Home  About us  Contact
 

Agricultural Markets (agricultural + market)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting100%
Distribution within Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting
Agricultural Economics & Resource Management42%

Selected Abstracts

An economic analysis of California raisin export promotion

AGRIBUSINESS : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, Issue 2 2003
Harry M. Kaiser
The effectiveness of the California raisin industry's export promotion programs in Japan and in the United Kingdom is addressed in this article. An econometric import demand equation was estimated for each of the two foreign markets. The results indicate that the export promotion programs have increased the demand for California raisins in both Japan and the United Kingdom. The benefit-cost ratios for the Japanese and the United Kingdom markets were computed to be 5:1 and 15:1, respectively; indicating that the benefit of export promotion in terms of expanding export revenue was greater than the cost of the programs. Optimality analysis suggest that, while the current export promotion spending level in Japan is about optimal, the industry should explore the option of investing more money in its export promotion activities in the United Kingdom. [EconLit citations: Q130: Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness; Q170: Agriculture in International Trade; Q180: Agricultural Policy; Food Policy.] © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Agribusiness 19: 189,201, 2003. [source]

Risk Management in Agricultural Markets: A Review

THE JOURNAL OF FUTURES MARKETS, Issue 10 2001
William G. Tomek
This article surveys and evaluates the current state of knowledge about producers' marketing strategies to manage price and revenue risk for farm commodities. The review highlights gaps between concepts and their implementation. Many well-developed models of price behavior exist, but appropriate characterization and estimation of the probability distributions of commodity prices remain elusive. Hence, the preferred measure of price risk is ambiguous. Numerous models of optimal marketing portfolios for farmers have been specified, but their behavior appears to be inconsistent with most, if not all, of these models. In addition, some research suggests that farmers can earn speculative profits, which is inconsistent with notions of efficient markets. The conclusions discuss what academic research can and cannot accomplish in relation to assisting producers with risk-management decisions. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 21:953,985, 2001 [source]

Market facilities and agricultural marketing: evidence from Tamil Nadu, India

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Issue 3 2008
Forhad Shilpi
Market facility; Agricultural markets; Commercialization; Transaction costs Abstract This article analyzes the effect of facilities and infrastructure available at the marketplace on a farmer's decision to sell at the market. The econometric estimation shows that the likelihood of sales at the market increases significantly with an improvement in market facilities and a decrease in travel time from the village to the market. The results suggest that wealth reduces a farmer's cost of accessing market facilities more than it increases her/his opportunity cost of leisure. The policy simulation indicates that the marginal benefits from an improvement in market facility will favor the poorer farmers in the context of India. [source]

Seasonality and Wage Responsiveness in a Developing Agrarian Economy

OXFORD BULLETIN OF ECONOMICS & STATISTICS, Issue 2 2004
Sunil Kanwar
Abstract This paper studies the wage responsiveness of labour supply and demand, simultaneously addressing the twin issues of the non-clearing of developing rural labour markets and seasonality. It employs a data set pertaining to south-central India, and limits itself to the agricultural market for daily-rated labour (by far the predominant form of wage contract in the sample villages). Estimating a theoretically robust and empirically justified disequilibrium model of the agricultural labour market, we find no evidence of backward-bending supply curves or ,vertical' demand curves, contrary to findings in the literature. Further, while the agricultural labour market appears to be in equilibrium during the kharif (or rainy) season, it manifests excess supply in the rabi (or post-rainy) season. [source]

The CAP for Turkey?

