No abstract

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

We analyze the sensitivity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land-use change to modifications in assumptions concerning crop area, yield, and deforestation. For this purpose, we run a modified version of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Agricultural Outlook Model, which was used previously to assess the impacts of energy price increases and biofuel policy changes on land conversion. To calculate the GHG implications of agricultural activity, we use GreenAgSiM, a model developed to evaluate emissions from land conversion and agricultural production. Both models are applied to scenarios that lead to higher US ethanol production. The results are contrasted with the findings of Searchinger et al., and we explain the role of model assumptions to elucidate the differences. We find that the payback period of corn ethanol's carbon debt is sensitive to assumptions concerning land conversion and yield growth and can range from 31 to 180 years.

The U.S. crop insurance market has several features that set it apart from other insurance markets. These include:(a) explicit government subsidies with an average premium subsidy rate of about 60% in recent years; and (b) the legislative requirement that premium rates be set at actuarially fair levels, where the federal government sets rates and pays all costs related to insurance policy sales and services. Bearing these features in mind, we examine to what extent farmers' crop insurance choices conform to economic theory. A standard expected utility maximization framework is set up to analyze tradeoffs between higher risk protection and larger subsidy payments. Given an actuarially fair premium, a rational farmer should choose either the coverage level with the highest premium subsidy or a higher coverage level. Evidence from a large insurance unit level dataset contradicts this theoretical inference, and so suggests anomalous insurance decisions. Mixed logit estimation reveals that larger out-of-pocket premium reduces the probability that an insurance product is chosen.