Crop minimum support price versus cost subsidy: Farmer and consumer welfare

Abstract

Besides using earmark budget to support farmer cost subsidies, governments in many developing countries use minimum support price (MSP) as an alternative subsidy scheme to (i) safeguard farmers' incomes against vagaries in crop price and (ii) ensure sufficient crop production. Among different MSP schemes, we focus on the creditbased MSP scheme under which a government will not take any possession of a crop; instead, it will credit farmers if the prevailing market price is below the prespecified MSP. In this paper, we consider a market consisting of infinitesimally small, rational, and strategic farmers (with heterogeneous production costs) who face market and yield uncertainties. Our equilibrium analysis reveals that (i) although both cost subsidy and MSP induce more production, cost subsidy leads to a higher crop production than MSP; (ii) MSP improves farmer's and consumer's surpluses; however, cost subsidy improves consumer's surplus but it can decrease farmer's surplus, which is unexpected; (iii) although both programs achieve the same optimal net value (i.e., sum of farmer's and consumer's surpluses minus shortage cost and expenditure), MSP always offers higher farmer's surplus than cost subsidy; and (iv) it is beneficial to invest only in cost subsidy, in both cost subsidy and MSP, and only in MSP, when the budget availability is low, moderate, and high, respectively, so that the net surplus (i.e., sum of farmer's and consumer's surpluses less the shortage cost) is also maximized along with the net value generated being maximized. K E Y W O R D Sagricultural supply chains, cost subsidies, emerging economies, government and public policy, hybrid policies, minimum support prices (MSPs)

Farmers' green technology adoption: Implications from government subsidies and information sharing

“…𝛽e can be expressed as the degree of improvement in product performance (Hsu et al, 2019;Mu et al, 2016), where 𝛽 is the market demand sensitivity coefficient under consumer green technology preference (i.e., consumer green preference), e represents the level of green technology (i.e., water saving effect), q indicates the production quantity of the farmer (we relax the relevant assumptions in our extensions, see Appendix A). Similar to Guda et al (2021), the improved agricultural infrastructure and mechanization of agriculture has largely reduced the uncertainty in crop yields in many developing countries (Chintapalli & Tang, 2022a;Guo et al, 2022).…”

Insight into China's Economically Motivated Adulteration Risk in Online Agricultural Product Sales

“…Therefore, if seller 𝑖 does not adulterate his products, he will expect to obtain their overall quality level of 𝛼 𝑖 . Here, we implicitly assume that the uncertainty factor is perfectly correlated for all sellers, i.e., the uncertainty factor is at the "market level" (Chintapalli and Tang, 2022). This assumption is commonly adopted in the agricultural economics and operations literature (e.g., Kazaz and Webster, 2011;Alizamir et al, 2019) to ensure tractability and is reasonable when the farmers are located in countries that have similar weather conditions and, hence, are exposed to the same sources of uncertainty.…”

Opportunities in farming research from an operations management perspective

“…In Chintapalli and Tang (2021a), the authors analyze the impact on both net benefit to farmers and net social value after accounting for the cost of implementing MSP. In Chintapalli and Tang (2021b), the authors analyze the impact of cost subsidy and MSP on net benefit to farmers and net surplus. Ye et al (2021) analyze the impact of a farmer subsidy program vis-à-vis a producer subsidy program in a setting wherein risk-averse farmers with limited land capacity and yield uncertainty produce biomass feedstock to supply to a bioenergy producer.…”

“…In Chintapalli and Tang (2021a), the authors analyze the impact on both net benefit to farmers and net social value after accounting for the cost of implementing MSP. In Chintapalli and Tang (2021b), the authors analyze the impact of cost subsidy and MSP on net benefit to farmers and net surplus. Ye et al.…”