IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v88y2006i2p512-514.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Slippage in the Conservation Reserve Program or Spurious Correlation? A Rejoinder

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Roberts
  • Shawn Bucholz

Abstract

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays farmers about $2 billion per year to retire cropland under ten- to fifteen-year contracts. Recent research by Wu (2000) found that slippage—an unintended stimulus of new plantings—offsets some of CRP's environmental benefits. In a comment on Wu, we argued CRP enrollments were endogenous and confounded by omitted variables. In his reply, Wu (2005) used results from a Hausman test to argue that CRP enrollments are exogenous. In this rejoinder, we explain why the candidate instrument (erodibility) is likely confounded by omitted variables, so Wu's use of the Hausman test is uninformative. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Roberts & Shawn Bucholz, 2006. "Slippage in the Conservation Reserve Program or Spurious Correlation? A Rejoinder," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 512-514.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:88:y:2006:i:2:p:512-514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00875.x
    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. Alexander Pfaff & Juan Robalino, 2017. "Spillovers from Conservation Programs," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 299-315, October.
    2. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    3. Jones, Carol Adaire & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Heisey, Paul W., 2012. "New Uses of Old Tools: An Assessment of Current and Potential Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Sector-based Policies," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124735, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Kim, Man-Keun & Peralta, Denis & McCarl, Bruce A., 2014. "Land-based greenhouse gas emission offset and leakage discounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 265-273.
    5. Stibniati Atmadja & Louis Verchot, 2012. "A review of the state of research, policies and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 311-336, March.
    6. Filewod, Ben & McCarney, Geoff, 2023. "Avoiding leakage from nature-based offsets by design," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117927, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & Wolff, Hendrik, 2014. "Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests," IZA Discussion Papers 8179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Andrew Manale & Cynthia Morgan & Glenn Sheriff & David Simpson, 2011. "Offset markets for nutrient and sediment discharges in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Policy tradeoffs and potential steps forward," NCEE Working Paper Series 201105, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2011.
    9. Baylis, Kathy & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2008. "Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 753-764, May.
    10. David A. Fleming, 2014. "Slippage effects of land-based policies: Evaluating the Conservation Reserve Program using satellite imagery," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93, pages 167-178, November.
    11. Lötjönen, Sanna & Ollikainen, Markku & Kotamäki, Niina & Huttunen, Markus & Huttunen, Inese, 2021. "Nutrient load compensation as a means of maintaining the good ecological status of surface waters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    12. Fleming, David A., 2010. "Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program: New Evidence from Satellite Imagery," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61394, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Filewod, Ben & McCarney, Geoff, 2023. "Avoiding leakage from nature-based offsets by design," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117928, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. B Kelsey Jack & Carolyn Kousky & Katharine R E Sims, 2007. "Lessons Relearned: Can Previous Research on Incentive-Based Mechanisms Point the Way for Payments for Ecosystem Services?," CID Working Papers 15, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    15. Georgina Belem Carrasco Galvan & Jacqueline M. Vadjunec & Todd D. Fagin, 2024. "Lessons from the Archives: Understanding Historical Agricultural Change in the Southern Great Plains," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-31, February.
    16. Jones, Carol & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Sperow, Mark, 2013. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation from the Conservation Reserve Program: The Contribution of Post-Contract Land Use Change," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150501, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Ekaterina Vorotnikova & Serhat Asci & James L. Seale, 2018. "Joint production, land allocation, and the effects of the production flexibility program," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 1121-1143, November.
    18. He, Fei & Lee, Dogil & Borisova, Tatiana & Graham, Wendy & Athearn, Kevin & Dukes, Michael & Merrick, Jason & Hochmuth, Robert, 2024. "Farm-scale economic and environmental tradeoffs of land use and land management decisions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).

    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:88:y:2006:i:2:p:512-514. 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.