IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v44y2017i3p399-424..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the risk attitude measured with the Holt and Laury task reflected in farmers’ production risk?

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabeth Vollmer
  • Daniel Hermann
  • Oliver Mußhoff

Abstract

This paper investigates the explanatory power of the risk attitude measured with the Holt and Laury (HL) task for farmers’ production decision behaviour. In order to achieve this, a Just and Pope production function is estimated using panel data of German farmers. The results show that the farmers’ risk attitude elicited using the HL task is correlated with their respective production risk. With higher risk aversion, less production risk is tolerated. Consequently, a neutrally framed HL task is proven to be an appropriate reflection of the risk farmers take in real production decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabeth Vollmer & Daniel Hermann & Oliver Mußhoff, 2017. "Is the risk attitude measured with the Holt and Laury task reflected in farmers’ production risk?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(3), pages 399-424.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:44:y:2017:i:3:p:399-424.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbx004
    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. Henning Schaak & Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa-Goded & Julia Höhler & Car, 2024. "Who Can Predict Farmers' Choices in Risky Gambles?," Post-Print hal-04677299, HAL.
    2. Bruns, Selina & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "Investigating inconsistencies in complex lotteries: The role of cognitive skills of low-numeracy subjects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Buchholz, Matthias & Danne, Michael & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "An experimental analysis of German farmers’ decisions to buy or rent farmland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Giampietri, Elisa & Yu, Xiaohua & Trestini, Samuele, 2020. "The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(1), April.
    5. Fabian Thomas & Estelle Midler & Marianne Lefebvre & Stefanie Engel, 2019. "Greening the common agricultural policy: a behavioural perspective and lab-in-the-field experiment in Germany," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 367-392.
    6. Kristin Limbach & Anne Rozan & Philipe Coent & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2023. "Can collective conditionality improve agri-environmental contracts? From lab to field experiments," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 311-340, December.
    7. Patil, V. & Veettil, P.C., 2018. "Experimental Evidence of Risk Attitude of Farmers from Risk-Preference Elicitation in India," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277331, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Chai, Yuan & J. Pannell, David & G. Pardey, Philip, 2023. "Nudging farmers to reduce water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2022. "Risk preferences, intra-household dynamics and spatial effects on chemical inputs use: Case of small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    10. Lefebvre, Marianne & Midler, Estelle & Bontems, Philippe, 2020. "Adoption of environmentally-friendly agricultural practices with background risk: experimental evidence," TSE Working Papers 20-1079, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    11. Huiyue Diao & Majid Ghorbani, 2018. "Production risk caused by human factors: a multiple case study of thermal power plants," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    12. Meraner, Manuela & Musshoff, Oliver & Finger, Robert, 2018. "Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 22-33.
    13. Raman Kachurka & Michał Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "State lottery in the lab: an experiment in external validity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1242-1266, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    farmers’ risk attitude; Holt and Laury task; experimental economics; production risk; panel data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:erevae:v:44:y:2017:i:3:p:399-424.. 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.

    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/eaaeeea.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.