IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlage/v68y2022i8id156-2022-agricecon.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The delayed surplus response for hops related to market dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas MacKinnon

    (Department of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia)

  • Martin Pavlovič

    (Department of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
    Slovenian Institute of Hop Research and Brewing, Žalec, Slovenia
    General Secretary, International Hop Growers' Convention, Celje, Slovenia)

Abstract

The cyclical nature of hop market pricing has been recorded since the 16th century, but the effect had never previously been documented or quantified. Using Bayesian inference in an analysis of data regarding the US hop industry collected and published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) it was possible to measure the change of inventory and acreage responsiveness to price during periods of free and markets regulated through the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR). The data demonstrated a delayed, reduced, or total lack of responsiveness in the change of direction of acreage and inventory in response to directional changes in season average price (SAP) during free market periods. This reaction was referred to as the delayed surplus response (DSR). The data also demonstrated the absence of the DSR during periods in which proprietary varieties reached greater than 50% of US acreage and production. Patented plant varieties offer a legal monopoly over that intellectual property (IP). The absence of the DSR during periods in which a majority of US acreage and production were proprietary indicated a strong degree of control over supply. By extension, the owners of proprietary varieties demonstrated the ability to influence price at desired levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas MacKinnon & Martin Pavlovič, 2022. "The delayed surplus response for hops related to market dynamics," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(8), pages 293-298.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:68:y:2022:i:8:id:156-2022-agricecon
    DOI: 10.17221/156/2022-AGRICECON
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/156/2022-AGRICECON.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/156/2022-AGRICECON.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/156/2022-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. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    2. Folwell, R.J & Mittelhammer, R.C. & Hoff, F.L. & Hennessy, P.K., 1985. "The Federal Hop Marketing Order and Volume-Control Behavior," Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 37(4), pages 1-16.
    3. Daniel Yekutieli, 2012. "Adjusted Bayesian inference for selected parameters," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 74(3), pages 515-541, June.
    4. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2015. "Simple versus complex forecasting: The evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1678-1685.
    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. Douglas MacKinnon & Martin Pavlovič, 2020. "A Bayesian analysis of hop price fluctuations," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(12), pages 519-526.
    2. Adnan Haider Bukhari & Safdar Ullah Khan, 2008. "A Small Open Economy DSGE Model for Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 47(4), pages 963-1008.
    3. Croce, M.M. & Nguyen, Thien T. & Raymond, S. & Schmid, L., 2019. "Government debt and the returns to innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(3), pages 205-225.
    4. Paolo Epifani & Gino Gancia, 2008. "The Skill Bias of World Trade," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(530), pages 927-960, July.
    5. Cukierman, Alex & Lippi, Francesco, 2001. "Labour Markets and Monetary Union: A Strategic Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 541-565, July.
    6. Lutz Arnold & Christian Bauer, 2009. "On the growth and welfare effects of monopolistic distortions," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 19-40, May.
    7. Liliana Meza-González & Jaime Marie Sepulveda, 2019. "The impact of competition with China in the US market on innovation in Mexican manufacturing firms," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 28(1), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Alexandre Janiak & Paulo Santos Monteiro, 2011. "Inflation and Welfare in Long‐Run Equilibrium with Firm Dynamics," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(5), pages 795-834, August.
    9. de Groot, Henri L. F. & Nahuis, Richard, 1998. "Taste for diversity and the optimality of economic growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 291-295, March.
    10. Colin Davis, 2013. "Regional integration and innovation offshoring with occupational choice and endogenous growth," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 59-79, January.
    11. Masashige Hamano & Pierre M. Picard, 2017. "Extensive and intensive margins and exchange rate regimes," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(3), pages 804-837, August.
    12. Corsetti, Giancarlo & Martin, Philippe & Pesenti, Paolo, 2007. "Productivity, terms of trade and the `home market effect'," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 99-127, September.
    13. Taran Fæhn & Elisabeth Thuestad Isaksen, 2014. "Diffusion of climate technologies in the presence of commitment problems," Discussion Papers 768, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    14. Llanes Gastón & Trento Stefano, 2011. "Anticommons and Optimal Patent Policy in a Model of Sequential Innovation," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, August.
    15. Knut Blind & Andre Jungmittag, 2008. "The impact of patents and standards on macroeconomic growth: a panel approach covering four countries and 12 sectors," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 51-60, February.
    16. Church, Jeffrey & Gandal, Neil, 1993. "Complementary network externalities and technological adoption," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 239-260, June.
    17. Frédéric Reynès, 2011. "The cobb-douglas function as an approximation of other functions," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01069515, HAL.
    18. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, 2011. "How Bad Is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1374-1390, November.
    19. Brad E. Strum, 2010. "Inflation persistence, backward-looking firms, and monetary policy in an input-output economy," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2010-55, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    20. Robert Dekle & Jonathan Eaton, 1994. "Agglomeration and the Price of Land: Evidence from the Prefectures," NBER Working Papers 4781, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:68:y:2022:i:8:id:156-2022-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.