IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/agreko/348213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling the exiting of South African producers from commercial agricultural production – an agent-based model

Author

Listed:
  • Cloete, Kandas
  • Möhring, Anke
  • Zantsi, Siphe

Abstract

This paper explores the prospects of commercial producers who would be willing to exit voluntarily in the near future to make land available in the market. In addition, it also considers what factors are restricting the acceleration of this rate of exit from a land-supply perspective with respect to barriers to exit. The prospect of structural change from such acceleration is also explored using three scenarios. An agent-based mathematical model is used to implement the three scenarios. This model is constructed from a dataset of 450 commercial producers across South Africa. The results suggest that a reasonable amount of arable land could be available for redistribution, with only modest structural change regarding animal production, despite drastic alterations in veld. These results provide some guidelines on how assistance for struggling producers can make land available for efficient producers, which could make the sector stronger. All potential exiting commercial producers have common reasons for doing so, which could be used to initiate a positively inclined, structured discussion on land supply.

Suggested Citation

  • Cloete, Kandas & Möhring, Anke & Zantsi, Siphe, 2023. "Modelling the exiting of South African producers from commercial agricultural production – an agent-based model," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 62(3-4), December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:348213
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.348213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/348213/files/Modelling%20the%20exiting%20of%20South%20African%20producers%20from%20commercial%20agricultural%20production%20%20%20an%20agent-based%20model.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.348213?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Derek D. Headey, 2016. "The evolution of global farming land: facts and interpretations," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(S1), pages 185-196, November.
    2. Guerini, Mattia & Moneta, Alessio, 2017. "A method for agent-based models validation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 125-141.
    3. Xing Xia & Xian Xin & Ling Ma, 2017. "What are the Determinants of Large-scale Farming in China?," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 25(4), pages 93-108, July.
    4. S.L. Middelberg, 2014. "Agricultural land valuation methods used by financiers: The case of South Africa," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(3), pages 101-115, September.
    5. Kandas Cloete & Stefan Mann & Marion Delport, 2022. "Confident or captured? Commercial producers in South Africa," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 49(7), pages 976-992, March.
    6. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    7. Jean-Paul Chavas, 1994. "Production and Investment Decisions Under Sunk Cost and Temporal Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(1), pages 114-127.
    8. Tongwei Qiu & S. T. Boris Choy & Yifei Li & Biliang Luo & Jing Li, 2021. "Farmers' Exit from Land Operation in Rural China: Does the Price of Agricultural Mechanization Services Matter?," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 29(2), pages 99-122, March.
    9. Productivity Commission, 2005. "Trends in Australian Agriculture," Research Papers 0502, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    10. Vink, N., 1993. "Entrepreneurs And The Political Economy Of Reform In South African Agriculture," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 32(4), December.
    11. Chen, Hongyu & Weersink, Alfons & Beaulieu, Martin & Lee, Yu Na & Nagelschmitz, Katrin, 2019. "A Historical Review of Changes in Farm Size in Canada," Working Papers 283563, University of Guelph, Institute for the Advanced Study of Food and Agricultural Policy.
    12. Annalisa Ferrando & Alessandro Ruggieri, 2018. "Financial constraints and productivity: Evidence from euro area companies," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 257-282, July.
    13. McCarl, Bruce A., 1984. "Model Validation: An Overview with some Emphasis on Risk Models," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(03), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Katchova, Ani L. & Ahearn, Mary Clare, 2014. "Farmland Ownership and Leasing: Implications for Young and Beginning Farmers," Staff Papers 184725, University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    15. Herman Geyer, 2016. "Poverty Traps in South African Agriculture," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(4), pages 356-376, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cloete, Kandas & Greyling, Jan & Delport, Marion, 2022. "Strategic perspectives on quitting or remaining in commercial agriculture in South Africa and why it matters," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 61(01), January.
    2. Onegina, Viktoriya & Vitkovskyi, Yurii, 2020. "Інвестиції Та Земельна Реформа В Сільському Господарстві В Україні," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 6(4), December.
    3. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    4. Qiuyue Xia & Lu Li & Jie Dong & Bin Zhang, 2021. "Reduction Effect and Mechanism Analysis of Carbon Trading Policy on Carbon Emissions from Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    6. Usher, Dan, 2001. "Personal goods, efficiency and the law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 673-703, November.
    7. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    8. Mario Jametti & Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, 2005. "Assessing the Efficiency of an Insurance Provider—A Measurement Error Approach," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 15-34, June.
    9. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    10. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    11. Liu, Duan & Yu, Nizhou & Wan, Hong, 2022. "Does water rights trading affect corporate investment? The role of resource allocation and risk mitigation channels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    12. Valcu-Lisman, Adriana & Weninger, Quinn, 2012. "Markov-Perfect rent dissipation in rights-based fisheries," ISU General Staff Papers 201209260700001037, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    14. Kurtis Swope & Ryan Wielgus & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan, 2011. "Contracts, Behavior, and the Land-assembly Problem: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 151-180, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    15. Ralph E. Townsend, 2010. "Transactions costs as an obstacle to fisheries self-governance in New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 301-320, July.
    16. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    17. Whitten, Stuart M. & Salzman, James & Shelton, Dave & Procter, Wendy, 2003. "Markets for ecosystem services: Applying the concepts," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58269, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Balint, T. & Lamperti, F. & Mandel, A. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2017. "Complexity and the Economics of Climate Change: A Survey and a Look Forward," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 252-265.
    19. Rambaud, Alexandre & Richard, Jacques, 2015. "The “Triple Depreciation Line” instead of the “Triple Bottom Line”: Towards a genuine integrated reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 92-116.
    20. Qi‐an Chen & Shuxiang Tang & Yuan Xu, 2022. "Do government subsidies and financing constraints play a dominant role in the effect of state ownership on corporate innovation? Evidence from China," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(8), pages 3698-3714, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Production Economics;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:348213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeasaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.