IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v50y1968i1p130-142..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Considerations in Response Research

Author

Listed:
  • J. R. Anderson
  • John L. Dillon

Abstract

The general neglect of economic considerations in response research is noted. Following the listing of several factors which influence investment in response research, a framework is developed in which knowledge of a process is viewed in terms of the expected value and variance of profits. A Bayesian scheme for incorporating additional information in posterior analysis is outlined. Worth of additional information is judged in terms of utility. The scheme is used to show how the value of obtaining additional information can be ascertained ex ante in preposterior analysis by way of a Monte-Carlo approach. Both posterior and preposterior analyses are illustrated through a soybean-fertilizer process. In this empirical example, the effects of using different experimental designs of varying size are examined.

Suggested Citation

  • J. R. Anderson & John L. Dillon, 1968. "Economic Considerations in Response Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 50(1), pages 130-142.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:50:y:1968:i:1:p:130-142.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1237876
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mkondiwa, Maxwell Gibson, 2015. "Whither Broad or Spatially Specific Fertilizer Recommendations?," Master's Theses and Plan B Papers 237344, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Yassour, Joseph & Zilberman, David D & Rausser, Gordon C., 1980. "Option choices among alternative technologies with stochastic yield," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt8xq1b77m, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    3. Anderson, Jock R., 1968. "A Note On Some Difficulties In Response Analysis," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, June.
    4. Rafsnider, Giles T. & Skold, Melvin D. & Driscoll, Richard S., 1983. "Increases In Costs And Returns Due To Intensifying Range Forage Production Surveys: An Information Economic Analysis," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, July.
    5. Joseph Yassour & David Zilberman & Gordon C. Rausser, 1981. "Optimal Choices among Alternative Technologies with Stochastic Yield," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(4), pages 718-723.
    6. Rausser, Gordon C. & Just, Richard E. & Zilberman, David D., 1980. "Prospects and limitations of operations research applications in agriculture and agricultural policy," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt96c9m77v, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    7. Jha, A. K. & Pal, Suresh & Joshi, P. K., 2004. "Efficiency of Public-Funded Crop Sciences Research in India," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 17(Conferenc), October.
    8. Yassour, Joseph & Zilberman, David D. & Rausser, Gordon C., 1980. "Optimal choices among alternative technologies with stochastic yield," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0gt334fc, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    9. Anderson, Jock R., 1971. "Guidelines for Applied Agricultural Research: Designing, Reporting and Interpreting Experiments," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(03), pages 1-12, September.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:50:y:1968:i:1:p:130-142.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.