IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlage/v58y2012i11id212-2011-agricecon.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Microeconomic aspects of government subsidies in the agricultural market

Author

Listed:
  • Lucie SEVEROVÁ

    (Department of Economic Theories, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Jan CHROMÝ

    (Department of Marketing and Media Communication, Institute of Hospitality Management, Czech Republic)

  • Bohuslav SEKERKA

    (Department of Economic Theories, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Alexandr SOUKUP

    (Department of Economic Theories, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

It is known from the Czech practice that a very actual problem of economic policy is created by the subsidies on the prices of agricultural products. A price subsidy of agricultural product causes the price to be kept above its equilibrium level. We will use the microeconomic knowledge about the behaviour of average and marginal costs curves in the short-run and long-run. We assume two agricultural firms in a perfect competition market. The agricultural large-scale company reaches a normal profit, but the small family firm has higher costs, therefore it runs at a loss. Using the subsidy can ensure that the prices of agricultural products are set at a level, at which the farmers have appropriate incomes. However, a loss of efficiency can occur because of the subsidy as the surplus, which is purchased by the government, and actually stays unused.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucie SEVEROVÁ & Jan CHROMÝ & Bohuslav SEKERKA & Alexandr SOUKUP, 2012. "Microeconomic aspects of government subsidies in the agricultural market," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 58(11), pages 542-548.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:58:y:2012:i:11:id:212-2011-agricecon
    DOI: 10.17221/212/2011-AGRICECON
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/212/2011-AGRICECON.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/212/2011-AGRICECON.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/212/2011-AGRICECON?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
    ---><---

    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. Bohnstedt, Anna & Schwarz, Christian & Suedekum, Jens, 2012. "Globalization and strategic research investments," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 13-23.
    2. Feder, Gershon, 1980. "Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, July.
    3. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11783 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1983. "Stochastic Structure, Farm Size and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 307-328, July.
    5. David Coady, 2004. "Targeting Outcomes Redux," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 61-85.
    6. Alexandr SOUKUP & Karel ŠRÉDL, 2011. "Space Model in monopolistic competition - analysis of international trade," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 57(4), pages 169-174.
    7. Diego F. Angel‐Urdinola & Quentin Wodon, 2012. "Does increasing access to infrastructure services improve the targeting performance of water subsidies?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 88-101, January.
    8. Robert T. Jensen & Nolan H. Miller, 2011. "Do Consumer Price Subsidies Really Improve Nutrition?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1205-1223, November.
    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. Jan SIROKY & Jirina KRAJCOVA & Jana HAKALOVA, 2016. "The taxation of agricultural land with the use of multi-criteria analysis," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(5), pages 197-204.
    2. Karel ZEMAN & Jan HRON, 2018. "The agricultural sector has the most efficient management of state receivables in the Czech Republic," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 64(2), pages 61-73.

    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. Evan J. Miller-Tait & Sandeep Mohapatra & M. K. (Marty) Luckert & Brent M. Swallow, 2019. "Processing technologies for undervalued grains in rural India: on target to help the poor?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(1), pages 151-166, February.
    2. Bellon, Mauricio R & Taylor, J Edward, 1993. ""Folk" Soil Taxonomy and the Partial Adoption of New Seed Varieties," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(4), pages 763-786, July.
    3. Chibwana, Christopher & Fisher, Monica & Shively, Gerald, 2012. "Cropland Allocation Effects of Agricultural Input Subsidies in Malawi," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 124-133.
    4. Mensah, Edouard R. & Kostandini, Genti, 2020. "The inverse farm size-productivity relationship under land size mis-measurement and in the presence of weather and price risks: Panel data evidence from Uganda," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304477, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Murat Isik & Madhu Khanna, 2003. "Stochastic Technology, Risk Preferences, and Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 305-317.
    6. Paul Diederen & Hans Van Meijl & Arjan Wolters & Katarzyna Bijak, 2003. "Innovation adoption in agriculture : innovators, early adopters and laggards," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 67, pages 29-50.
    7. Prisca Koncy Fosso & Roger Tsafack Nanfosso, 2016. "Adoption of agricultural innovations in risky environment: the case of corn producers in the west of Cameroon," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 51-62, June.
    8. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    9. Marc Baudry & Edouard Civel & Camille Tévenart, 2023. "Land allocation and the adoption of innovative practices in agriculture: a real option modelling of the underlying hidden costs," EconomiX Working Papers 2023-1, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    10. Chen, Huang, 2017. "Agricultural Risk, Insurance, and the Land-productivity Inverse Relationship," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258212, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Freudenreich, H., 2018. "Explaining Mexican Farmers Adoption of Hybrid Maize Seed - The Role of Social Psychology, Risk and Ambiguity Aversion," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277410, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Hennessy, David A., 1997. "Stochastic technologies and the adoption decision," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 437-453, December.
    14. Engle Warnick James C. & Escobal Javier & Laszlo Sonia C., 2011. "Ambiguity Aversion and Portfolio Choice in Small-Scale Peruvian Farming," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-56, November.
    15. Rodgers, Aaron D. & Harri, Ardian & Morgan, Kimberly & Tack, Jesse & Hood, Ken & Coble, Keith, 2014. "Determining Willingness to Adopt Mechanical Harvesters among Southeastern Blueberry Producers," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162529, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Lionel Richefort & Jean-Louis Fusillier, 2010. "Imitation, rationalité et adoption de technologies d'irrigation améliorées à l'île de la Réunion," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(2), pages 59-73.
    17. Justin Yifu Lin, 1991. "Education and Innovation Adoption in Agriculture: Evidence from Hybrid Rice in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(3), pages 713-723.
    18. Michael Livingston & Michael J. Roberts & Yue Zhang, 2015. "Optimal Sequential Plantings of Corn and Soybeans Under Price Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(3), pages 855-878.
    19. Rodgers, Aaron & Morgan, Kimberly L. & Harri, Ardian, 2017. "Technology Adoption and Risk Preferences: The Case of Machine Harvesting by Southeastern Blueberry Producers," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 48(2), July.
    20. Doan Nainggolan & Faizal Rahmanto Moeis & Mette Termansen, 2023. "Does risk preference influence farm level adaptation strategies? – Survey evidence from Denmark," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 28(7), pages 1-23, October.

    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:caa:jnlage:v:58:y:2012:i:11:id:212-2011-agricecon. 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: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    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.