Output and input bias effects of U.S. direct payments

Abstract

This study examines the national effect of U.S. direct payments on the extent and direction of biased technical change on U.S. agriculture. We also assess the economic significance of the estimated bias effects for economic policy modeling endeavors involving a reduction of domestic support payments. A two outputs (livestock and crops) and four inputs (labor, capital, land, and material) translog cost function was estimated from national time series data. Results indicate that payments do not induce output-biased technical change. We do find evidence of Hicksian bias that is land using and material input saving attributable to support payments. Global computable general equilibrium simulations suggest that price and output effects of discontinuing direct payments are 1/4 to 1/3 the size once the bias effects are incorporated.JEL classifications: F13, F14, F17, Q17, Q18

Estimating the Impact of Decoupled Payments on Farm Production in Northern Ireland: An Instrumental Variable Fixed Effect Approach

“…The main aim of this paper is to examine the impact of decoupled payments on farm production. Based on the premise that decoupled payments affect farm production both directly (by influencing the farm behaviour as well as payments received) and indirectly (by affecting output and input prices) [4,14,54], we specify the following model:…”

Impact of farm subsidies on global agricultural productivity

“…Empirical evidence on the link between productivity growth and subsidies is heterogenous. Some studies find a negative impact or no significant impact (Haque et al, 2019;Latruffe & Desjeux, 2016;Mary, 2013;Rizov et al, 2013;Zhu & Milán Demeter, 2012;Zhu & Oude Lansink, 2010), while several others find a positive and significant effect on productivity (Kazukauskas et al, 2014;Garrone et al, 2019). Rizov et al (2013) investigate the impact of subsidies under the CAP in EU countries (EU-15) and compare results for two periods: before the reform in 2003 and after the reform, when most subsidies were decoupled from production.…”

“…The current literature covers either large economies—such as the United States, Australia, and Norway—or economic blocs—such as the EU or the countries in transition in Europe. Also, prior studies analyzed either total or partial productivity measures, many relying on limited datasets available on farm subsidies, specific to countries or regions, and covering short time series (Cuerva, 2011; Haque et al., 2019; Mary, 2013; Rizov, 2005; Rizov et al., 2013; Zhu & Oude Lansink, 2010; Garrone et al., 2019). This study models the agricultural growth of 42 developed and developing countries (the EU is treated as one region) from 1991 to 2018.…”

General Equilibrium Modelling of the Insurance Industry: U.S. Crop Insurance

“…Our framework starts from the standard GTAP framework which has a detailed coverage of farm products and policy instruments. Haque et al (2018) is a recent application of this framework to the analysis of previous fixed direct payments of the U.S. farm bills. However, crop insurance programs purchased by farmers are treated as 'other productive inputs' in that static framework.…”

“…The modeling of market and welfare effects of fixed direct payments provided to farmers remains debated (Haque et al, 2018). In the standard GTAP approach, these fixed direct payments are split arbitrarily into farm activities and primary factor returns.…”