IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v15y1999i4p465-483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The science and art of promotion evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • George C. Davis

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2124)

Abstract

Over the past two decades commodity checkoff programs have proliferated. In 1996 legislation was passed that requires these programs to be evaluated at least once every 5 years. Because of this legislation there are now potential legal and monetary implications associated with these evaluations. Consequently, for all parties concerned two questions naturally arise: what is the scientific status of promotion evaluations? How can promotion evaluations be improved?This article attempts to answer these questions by exploring the scientific and artistic aspects of the central activity involved in all promotion evaluations: modeling. Attention centers on the scientific assumption choice set that is available to modelers, the tradeoffs involved in making certain assumption choices, and how assumption choices may be improved in general. These ideas are discussed in the context of a sample of promotion evaluation studies. [Econ-Lit citations: B4, D6, Q13] © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • George C. Davis, 1999. "The science and art of promotion evaluation," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 465-483.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:15:y:1999:i:4:p:465-483
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6297(199923)15:4<465::AID-AGR4>3.0.CO;2-D
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. K. Trivedi, 1985. "Distributed Lags, Aggregation and Compounding: Some Econometric Implications," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(1), pages 19-35.
    2. Gary W. Williams, 1999. "Commodity checkoff programs as alternative producer investment opportunities: The case of soybeans," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 539-552.
    3. David S. Bullock, 1993. "Welfare Implications of Equilibrium Supply and Demand Curves in an Open Economy," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(1), pages 52-58.
    4. David L. Edgerton, 1997. "Weak Separability and the Estimation of Elasticities in Multistage Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 62-79.
    5. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, December.
    6. Lewbel, Arthur, 1996. "Aggregation without Separability: A Generalized Composite Commodity Theorem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 524-543, June.
    7. Sandra J. Peart, 1995. "'Disturbing Causes,' 'Noxious Errors,' and the Theory-Practice Distinction in the Economics of J. S. Mill and W. S. Jevons," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 28(4b), pages 1194-1211, November.
    8. Forni, Mario & Lippi, Marco, 1999. "Aggregation of linear dynamic microeconomic models," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 131-158, February.
    9. repec:bla:kyklos:v:34:y:1981:i:3:p:377-87 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Stoker, Thomas M, 1993. "Empirical Approaches to the Problem of Aggregation Over Individuals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1827-1874, December.
    11. George C. Davis, 1997. "Product Aggregation Bias as a Specification Error in Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 100-109.
    12. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Shumway, C. Richard & Davis, George C., 2001. "Does consistent aggregation really matter?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(2), pages 1-34.
    2. Yeboah, Godfred & Maynard, Leigh J., 2004. "The Impact Of Bse, Fmd, And U.S. Export Promotion Expenditures On Japanese Meat Demand," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19978, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Zhang, Mingxia & Sexton, Richard J., 2000. "Optimal Commodity Promotion In Imperfectly Competitive Markets," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21823, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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. Yan Shen & Cheng Hsiao & Hiroshi Fujiki, 2005. "Aggregate vs. disaggregate data analysis-a paradox in the estimation of a money demand function of Japan under the low interest rate policy," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(5), pages 579-601.
    2. Suzuki, Tomo, 2003. "The accounting figuration of business statistics as a foundation for the spread of economic ideas," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 65-95, January.
    3. Kevin D. Hoover, 2016. "The Crisis in Economic Theory: A Review Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1350-1361, December.
    4. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    5. Shumway, C. Richard & Davis, George C., 2001. "Does consistent aggregation really matter?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(2), pages 1-34.
    6. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2014. "A Model of Modeling," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    7. Ole Røgeberg & Morten Nordberg, 2005. "A defence of absurd theories in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 543-562.
    8. Joshua M. Epstein, 2007. "Agent-Based Computational Models and Generative Social Science," Introductory Chapters, in: Generative Social Science Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling, Princeton University Press.
    9. Giuseppe Garofalo, 2014. "Irreducible complexities: from Gödel and Turing to the paradigm of Imperfect Knowledge Economics," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3463-3474, November.
    10. Smith, Peter, 2009. "Induction, complexity, and economic methodology," MPRA Paper 12693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Julian Reiss, 2001. "Natural economic quantities and their measurement," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 287-311.
    12. Castle, Emery N., 2000. "The Economics Of Rural Places And Agricultural Economics," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36361, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Thomas Mayer, 1998. "Indexed Bonds And Heterogeneous Agents," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(1), pages 77-84, January.
    14. Thomas E. Chamberlain, 1998. "On the psychological basis of economics and social psychology," ERSA conference papers ersa98p396, European Regional Science Association.
    15. De Geest, Gerrit, 1996. "The debate on the scientific status of law & economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 999-1006, April.
    16. Morten Søberg, 2002. "The Duhem-Quine thesis and experimental economics. A reinterpretation," Discussion Papers 329, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. Thomas Mayer, 2006. "The Empirical Significance of Econometric Models," Working Papers 620, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    18. Brav, Alon & Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R. & Michaely, Roni, 2005. "Payout policy in the 21st century," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 483-527, September.
    19. Michael Hechter, 1994. "The Role of Values in Rational Choice Theory," Rationality and Society, , vol. 6(3), pages 318-333, July.
    20. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.

    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:wly:agribz:v:15:y:1999:i:4:p:465-483. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.