IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v64y2016i3p439-454.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative Approaches to Compensation and Producer Rights

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Schmitz
  • Dwayne J. Haynes
  • Troy G. Schmitz

Abstract

type="main" xml:lang="fr"> Lorsque les politiques sont modifiés, il n'est pas rare pour les perdants à être indemnisés. La théorie économique et l'analyse quantitative sont utiles pour déterminer les gains d'efficacité / pertes liés à un changement de politique, mais sont peu d'aide pour décider ce que l' approche de la rémunération devrait être. Le montant de l'indemnité varie en fonction, en partie, le poids politique des partis étant affectée par un changement de rémunération de la politique est ce que les politiciens et la rémunération dans le secteur exigeant peuvent s'entendre. Nous formulons quatre approches de la rémunération des producteurs dans le cadre du Programme de transition tabac de l'Ontario où les producteurs ont subi des pertes en l'absence de compensation. Les approches vont de la fourniture de compensation du zéro à l'indemnisation sur la base de la valeur totale du quota de tabac. Le gouvernement canadien a choisi d'indemniser les producteurs pour la fin du programme de quotas de tabac basée sur une approche qui dépasse de loin les autres approches de rémunération possibles. Surtout, l'efficacité n'est pas affectée par l'approche de compensation.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Schmitz & Dwayne J. Haynes & Troy G. Schmitz, 2016. "Alternative Approaches to Compensation and Producer Rights," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(3), pages 439-454, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:64:y:2016:i:3:p:439-454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/cjag.12085
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Blake Brown & Randal R. Rucker & Walter N. Thurman, 2007. "The End of the Federal Tobacco Program: Economic Impacts of the Deregulation of U.S. Tobacco Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4), pages 635-655.
    2. Martha Hall Findlay, 2012. "Supply Management Problem, Politics - and Possibilities," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 5(19), June.
    3. Andrew Schmitz & Troy G. Schmitz & Frederick Rossi, 2006. "Agricultural Subsidies in Developed Countries: Impact on Global Welfare," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 416-425.
    4. Schmitz, Andrew & Haynes, Dwayne J. & Schmitz, Troy G., 2013. "Benefit-cost analysis: government compensation vs. consumer tax model," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 375-389, December.
    5. Schmitz, Andrew & Schmitz, Troy G., 2010. "Benefit-Cost Analysis: Distributional Considerations under Producer Quota Buyouts," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Troy G. Schmitz & Tim Highmoor & Andrew Schmitz, 2002. "Termination of the WGTA: An Examination of Factor Market Distortions, Input Subsidies anc Compensation," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(3), pages 333-347, November.
    7. Rucker, Randal R & Thurman, Walter N & Sumner, Daniel A, 1995. "Restricting the Market for Quota: An Analysis of Tobacco Production Rights with Corroboration from Congressional Testimony," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(1), pages 142-175, February.
    8. Schmitz Andrew & Schmitz Troy G., 2010. "Benefit-Cost Analysis: Distributional Considerations under Producer Quota Buyouts," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Andrew Schmitz & Troy G. Schmitz & Frederick Rossi, 2006. "Agricultural Subsidies in Developed Countries: Impact on Global Welfare ," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 416-425.
    10. Schmitz, Andrew & Schmitz, Troy G., 2010. "Benefit-Cost Analysis: Distributional Considerations under Producer Quota Buyouts," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(01), pages 1-15, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brennan A. McLachlan & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2022. "Reforming Canada's dairy supply management scheme and the consequences for international trade," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(1), pages 21-39, March.
    2. van Kooten, Gerrit Cornelis, 2017. "The Welfare Economics of Dismantling Dairy Quota in a Confederation of States," Working Papers 256743, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.

    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. Haynes, Dwayne J. & Schmitz, Andrew & Schmitz, Troy G., 2015. "Producer Compensation under Government Programs: What Should the Magnitude Be?," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196887, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Schmitz Andrew & Haynes Dwayne J. & Schmitz Troy G., 2013. "Benefit-cost analysis: government compensation vs. consumer tax model," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 375-389, December.
    3. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Brennan A. McLachlan & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2022. "Reforming Canada's dairy supply management scheme and the consequences for international trade," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(1), pages 21-39, March.
    5. Schmitz, Troy G. & Schmitz, Andrew, 2012. "The Complexities of the Interface between Agricultural Policy and Trade," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, February.
    6. G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2017. "The Welfare Economics of Dismantling Dairy Quota in a Confederation of States," Working Papers 2017-04, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    7. G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2020. "Reforming Canada's Dairy Sector: USMCA and the Issue of Compensation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 542-558, September.
    8. Fulgence Dominick Waryoba, 2018. "Import Base and Revenue Improvement Possibilities in Tanzania," Academic Journal of Economic Studies, Faculty of Finance, Banking and Accountancy Bucharest,"Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University Bucharest, vol. 4(1), pages 21-28, March.
    9. Sharma, SK & Das, A, 2018. "EU-Brazil proposal on farm support: strengthening agricultural reforms or undermining them?," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 31(1).
    10. Chen, You-hua & Chen, Mei-xia & Mishra, Ashok K., 2020. "Subsidies under uncertainty: Modeling of input- and output-oriented policies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 39-56.
    11. Wenting Wang & Longbao Wei, 2019. "Impacts of Agricultural Price Support Policies on Price Variability and Welfare: Evidence from China's Soybean Market," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 19-wp592, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    12. Dohlman, Erik & Foreman, Linda F. & Da Pra, Michelle, 2009. "The Post-Buyout Experience: Peanut and Tobacco Sectors Adapt to Policy Reform," Economic Information Bulletin 56628, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Jie Cheng & Laping Wu & Richard W. Dawson, 2008. "Blue Box Policy Reform in the Doha Round Negotiations: Effects and China's Position," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 16(5), pages 83-102, September.
    14. Wang, W. & Wei, L., 2018. "China s Agricultural Price Control Policy and its Price and Welfare Implications: The Case of Soybean," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277342, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Just, David R. & Kropp, Jaclyn D., 2009. "Production Incentives from Static Decoupling: Entry, Exit and Use Exclusion Restrictions," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49158, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Dohlman, Erik & Foreman, Linda F. & Da Pra, Michelle, 2010. "Post-Buyout Structural Change in the Peanut and Tobacco Sectors," 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56355, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. W. Mark Brown & Shon M. Ferguson & Crina Viju‐Miljusevic, 2020. "Farm Size, Technology Adoption and Agricultural Trade Reform: Evidence from Canada," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 676-697, September.
    18. Nancy H. Chau & Harry de Gorter, 2005. "Disentangling the Consequences of Direct Payment Schemes in Agriculture on Fixed Costs, Exit Decisions, and Output," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1174-1181.
    19. Pavel Ciaian & d’Artis Kancs & Johan Swinnen, 2010. "EU Land Markets and the Common Agricultural Policy," Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Economics and Econometrics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-31.
    20. Corbett A. Grainger & Christopher Costello, 2016. "Distributional Effects of the Transition to Property Rights for a Common-Pool Resource," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 1-26.

    More about this item

    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:bla:canjag:v:64:y:2016:i:3:p:439-454. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.