IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v53y1971i1p26-32..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Allocative Efficiency, Traditional Agriculture, and Risk

Author

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

Abstract

A decision theory approach is presented for the assessment of allocative efficiency from cross-section production function estimates. Reappraisal of some of the evidence previously adduced gives only mixed support to the hypothesis of profit-maximizing behavior by farmers in traditional agricultures. It is suggested that scope remains for investigation of the alternative hypothesis of utility maximization which, unlike profit maximization, explicitly allows for subjective risk considerations and might therefore provide a more realistic basis for policies aimed at the modernization of traditional agricultures.

Suggested Citation

  • John L. Dillon & J. R. Anderson, 1971. "Allocative Efficiency, Traditional Agriculture, and Risk," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 53(1), pages 26-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:53:y:1971:i:1:p:26-32.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/3180294
    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.

    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:53:y:1971:i:1:p:26-32.. 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.