IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/afrpps/v76y2016i3p411-424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the marginal risk management benefits of the supplemental coverage option

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Paulson
  • Gary Schnitkey
  • Patrick Kelly

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the risk management benefits provided by the supplemental coverage option (SCO) insurance plan which was created in the 2014 Farm Bill. Specifically, the marginal expected utility benefits are compared with the potential additional subsidy cost introduced by the new program for a stylized example of a corn producer. Design/methodology/approach - The paper uses a stylized simulation model examines the preferred insurance program choice for a typical Midwestern corn farmer. The expected utility of the farmer is calculated under their preferred insurance program choice both with and without the availability of the SCO program, and compared to the case where crop insurance is not available. Scenarios are examined for a range of farmer risk aversion levels, different levels of correlation between farm-level and county-level corn yields, and case with and without insurance premium subsidies. Findings - The SCO program is found to enter into the preferred insurance program choice for risk averse farmers. As risk aversion increases, farmers are estimated to prefer higher coverage levels for individual products along with SCO coverage. While the availability of existing crop insurance programs are shown to substantially increase the expected utility of farmers, the marginal impact of adding SCO to the crop insurance program is relatively small. Furthermore, the additional expected benefits generated by SCO are shown to include both risk management and expected return components. With subsidies removed, the estimated marginal benefits provided by SCO are reduced significantly. Practical implications - The findings of this paper can help inform the policy debate for future farm bills as agricultural support programs continue to evolve. The results in this paper can also be used to help explain farm-level decision making related to crop insurance program choices. Originality/value - This paper contributes to the literature by documenting a new, federally supported risk management programs made available to farmers in the 2014 Farm Bill and evaluates the marginal benefits the SCO program offers US crop producers.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Paulson & Gary Schnitkey & Patrick Kelly, 2016. "Evaluating the marginal risk management benefits of the supplemental coverage option," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 76(3), pages 411-424, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:76:y:2016:i:3:p:411-424
    DOI: 10.1108/AFR-03-2016-0022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AFR-03-2016-0022/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AFR-03-2016-0022/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/AFR-03-2016-0022?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schnitkey, Gary & Sherrick, Bruce, 2014. "Coverage Levels on Crop Insurance and the SCO Alternative," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 4, April.
    2. Collins, Keith & Bulut, Harun, 2013. "How Will the Farm Bill’s Supplemental Revenue Programs Affect Crop Insurance?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-5.
    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. Lauriane Yehouenou & Barry J Barnett & Ardian Harri & Keith H Coble, 2018. "STAX Appeal?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 563-584, December.
    2. Fabio G., Santeramo & Ilaria, Russo & Emilia, Lamonaca, 2022. "Italian subsidised crop insurance: what the role of policy changes," MPRA Paper 115299, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Owusu, V., 2018. "Credit-Constraints and Preferences for Crop Insurance in Ghana: Implications of Attribute Non-Attendance in Discrete Choice Experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276967, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Sungkwol Park & Barry K. Goodwin & Xiaoyong Zheng & Roderick M. Rejesus, 2020. "Contract elements, growing conditions, and anomalous claims behaviour in U.S. crop insurance," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 157-183, January.
    3. Xuche Gong & David A. Hennessy & Hongli Feng, 2023. "Systemic risk, relative subsidy rates, and area yield insurance choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(3), pages 888-913, May.
    4. Bradley, Jason & Jones, Rodney & DeVuyst, Eric A. & Riley, John Michael & Doye, Damona, 2016. "2014 Farm Bill Commodity Program And The Crop Insurance Choice Interactions," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230143, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    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:eme:afrpps:v:76:y:2016:i:3:p:411-424. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.