IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea05/19266.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analysing Farmers' Decision-Making Process Face to the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy in the Alentejo region of Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Serrao, Amilcar
  • Coelho, Luis

Abstract

This paper describes an experiment that was carried out in order to examine the decision making process of farmers in the Alentejo dryland region of Portugal. Cumulative Prospect Theory allows modeling the Alentejo dryland farmers' decision process, because when they decide what crops and livestock activities will produce the different results are appraised relatively to the initial wealth, which permits its appraisal in terms of gains and of losses. An inquiry is developed to study the Alentejo dryland farmers' preferences, which intend to determine risk preferences through a set of games. A discrete sequential stochastic programming model is developed to examine farmers' decision-making process face to the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. The objective function, that maximizes the total value of the game, portrays the farmers' behavior face to risk and it is constituted by the set of functions (value function and probability weighting function) ranked upward. The total value of the games will be given by the sum of the positive and negative components. Model results show that Cumulative Prospect Theory portrays the Alentejo dryland farmers' decision-making process quite well. All the farmers produce durum wheat as main agricultural production and choose the maximum of number of cattle heads and sheep herds. The full decoupling of income payment from agricultural production leads to the abandonment of the durum wheat production. The beef cattle farmers keep their production and the sheep farmers reduce their herds drastically. The introduction of 50% of sheep premium, proposed by the Portuguese Government, raises sheep production, accompanied of the increase of the pasture area. These results permit to conclude that the Portuguese Government's proposal is sufficiently cautious because, on the one hand, when associating to 100% of suckler cow premium allows the use of the shares negotiated with European Union in 2003 and when associating to 50% of sheep premium permit the maintenance of sheep herd. On the other hand, the Portuguese Government's proposal of crop subsidies not linked to agricultural production forces the farmers to choose alternative agricultural activities in the bad soils. Finally, the introduction of the area crop-yield insurance program associated with the new Common Agricultural Policy is an interesting alternative for the Alentejo dryland farmers, because the new Common Agricultural Policy only secure a minimum farm income level, while the insurance program permits making face to agricultural production variability and avoids the abandonment of the agricultural activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2005. "Analysing Farmers' Decision-Making Process Face to the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy in the Alentejo region of Portugal," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19266, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea05:19266
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.19266
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/19266/files/sp05se03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.19266?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCarl, Bruce A. & Apland, Jeffrey, 1986. "Validation Of Linear Programming Models," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(2), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Anderson, Jock R. & Dillon, John L. & Hardaker, Brian, 1977. "Agricultural Decision Analysis," Monographs: Applied Economics, AgEcon Search, number 288652, July.
    4. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2343-2378, Elsevier.
    5. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    6. ,, 2000. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 287-299, April.
    7. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    8. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    9. Buschena, David E. & Zilberman, David, 1994. "What Do We Know About Decision Making Under Risk And Where Do We Go From Here?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    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. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2006. "The Role of area-yield crop insurance program face to the Mid-term Review of Common Agricultural Policy," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21411, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    4. Phillips Peter J. & Pohl Gabriela, 2018. "The Deferral of Attacks: SP/A Theory as a Model of Terrorist Choice when Losses Are Inevitable," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 71-85, February.
    5. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    7. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 208-216, January.
    8. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    10. Border, Kim C. & Segal, Uzi, 1997. "Coherent Odds and Subjective Probability," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 9717, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    11. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    12. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    13. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.
    15. Yao Thibaut Kpegli, 2023. "Smoothing Spline Method for Measuring Prospect Theory Components," Working Papers 2303, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    16. L'Haridon, Olivier, 2009. "Behavior in the loss domain: An experiment using the probability trade-off consistency condition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 540-551, August.
    17. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    18. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    19. Veronika Köbberling & Peter P. Wakker, 2003. "Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 395-423, August.
    20. Coelho, Luís Alberto Godinho & Pires, Cesaltina Maria Pacheco & Dionísio, Andreia Teixeira & Serrão, Amílcar Joaquim da Conceição, 2012. "The impact of CAP policy in farmer's behavior – A modeling approach using the Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 81-98.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management;

    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:ags:aaea05:19266. 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: AgEcon Search (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.