IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/gpprii/v45y2020i1d10.1057_s41288-019-00148-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing survey-based and programme-based yield data: implications for the U.S. Agricultural Risk Coverage-County programme

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaofei Li

    (Mississippi State University)

  • Zhiwei Shen

    (solarisBank Company)

  • Ardian Harri

    (Mississippi State University)

  • Keith H. Coble

    (Mississippi State University)

Abstract

One of the changes introduced by the U.S. 2018 Farm Bill in the Agricultural Risk Coverage-County (ARC-CO) programme is the requirement to use Risk Management Agency (RMA) programme-based data rather than National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) survey-based data. This study compares the NASS and RMA county yield data for the period 1991–2015 and finds no systematic differences between the two data sets. Additionally, using RMA or NASS yield data results in relatively small and statistically insignificant differences in the ARC-CO payments. The spatial disparities across neighbouring counties in ARC-CO payments are also similar, no matter whether NASS or RMA data are used.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaofei Li & Zhiwei Shen & Ardian Harri & Keith H. Coble, 2020. "Comparing survey-based and programme-based yield data: implications for the U.S. Agricultural Risk Coverage-County programme," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 184-202, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:gpprii:v:45:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41288-019-00148-4
    DOI: 10.1057/s41288-019-00148-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41288-019-00148-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41288-019-00148-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zulauf, Carl & Schnitkey, Gary & Paulson, Nick & Coppess, Jonathan, 2017. "Comparing NASS and RMA County Yields for Corn," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 7, November.
    2. Joseph W. Glauber & Patrick Westhoff, 2015. "The 2014 Farm Bill and the WTO," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1287-1297.
    3. Gerlt, Scott & Westhoff, Patrick, 2013. "Analysis of the Supplemental Coverage Option," 2013 AAEA: Crop Insurance and the Farm Bill Symposium 156704, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Mykel R Taylor & Glynn T Tonsor & Nicholas D Paulson & Brenna Ellison & Jonathan Coppess & Gary D Schnitkey, 2017. "Is it Good to Have Options? The 2014 Farm Bill Program Decisions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(4), pages 533-546.
    5. Campiche, Jody L., 2014. "Theme Overview: Deciphering Key Provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-2.
    6. Dismukes, Robert & Coble, Keith H. & Miller, Corey & O'Donoghue, Erik J., 2013. "The Effects of Area-based Revenue Protection on Producers’ Choices of Farm-level Revenue Insurance," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149545, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Harun Bulut & Keith J. Collins, 2014. "Designing farm supplemental revenue coverage options on top of crop insurance coverage," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 74(3), pages 397-426, August.
    8. Johansson, Robert & Effland, Anne & Coble, Keith, 2017. "Falling Response Rates to USDA Crop Surveys: Why It Matters," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 7, January.
    9. Campiche, Jody L. & Outlaw, Joe & Bryant, Henry L., 2014. "Agricultural Act of 2014: Commodity Programs," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-4.
    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. Luckstead, Jeff & Devadoss, Stephen, 2016. "Implication of 2014 Farm Policies for Wheat Production," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235362, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Luitel, Kishor P. & Hudson, Darren & Knight, Thomas O., 2015. "Understanding Cotton Producer’s Crop Insurance Choices Under the 2014 Farm Bill," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205438, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Xuche Gong & David A. Hennessy & Hongli Feng, 2023. "Systemic risk, relative subsidy rates, and area yield insurance choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(3), pages 888-913, May.
    4. Devadoss, Stephen & Luckstead, Jeff, 2018. "Production and Moral Hazard Effects of 2014 Cotton Farm Bill Policies," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266763, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Boris E. Bravo‐Ureta & Víctor H. Moreira & Javier L. Troncoso & Alan Wall, 2020. "Plot‐level technical efficiency accounting for farm‐level effects: Evidence from Chilean wine grape producers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 811-824, November.
    6. Ole Boysen & Kirsten Boysen‐Urban & Alan Matthews, 2023. "Stabilizing European Union farm incomes in the era of climate change," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1634-1658, September.
    7. Simone Severini & Cinzia Zinnanti & Valeria Borsellino & Emanuele Schimmenti, 2021. "EU income stabilization tool: potential impacts, financial sustainability and farmer’s risk aversion," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang & Alfaro-Inocente, Adriana & Bastola, Sapana, 2020. "Payment versus Charitable Donations to Attract Producer Survey Participation," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304329, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Stuart, D. & Denny, R.C.H. & Houser, M. & Reimer, A.P. & Marquart-Pyatt, S., 2018. "Farmer selection of sources of information for nitrogen management in the US Midwest: Implications for environmental programs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 289-297.
    10. Bulut, Harun, 2016. "U.S. Farmers’ Insurance Choices under Expected Utility Theory and Cumulative Prospect Theory," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236019, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Ben S. Meiselman & Collin Weigel & Paul J. Ferraro & Mark Masters & Kent D. Messer & Olesya M. Savchenko & Jordan F. Suter, 2022. "Lottery Incentives and Resource Management: Evidence from the Agricultural Data Reporting Incentive Program (AgDRIP)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(4), pages 847-867, August.
    12. Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Taylor, Mykel & Banerjee, Simanti & Xie, Lusi, 2023. "Factors influencing enrollment of leased cropland in the Conservation Stewardship Program in Kansas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    13. Simone Pieralli & Ignacio Pérez Domínguez & Christian Elleby & Thomas Chatzopoulos, 2021. "Budgetary Impacts of Adding Agricultural Risk Management Programmes to the CAP," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 370-387, June.
    14. Olga Isengildina Massa & Berna Karali & Scott H. Irwin, 2024. "What do we know about the value and market impact of the US Department of Agriculture reports?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(2), pages 698-736, June.
    15. Joseph W. Glauber, 2021. "US Trade Aid Payments and the WTO," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 586-603, June.
    16. Stephanie Rosch & Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky & Collin Weigel & Kent D. Messer & Daniel Hellerstein, 2021. "Barriers to Using Economic Experiments in Evidence‐Based Agricultural Policymaking," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 531-555, June.
    17. GwanSeon Kim & Mehdi Nemati & Steven Buck & Nicholas Pates & Tyler Mark, 2020. "Recovering Forecast Distributions of Crop Composition: Method and Application to Kentucky Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, April.
    18. Lauriane Yehouenou & Barry J Barnett & Ardian Harri & Keith H Coble, 2018. "STAX Appeal?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 563-584, December.
    19. -, 2015. "The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas: A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean 2015-2016," Coediciones, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 39024 edited by Iica.
    20. Adam Reimer & Yicheol Han & Stephan Goetz & Scott Loveridge & Don Albrecht, 2016. "Word Networks in US Rural Policy Discourse," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 215-238.

    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:pal:gpprii:v:45:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41288-019-00148-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.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.