Department of Agricultural Economics, 2020
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Economic Contribution of Agriculture and Forestry Production and Processing in Mississippi: an Input-Output Analysis
The Economic Contribution of Agriculture and Forestry Production and Processing in Mississippi: An Input-Output Analysis Agriculture and forestry are major components of Data for the direct effects and estimation of the indirect Mississippi’s economy. In 2014 alone, agriculture and and induced effects came from a well-known input-output forestry production and processing sectors directly modeling system called Impact for Planning and Analysis, accounted for 113,934 jobs paying $3.04 billion in wages or IMPLAN, software that is updated annually by the and salaries (Table 1). In addition, agriculture and forestry IMPLAN Group LLC (2015). IMPLAN is a computerized related sectors also directly accounted for $26.4 billion in database and modeling system for constructing regional sales with a value-added generation of $8.4 billion. Clearly, economic accounts and regional input-output tables. The agriculture and forestry provide a major contribution to IMPLAN 536 sector input-output model is based primarily the Mississippi economy. on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Yet, this contribution has a much larger effect on Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. the Mississippi economy. A larger total contribution Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Geological Survey. results when also accounting for the stimulative effect This study used an input-output model constructed with of spending by the employees of the agriculture and the most recent 2014 IMPLAN data. forestry industries. This report provides an estimate of the The total economic contribution of agriculture and economic contribution of agriculture and forestry sectors forestry (i.e. -
Economics of Competition in the U.S. Livestock Industry Clement E. Ward
Economics of Competition in the U.S. Livestock Industry Clement E. Ward, Professor Emeritus Department of Agricultural Economics Oklahoma State University January 2010 Paper Background and Objectives Questions of market structure changes, their causes, and impacts for pricing and competition have been focus areas for the author over his entire 35-year career (1974-2009). Pricing and competition are highly emotional issues to many and focusing on factual, objective economic analyses is critical. This paper is the author’s contribution to that effort. The objectives of this paper are to: (1) put meatpacking competition issues in historical perspective, (2) highlight market structure changes in meatpacking, (3) note some key lawsuits and court rulings that contribute to the historical perspective and regulatory environment, and (4) summarize the body of research related to concentration and competition issues. These were the same objectives I stated in a presentation made at a conference in December 2009, The Economics of Structural Change and Competition in the Food System, sponsored by the Farm Foundation and other professional agricultural economics organizations. The basis for my conference presentation and this paper is an article I published, “A Review of Causes for and Consequences of Economic Concentration in the U.S. Meatpacking Industry,” in an online journal, Current Agriculture, Food & Resource Issues in 2002, http://caes.usask.ca/cafri/search/archive/2002-ward3-1.pdf. This paper is an updated, modified version of the review article though the author cannot claim it is an exhaustive, comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Issue Background Nearly 20 years ago, the author ran across a statement which provides a perspective for the issues of concentration, consolidation, pricing, and competition in meatpacking. -
The Distributional Impacts of Agricultural Programs*
II Division of Agricultural Sciences UNIVERSITY OF j CA~IFORNIA !". ~- .. - Working Paper No. 194 THE DISTRIBUTIONAL IHPACTS OF AGRICULTIJRAL PROGRAMS by Gordon C. Rausser and David Zilberman QIANNINI ,.OUNDAT10NO,. ACJltJCULTURAL ECONOMICS LIBRARY MAR 1 U1982 Financial support under Project No. 58-3J23-1-0037X is gratefully apprecia t ed . California Agricultural Experiment Station Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics March, 1982 ---.,All : " Giannini FDN Library , I1\\1 ~ \\111 \\1 II lllll 11\l1 IllIl III IIII 0052 19 THE DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS* 1. Introduction Scholars of all persuasions agree that economic policies emanating from our political system aim at slicing the pie in a particular fashion and/or increasing its size. As a result~ economists interested in policy analysis must not limit their analysis to efficiency issues but must also investigate equity implications. In the latter regard~ . it is our view that much remains to be accomplished by our profession on both conceptual and empirical fronts. Our efforts in developing methodologies and rmodels capable of analyzing distributional issues should intensify. The purpose of this paper is to present several new ap- pro aches for analyzing distributional impacts of agricultural policies. To gain some perspective on the potential value of these approaches~ we have to realize their role within the process of modeling for policy analysis. Figure 1 (Rausser and Hochman, 1979~ p. 22) depicts a graphical presentation of this process. The process outlined in this figure is useful for prescriptive or normative analysis--aiding policymakers in evaluating alternatives and selecting more nearly optimal poli- cies. It can also be used to structure positive analysis in order to improve our understanding of political economics of • 2. -