EUROCHOICES, Issue 2 2005
Budgetary Implications, Potential Market Effects
EU accession negotiations with Turkey are scheduled to start in October 2005. The period of accession negotiations will probably last for ten years or longer, but the effects of applying the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to Turkey are currently a controversial discussion in the EU. Effects of Turkish accession on EU agricultural markets are likely to be small. The EU would gain additional export opportunities for cereals and animal products. On the other hand, Turkish agricultural exports to the EU are projected to increase for only a few fruit and vegetable products. EU budgetary outlays for the application of the CAP to Turkey could total between £3.5 and £6.3 billion in 2015 , depending on whether direct payments are phased in or not , and £5.4 billion in 2025. Most of these outlays would be for direct payments to agricultural producers and that may not be in Turkey's best interest. This is because direct payments tend to be capitalized in land prices and may thus inhibit the necessary process of improving the Turkish agricultural structure. Transfers under the second pillar of the CAP may hold more interest for Turkey, because they can be targeted at improving productivity and thereby income. Projected outlays for the CAP take a backseat to projected transfers to Turkey under the structural policy of the EU. Les négociations sur l'adhésion de la Turquie à l'UE doivent commencer en octobre 2005. Les préliminaires vont sans doute durer au moins une dizaine d'années, mais les effets de l'application de la Politique Agricole Commune (PAC) à la Turquie font déjà l'objet de controverses au sein de l'UE. Sur les marchés, on s'attend à des effets plutôt faibles. L'UE gagnerait certaines possibilités d'exportation de céréales et de produits animaux. Par ailleurs, les exportations de la Turquie vers l'UE ne s'accroîtraient que pour quelques fruits et légumes. Les dépenses budgétaires totales qui résulteraient pour l'UE de l'application de la PAC à la Turquie se situeraient en 2015 entre 3,5 et 6,3 milliards d'Euros, selon que les paiements directs seront ou ne seront pas progressivement éliminés. Elles atteindraient 5,4 milliards en 2025. Il s'agirait pour l'essentiel de paiements directs aux producteurs agricoles, ce qui ne correspondrait pas forcément à l'intérêt bien compris de la Turquie. De fait, les paiements directs tendent àêtre capitalisés en valeurs foncières. Ils pourraient par conséquent inhiber le processus d'amélioration des structures, pourtant bien nécessaire. Les transferts liés au second pilier de la PAC pourraient être plus utiles, parce qu'ils peuvent être ciblés sur les accroissements de productivité et donc de revenus. C'est pourquoi il y a lieu d'envisager des transferts à la Turquie au titre des politiques d'amélioration de structures en arrière plan des budgets prévisionnels pour la PAC. Im Oktober 2005 sollen die EU-Beitrittsverhandlungen mit der Türkei beginnen. Diese Verhandlungen werden wahrscheinlich über einen Zeitraum von zehn Jahren oder länger geführt werden, die Auswirkungen der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP) auf die Türkei werden im Moment in der EU jedoch kontrovers diskutiert. Der EU-Beitritt der Türkei wird sich wahrscheinlich nur geringfügig auf die EU-Agrarmärkte auswirken. Die EU erhielte zusätzliche Exportmöglichkeiten für Getreide und tierische Erzeugnisse. Die Agrarexporte der Türkei in die EU hingegen würden vermutlich nur bei einigen wenigen Obstund Gemüseprodukten zunehmen. Durch die Anwendung der GAP auf die Türkei würde der EU-Haushalt im Jahr 2015 mit 3,5 bis 6,3 Milliarden Euro (je nachdem, ob die Direktzahlungen schrittweise eingeführt werden oder nicht) und im Jahr 2025 mit 5,4 Milliarden Euro belastet. Der grö,te Teil dieser Kosten entstünde aufgrund von Direktzahlungen an landwirtschaftliche Erzeuger. Dies dürfte für die Türkei nicht die bestmögliche Alternative darstellen, da Direktzahlungen zumeist in den Bodenpreisen kapitalisiert werden, wodurch der notwendige Prozess zur Verbesserung der türkischen Agrarstruktur ins Stocken geraten könnte. Transferleistungen im Rahmen der zweiten Säule der GAP dürften für die Türkei interessanter sein, da sie auf eine Produktivitätssteigerung ausgerichtet werden könnten, um so die Einkommenssituation zu verbessern. Die zu erwartenden Ausgaben für die GAP im Rahmen der Strukturpolitik der EU spielen im Vergleich zu den zu erwartenden Transferleistungen an die Türkei eine untergeordnete Rolle. [source]

Tariff Peaks for Agricultural and Food Products: their Incidence and Alternatives for their Removal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Issue 1 2002
Javier Fernández
The aim of the paper is the analysis of the current market access situation in global agricultural markets for the post-Uruguay Round period. It identifies those commodity groups in the food and agricultural sector for which tariff peaks exist, and examines how various tariff-cutting formulae would affect their levels. The related issues of tariff complexity and of the administration of Tariff Rate Quotas are also reviewed here. Results show that the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreement has not significantly reduced agricultural protection, since high tariff peaks and nontransparent tariff structures still persist. A repetition of the Uruguay Round cuts would not solve the problem of high protection levels either, and only the introduction of more aggressive harmonising formulae could lead to a true liberalisation of world agricultural and food markets. [source]

Analyzing Factors Affecting U.S. Food Price Inflation

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Issue 3 2010
Jungho Baek
Since the summer of 2007, U.S. food price inflation has increased dramatically. Given public anxiety over fast-rising food prices, this study attempts to analyze the effects of market factors,prices of energy and agricultural commodities and exchange rate,on U.S. food prices using a cointegration analysis. Results show that the agricultural commodity price and exchange rate play the key roles in determining the short- and long-run movement of U.S. food prices. It is also found that in recent years, energy price has been a significant factor affecting U.S. food prices in the long run, but has little effect in the short run. This implies the strong linkage between energy and agricultural markets in the long run over the recent years. Depuis l'été 2007, l'inflation des prix des aliments aux États-Unis a augmenté considérablement. En raison de l'anxiété que la hausse rapide des prix des aliments suscite au sein de la population, nous avons tenté d'évaluer, à l'aide d'une analyse de co-intégration, les répercussions de certains facteurs de marché, le prix de l'énergie, le prix des produits agricoles primaires et le taux change , sur les prix des aliments aux États-Unis. Les résultats ont montré que les prix des produits agricoles primaires et le taux de change jouent un rôle important dans la détermination des tendances à court et à long terme des prix des aliments aux États-Unis. Nous avons également constaté que, au cours des dernières années, le prix de l'énergie a eu une forte influence sur les prix des aliments aux États-Unis à long terme, mais peu d'influence à court terme. Cette observation montre l'étroit lien à long terme des marchés de l'énergie et des produits agricoles au cours des dernières années. [source]