IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i3p598-d1086011.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Proprietary Varieties’ Influence on Economics and Competitiveness in Land Use within the Hop Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas MacKinnon

    (Department of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, 3211 Hoče, Slovenia)

  • Martin Pavlovič

    (Department of Agriculture Economics and Rural Development, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, 3211 Hoče, Slovenia
    Slovenian Institute of Hop Research and Brewing, 3310 Žalec, Slovenia)

Abstract

To evaluate changes to hop industry concentration and competitiveness the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used. The ownership of hop proprietary varieties, their acreage and production were compared with public varieties. Market share for each proprietary hop variety acreage and production was calculated between 2000 and 2020. The quantity of land under centralized control in the U.S. hop industry due to increased proprietary variety acreage between 2000 and 2020 was quantified. Assuming tacit collusion between the participants in the oligopoly, the HHI enabled us to quantify the portion of land under oligopoly control. The HHI analysis of hop acreage and hop production demonstrated that market concentration rose rapidly between the years 2010 (0.0376 and 0.0729) and 2020 (0.4927 and 0.5394). This resulted in decreasing business competitiveness within the market during this period caused primarily by rapid consolidation of ownership during increased proprietary variety acreage and production increases. Calculations revealed that in 2016 a tipping point had been reached concerning market concentration, which resulted in higher sustained season average prices of hops—a key raw material in brewing.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas MacKinnon & Martin Pavlovič, 2023. "Proprietary Varieties’ Influence on Economics and Competitiveness in Land Use within the Hop Industry," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:3:p:598-:d:1086011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/3/598/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/3/598/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul MacAVOY, 1998. "Testing for Competitiveness of Markets for Long Distance Telephone Services: Competition Finally?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 13(3), pages 295-319, June.
    2. Craig Depken, 1999. "Free-Agency and the Competitiveness of Major League Baseball," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(3), pages 205-217, May.
    3. Wright, Brian D & Williams, Jeffrey C, 1982. "The Economic Role of Commodity Storage," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(367), pages 596-614, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Li Gan & Manuel A. Hernandez, 2013. "Making Friends with Your Neighbors? Agglomeration and Tacit Collusion in The Lodging Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1002-1017, July.
    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. Lim, G.C. & McNelis, Paul D., 2008. "Computational Macroeconomics for the Open Economy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262123061, April.
    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:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:3:p:598-:d:1086011. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.