Nathalie Lavoie
NATHALIE LAVOIE Department of Resource Economics University of Massachusetts Amherst 80 Campus Center Way Amherst, MA 01003 Phone: (413) 545-5713 Fax: (413) 545-5853 [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D., Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, CA. Fall 2001. Dissertation: Price Discrimination in the Context of Vertical Differentiation: An Application to Canadian Wheat Exports. Advisor: Professor Richard Sexton. M.Sc., Agricultural Economics, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Fall 1996. Thesis: Viability of a Voluntary Price Pool Within a Cash Market. Advisors: Professors Murray Fulton and James Vercammen. B.Sc., Agricultural Economics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, Spring 1994. FIELDS OF INTEREST Industrial Organization, International Trade, Agricultural Markets, Agricultural Policy. EMPLOYMENT AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Associate Professor, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 09/08 – current. Visiting Scholar, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Laboratoire Montpelliérain d’Économie Théorique et Appliquée (LAMETA), Université de Montpellier 1, Montpellier, France, 01/12-06/12. Assistant Professor, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 09/01 – 08/08. Instructor, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 08/00 – 08/01. Visiting Scholar, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Midi-Pyrénée School of Economics, Université des Sciences Sociales of Toulouse, -
Introduction to Agricultural Economics
INTRODUCTION TO AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Definitions of Agricultural Economics by various Authors • Agricultural economics is an applied field of economics concerned with the application of economic theory in optimizing the production and distribution of food and fibre—a discipline known as agricultural economics. Definitions contd. •Prof. Gray defines agricultural economics, “as the science in which the principles and methods of economics are applied to the special conditions of agricultural industry.” •No doubt both these definitions are wider in scope, but these are not explanatory and are characterised by vagueness unsettled. Definitions contd. • Prof. Hubbard has defined agricultural economics as, “the study of relationship arising from the wealth-getting and wealth-using activity of man in agriculture.” • This definition is based on Prof. Ely’s definition of economics and is mere akin to Marshall’s conception of economic activities and therefore it is also limited in scope. Definitions contd. • According to Lionel Robbins, economics deals with the problems of allocative efficiency i.e. choice between various alternative uses-particularly when resources are scarce— to maximize some given ends. • Thus it provides analytical techniques for evaluating different allocations of resources among alternative uses Prof. Taylor defines agricultural economics in Robbinsian tone. Definitions contd. • To use his words, “Agricultural economics treats of the selection of land, labour, and equipment for a farm, the choice of crops to be grown, the selection of livestock enterprises to be carried on and the whole question of the proportions in which all these agencies should be combined. • These questions are treated primarily from the point of view of costs and prices.” Definitions contd. -
Implementing and Maintaining Neoliberal Agriculture in Australia
IMPLEMENTING AND MAINTAINING NEOLIBERAL AGRICULTURE IN AUSTRALIA. PART II STRATEGIES FOR SECURING NEOLIBERALISM Bill Pritchard School of Geosciences, University of Sydney Introduction The formal attachment to this [multilateral agricultural liberalisation] agenda has displayed a quality akin to religious fervour, unqualified by the details of experience (Jones 1994:1). uring the 1960s and 1970s there was a seismic shift in the intellectual environment of the D discipline of agricultural economics in Australia. The discipline as a whole became more centred on the influence of the Chicago School paradigm, which emphasised the social benefits of free markets. By the 1980s, these views had inculcated key policy arenas within the Australian Government. In combination with a reformist Labour Party administration which sought to challenge the policy authority of National Party influence in rural affairs, 1 these perspectives gained centrality as a guiding vision for public policy interests in agriculture. The first instalment of this two-part series of articles (Pritchard, 2005a) detailed how, by the end of the 1990s, this intellectual juggernaut had radically transformed the relationships between the state and market within Australia’s rural economy. In this article, attention is focused to the issue of how these policy prescriptions have been maintained and justified. Such a focus is extremely timely, coming approximately ten years after the formation of the WTO. The Australian Government’s advocacy of market liberalisation in agriculture is extremely influential within that body. In her history of Australia and the world trading system, for example, Capling (2001:2) argues “Australia has wielded far more influence in multilateral trade institutions than is warranted by its size and power in the global economy”. -
