in the 2014 Farm Bill and related bills. The results should be of value to policy officials and producers in regards to the design and use of risk management tools.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate changes proposed in 2012 to commodity programs for the new Farm Bill. Both the Senate and House Agriculture Committee versions of the new Farm Bill eliminate current commodity programs including direct payments, create new revenue‐based commodity program options designed to cover “shallow” revenue losses, and also introduce supplemental crop insurance coverage for shallow revenue losses.

This paper documents the payment functions for the new revenue programs proposed in both the Senate and House Ag Committee Farm Bills, and also estimates expected payments for each using a model based on historical county yield data, farmer‐level risk rates from RMA, and commodity price levels from the March 2012 CBO baseline projections.

The authors find significant variation in expected per acre payment across programs, crops, and regions. In general, the Senate's bill would be expected to be preferred over the House's bill for corn and soybean producers, particularly those in the Midwest. Also, the RLC program in the House's Bill typically would be projected to pay much less than the Senate's SCO or ARC programs for most producers in the Midwest.

This study develops an extensive nationwide model of county and farm yield and price risks for the five major US crops and employs the model to evaluate expected payment rates and the distribution of payments under the House and Senate Farm Bill proposals. These analyses are important for program evaluation and should be of great interest to producers and policymakers.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of the 2008 Farm Bill's average crop revenue election (ACRE) program on the risk‐reducing effectiveness of crop insurance products.

Three crop/region combinations are examined, representing regions with both high and low price‐yield correlation regions. Actual production history (APH) and crop revenue coverage (CRC) insurance instruments are considered separately under the 2002 Farm Bill and under ACRE. Monte Carlo simulations, combined with the copula approach, are used to simulate net wealth distributions and to calculate the corresponding expected utilities. The outcomes are evaluated using certainty‐equivalent wealth based on different risk premium assumptions.

Crop insurance contracts appear to be more effective under the 2002 Farm Bill than under ACRE, especially for crops characterized by low yield‐price correlation. CRC insurance is found to be more effective than APH insurance for all crop/region combinations considered.

The paper only considers a static framework and farm‐level insurance contracts. Further research could investigate how ACRE affects decoupled income support, whether the results change if Supplemental Revenue Assistance is included, or how different the outcomes might be for multiple‐crop farms.

The results suggest that risk‐reducing effectiveness decreases under ACRE and that no reasonable adjustment to APH base price can make APH competitive with CRC for any crop/regions considered.

The risk‐reducing effectiveness of the 2008 Farm Bill's ACRE program is analyzed, and as a methodological contribution the copula approach is used to model the multivariate distribution of yields and prices.

It is generally believed that the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act (SHTA) of 1930 was an electoral response on the part of the Republican Party to Midwestern farmers’ concerns in the 1928 general election which via the legislative process (pork-barreling and log-rolling) was transformed into a generalized upwards tariff revision. There are, however, problems with this view, not the least of which is the fact that the farmers themselves were well aware of the fact that higher tariffs would not improve their lot, and hence favored the price support/equalization measures found in the Haugen–McNary Farm Relief Bill. This paper presents an alternative explanation. Specifically, it is argued that the SHTA had its origins in manufacturing states where the demand for a comprehensive upward revision of tariffs was transformed via the electoral process – and not the legislative process – into an omnibus upward tariff revision that included agriculture. The omnibus nature of the bill, it is argued, was intended as both (i) an electoral strategy and (ii) a hedge against near-certain revolt in rural America over anticipated higher prices for manufactures. We show that while successful electorally (i.e., in the 1928 presidential election), the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Bill fell apart in the legislature in the summer of 1929 when 13 Insurgent Republicans broke with the party to vote with the Democrats to lower tariffs on manufactures.

For over 20 years, decoupled agricultural support programs have played a large role in farm policy. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of decoupled agricultural support payments on farm-level debt.

A two-stage least squares model is used to estimate the impact of decoupled payments, farm production characteristics, demographics, regional risk factors, as well as cross-sectional and temporal fixed effects on farm debt, along with weather-related instrumental variables.

Results indicate that a negative and statistically significant relationship exists between decoupled payments and farm debt. This study also provides evidence that research results not accounting for the endogenous relationship between acres operated and farm-level debt should be interpreted with caution.

The constantly changing sets of policy options provide a challenge in identifying the impact of a single policy, ceteris paribus. Therefore, one notable limitation is in extrapolating the results in this study to make implications on the elimination of the direct payments program, as part of the 2014 Farm Bill.

This implies that farmers likely use annual decoupled payments to reduce their debt, potentially influencing their exposure to financial risks, capacity to withstand financial instability, and access to credit. The methodology used may establish a foundation for continued research that seeks to empirically identify and measure the complex interrelationships among agricultural public policies and farm-level financial measures.

Decoupled payment programs may indirectly influence debt decisions, which can influence production decisions in the long run.

In order to accurately identify the impact of direct payment programs on farm debt levels, this study is the first of its kind to account for the endogenous relationship between production decisions and debt and use a large unbalanced panel of data available from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey.

This study identifies key strategies employed by Illinois grain farms to prevent the erosion of their equity positions due to significant downturns in commodity prices during the implementation of the 1996 farm bill. The econometric results emphasize the collective importance of revenue enhancement, cost reduction, and capital management strategies. Nonfarm‐related strategies aimed at minimizing equity withdrawals through regulated family living expenditures, as well as supplementing low farm incomes with receipts from nonfarm employment and investments, significantly affect cost value equity growth rates. Moreover, significant financial and asset management strategies include those that minimize the costs of borrowing and maintain high asset productivity levels through elimination of excess farm capacity.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the risk management benefits provided by the supplemental coverage option (SCO) insurance plan which was created in the 2014 Farm Bill. Specifically, the marginal expected utility benefits are compared with the potential additional subsidy cost introduced by the new program for a stylized example of a corn producer.

The paper uses a stylized simulation model examines the preferred insurance program choice for a typical Midwestern corn farmer. The expected utility of the farmer is calculated under their preferred insurance program choice both with and without the availability of the SCO program, and compared to the case where crop insurance is not available. Scenarios are examined for a range of farmer risk aversion levels, different levels of correlation between farm-level and county-level corn yields, and case with and without insurance premium subsidies.

The SCO program is found to enter into the preferred insurance program choice for risk averse farmers. As risk aversion increases, farmers are estimated to prefer higher coverage levels for individual products along with SCO coverage. While the availability of existing crop insurance programs are shown to substantially increase the expected utility of farmers, the marginal impact of adding SCO to the crop insurance program is relatively small. Furthermore, the additional expected benefits generated by SCO are shown to include both risk management and expected return components. With subsidies removed, the estimated marginal benefits provided by SCO are reduced significantly.

The findings of this paper can help inform the policy debate for future farm bills as agricultural support programs continue to evolve. The results in this paper can also be used to help explain farm-level decision making related to crop insurance program choices.

This paper contributes to the literature by documenting a new, federally supported risk management programs made available to farmers in the 2014 Farm Bill and evaluates the marginal benefits the SCO program offers US crop producers.

US decoupled direct payments, paid to farm operators based on historic yields and base acreage under the 2002 Farm Bill, may alter a farmer's access to credit or his ability to meet debt servicing obligations. More specifically, direct payments might improve the farmer's liquidity position or repayment capacity enabling the farmer to obtain more favorable credit terms. In turn, more favorable credit terms might allow a farm to remain in business or expand production, leading to current production distortions. Since direct payments are based on historic production, beginning farmers tend to receive lower levels of direct payments and hence these payments might impact beginning farmers differently than more experienced farmers. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of direct payments on liquidity and repayment capacity for experienced and beginning farmers.

Given the manner in which direct payments are calculated and administered, it is likely that direct payments affect beginning farmers and more experienced farmers differently; hence the authors analyze the impacts of direct payments on the current and term debt coverage ratios for these two groups separately. In the analysis, the authors control for farm financial characteristics, farm operator characteristics, and other factors. Data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 were used in the weighted regression analysis and jackknifed standard errors computed.

A positive significant relationship was found between the level of direct payments (in dollars) and the term debt coverage ratio for experienced farmers, suggesting that direct payments improve repayment capacity. However, this relationship is not significant for beginning farmers. Also, a negative significant relationship was found between the number of base acres and the current ratio for experienced farmers, while this relationship lacks significance for beginning farmers.

The paper provides evidence that decoupled direct payments impact a farmer's liquidity and repayment capacity. Furthermore, direct payments impact beginning and experienced farmers differently. This paper also contributes to the growing body of research investigating the mechanisms by which decoupled payments have the potential to distort current production.

Regional differences in crop insurance uptake have persisted over time. To partly explain this phenomenon, the purpose of this paper is to propose and evaluate a budget constraint (heuristic) effect within the standard expected utility theory (EUT) framework through simulation methods.

Within the EUT framework, a standard simulation model is used to gain insights into farm insurance decisions when a budget constraint is in effect. The budget constraint is modeled as it has been revealed through the data on farmers’ insurance expenditures. In the simulation analysis, certainty equivalent values are used to rank farm options subject to the revealed budget constraint.

A budget constraint effect within the EUT framework stands out in explaining the observed regional differences. The proposed explanation is consistent with the historical trends on the ratio of crop insurance expenditure to expected crop value, higher premium rates in regions with lower crop insurance uptake, and the limited turnout for the 2014 Farm Bill’s supplemental area-based crop insurance products. Farmers’ crop insurance choices are found to be mostly constrained-optimal.

This appears to be the first study taking the revealed preferences approach to farmers’ crop insurance choices in a simulation analysis. Some policy implications are drawn and future research avenues are suggested. The findings should be of considerable value to policymakers, academics, bankers, and producers in regard to the design and use of risk management tools.