Market Power, Misconceptions, And
American Journal of Agricultural Economics Advance Access published November 24, 2012 MARKET POWER,MISCONCEPTIONS, AND MODERN AGRICULTURAL MARKETS RICHARD J. SEXTON Although microeconomics textbook writers many other textbook writers: “Thousands of Downloaded from continue to point to agricultural markets as farmers produce wheat, which thousands of examples of competitive markets, in real- buyers purchase to produce flour and other ity probably none are, especially in light of products. As a result, no single farmer and no dramatically increased concentration in food single buyer can significantly affect the price manufacturing (Rogers 2001) and grocery of wheat,” (p. 8). Yet, the U.S. Department of retailing (McCorriston 2002; Reardon et al. Justice (1999) sued to prevent the merger of http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/ 2003), emphasis on many dimensions of prod- Cargill and Continental Grain Company,alleg- uct quality and differentiation (Saitone and ing that, “Unless the acquisition is enjoined, Sexton 2010), and the rapid increase in vertical many American farmers likely will receive coordination through integration and contracts lower prices for their grain and oilseed crops, (MacDonald and Korb 2011; Goodhue 2011). including corn, soybeans, and wheat.”1 Sales For the basic precept of a competitive mar- from the production of the “thousands” of ket to hold, namely that all buyers and sellers farmers in Canada, the second-largest wheat are price-takers, three conditions must be met: exporting country, were until August 1, 2012, under the control of a single state trader, and at Libraries-Montana State University, Bozeman on March 20, 2013 • Buyers and sellers must be small relative wheat is a highly differentiated product based to the total size of the market, meaning upon protein content and other factors (Wil- there must be many of each; son 1989; Lavoie 2005). -
Document of of Anti-Сrisis Fund of Eurasec # 00011 Eurasian
Document of of Anti-Сrisis Fund of EurAsEC # 00011 Eurasian Development Bank Resources Manager of EurAsEC Anti-Crisis Fund APPRAISAL of Application of Republic of Armenia for Investment Loan to be provided by the EurAsEC Anti-Crisis Fund for the project "Construction of North-South Road Corridor (Phase 4)" in the amount of US$ 150 million June 2014 This document is intended for limited distribution and may be used by recipients exclusively in the line of duty. The contents of this document may be disclosed only if authorized by the Eurasian Development Bank. Republic of Armenia Fiscal year: 1 January – 31 December National Currency Exchange Rate as of 01/05/2014 Currency AMD 1 RUR 11.573 1 KZT 2.2713. 1 US$ 413.4998. 1 EUR 570.8783 Acronyms and Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank ACF, Fund Anti-Crisis Fund of the Eurasian Economic Community WB The World Bank Group GDP Gross Domestic Product GNI Gross National Income per capita EDB, Resources Manager Eurasian Development Bank EurAsEC Eurasian Economic Community IDB International Development Banks IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IFI International Financial Institutions EIA Environmental Impact Assessment RA Republic of Armenia CIS Commonwealth of Independent States FS, FR Feasibility Study, Feasibility Report The Appraisal has been prepared by the following officers of the Eurasian Development Bank: Vladimir Yasinsky, Member of the Board; Alexei Cherekaev, Director of Project Group for Investment Loans, ACF; Alisher Mirzoyev, Director of Project Group for Financial Credits, ACF; Stanislav Savin, Senior Project Development Specialist of Project Group for Investment Loans, ACF; Elena Chihareva, Manager of Dept of International Legal Support; Ardak Tashenov, Manager of Dept of Strategic Analysis and Monitoring. -
Benefits to Agricultural Workers Under the Unemployment Compensation Amendment of 1976
BENEFITS TO AGRICULTURAL WORKERS UNDER THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AMENDMENT OF 1976 By G. Joachim Elterich* n January 1978, under P.L. 94 The "Unemployment Compensation Under the employment compensa 566, Unemployment Insurance Amendments of 1976" are expected to tion program, eligible workers are p!:o I provide income protection for about two (UI) coverage was extended to agri fifths of all hired agricultural workers. The vided with partial income protection cultural workers in establishments program became effective in January 1978. should they become unemployed employing 10 or more workers for 20 Of these insured workers, three-tenths are expected to receive benefits, expected to with cause. Only those working for weeks or more, or with a quarterly average about 14 percent of average annual employers subject to the law are eli payroll of at least $20,000. Recent earnings if 1970 employment relationships gible to receive benefits. They must studies of the impact of the law on hold. Nearly one-fourth of unemployed farm workers who receive benefits will meet the following additional condi agricultural employers and trust funds likely exhaust their entitlements before tions. Unemployment for UI purposes found: finding new jobs. Large interstate varia is defined in monetary and nonmone tions are expected around these averages tary terms. To qualify monetarily, a Only about six percent of all as a result of differing State qualifying regulations, benefit schedules, and per worker must show "SUbstantial agricultural (five percent of sonal work histories. farm) employers will be attachment" to the covered labor affected by the law, and these Keywords: force, either for a sufficient number employers cover about half 0f Unemployment insurance of weeks or its equivalent in earnings. -
Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics
THE COLLEGE of AGRICULTURE Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics The Agricultural Economics and Economics Department at Montana State University offers a unique opportunity for students with diverse interests to learn skills in critical analysis, logical problem solving, data and policy analysis, written and oral communication, and business management. Our award-winning faculty has expertise in a wide variety of fields, conduct cutting- edge research, and take an active interest in their students by keeping class sizes small and implementing innovative teaching methods. Our programs have an excellent reputation with local, regional, national and international firms, as well as graduate schools in law, economics, and public policy. CURRICULUM OPTIONS B.S. Agricultural Business ities on the other, is growing rapidly. The MSU B. S. Economics Agricultural businesses are involved in agribusiness management curriculum has Offered as an interdisciplinary program from producing, transporting, processing and established an excellent reputation with em- the College of Agriculture and the College of distributing food and fiber products. Almost ployers and is specifically designed for man- Letters and Science, the Economics major 20 percent of the U.S. economy’s output agement training with emphasis on finance, offers training and applied knowledge in involves the food and fiber sector—90 accounting, and managerial economics in economic development, environmental policy percent of which occurs beyond the farm agriculture-related businesses and industries. and natural resource economics, industrial gate. Agribusiness is a dynamic industry with organization, international economics and a high degree of global and technological Farm and Ranch Management Option trade, labor economics, money and banking, sophistication. -
Freedom of the Press 2007
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 2007 needs updating FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 2007 A Global Survey of Media Independence EDITED BY KARIN DEUTSCH KARLEKAR AND ELEANOR MARCHANT FREEDOM HOUSE NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. LANHAM BOULDER NEW YORK TORONTO PLYMOUTH, UK ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Published in the United States of America by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706 www.rowmanlittlefield.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright © 2007 by Freedom House All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISSN 1551-9163 ISBN-13: 978-0-7425-5435-1 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-7425-5435-X (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-0-7425-5436-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-7425-5436-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Table of Contents Acknowledgments, vii The Survey Team, ix Survey Methodology, xix Press Freedom in 2006, 1 Karin Deutsch Karlekar Global and Regional Tables, 17 Muzzling the Media: The Return of Censorship in the Common- wealth of Independent States, 27 Christopher Walker Country Reports and Ratings, 45 Freedom House Board of Trustees, 334 About Freedom House, 335 Acknowledgments Freedom of the Press 2007 could not have been completed without the contributions of numerous Freedom House staff and consultants. -
Uzbek: War, Friendship of the Peoples, and the Creation of Soviet Uzbekistan, 1941-1945
Making Ivan-Uzbek: War, Friendship of the Peoples, and the Creation of Soviet Uzbekistan, 1941-1945 By Charles David Shaw A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Yuri Slezkine, Chair Professor Victoria Frede-Montemayor Professor Victoria E. Bonnell Summer 2015 Abstract Making Ivan-Uzbek: War, Friendship of the Peoples, and the Creation of Soviet Uzbekistan, 1941-1945 by Charles David Shaw Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Yuri Slezkine, Chair This dissertation addresses the impact of World War II on Uzbek society and contends that the war era should be seen as seen as equally transformative to the tumultuous 1920s and 1930s for Soviet Central Asia. It argues that via the processes of military service, labor mobilization, and the evacuation of Soviet elites and common citizens that Uzbeks joined the broader “Soviet people” or sovetskii narod and overcame the prejudices of being “formerly backward” in Marxist ideology. The dissertation argues that the army was a flexible institution that both catered to national cultural (including Islamic ritual) and linguistic difference but also offered avenues for assimilation to become Ivan-Uzbeks, part of a Russian-speaking, pan-Soviet community of victors. Yet as the war wound down the reemergence of tradition and violence against women made clear the limits of this integration. The dissertation contends that the war shaped the contours of Central Asian society that endured through 1991 and created the basis for thinking of the “Soviet people” as a nation in the 1950s and 1960s.