IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaaeo6/197732.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cutting the Agricultural Price Pie: Power or Justice

Author

Listed:
  • Rabinowicz, Ewa

Abstract

Agricultural protection varies considerably among different commodities. To understand inter-industry protection within agriculture, the price-setting neotiation procedure involving producers and consumers. This type of price setting gives farmers an excellent opportunity to affect relative prices. The question is whether the stronger groups have used this situation to affect relative prices to their advantage. Four different price-setting principles are discussed in this paper: inertia, fairness, monopolistic price discrimination, and power. The model is tested by pooling cross-section (13 commodities) and time-series data (1973-83). Fairness and inertia together are the major explanation of the trend in relative prices at the negotiation level. In spite of their strong influence on the price-setting procedure, powerful groups are not missing the situation to their advantage. It is not possible for a farm organization to build its image on the notion of solidarity and at the same time exploit weaker groups. Neither is it possible for farmers to exploit consumers by behaving as price discriminating monopolists and keep the credibility of their organization intact.

Suggested Citation

  • Rabinowicz, Ewa, 1992. "Cutting the Agricultural Price Pie: Power or Justice," 1992 Occasional Paper Series No. 6 197732, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaaeo6:197732
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.197732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/197732/files/agecon-occpapers-1992-008_1_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.197732?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. Bruce L. Gardner, 1989. "Economic Theory and Farm Politics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(5), pages 1165-1171.
    2. J.M. Finger & H. Keith Hall & Douglas R. Nelson, 2002. "The Political Economy of Administered Protection," Chapters, in: Institutions and Trade Policy, chapter 8, pages 81-95, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Paarlberg, Robert, 1989. "THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY: Three Approaches," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270661, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Goldstein, Judith, 1986. "The Political Economy of Trade: Institutions of Protection," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(1), pages 161-184, March.
    5. Robert Paarlberg, 1989. "The Political Economy of American Agricultural Policy: Three Approaches," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(5), pages 1157-1164.
    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. Cole, Christine A. & Featherstone, Allen M., 1999. "Agriculture'S Shifting Political Power Base," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21554, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Mark T. Kanazawa, 2019. "Transaction Costs in Water Transfers: The issue of local control," Working Papers 2019-01, Carleton College, Department of Economics.
    3. Gaigné, Carl & Laroche Dupraz, Cathie & Matthews, Alan, 2015. "Thirty years of European research on international trade in food and agricultural products," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 91-130, March.
    4. Becker, Tilman & Labson, B. Stephan, 1991. "Optimal Policy Instruments and Political Preference Functions: An Application to the U.S. Wheat Sector," 1991 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Manhattan, Kansas 271212, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Guyomard, Herve & Mahe, Louis Adrien Pascal & Roe, Terry L. & Tarditi, Secondo, 1993. "The Cap Reform And Ec-Us Relations: The Gatt As A "Cap" On The Cap," Working Papers 14432, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    6. Zobbe, Henrik, 2002. "On The Foundation Of Agricultural Policy Research In The United States," Staff Papers 28644, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    7. Zobbe, Henrik & Paarlberg, Philip L., 2003. "The Shaky Foundation Of Farm Policy In The United States - Flawed Analysis, Flawed Policy?," Staff Papers 28637, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    8. Goedecke, E. J. & Ortmann, G. F., 1992. "Farm Worker Legislation: Interest Groups And Developments," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 31(4), December.
    9. Michael P. Leidy, 1994. "Trade Policy And Indirect Rent Seeking: A Synthesis Of Recent Work†," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 97-118, July.
    10. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas R., 2014. "Political support for trade policy in the European Union," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 243-253.
    11. Gautam, Virender, 1992. "Identification of patterns of producer and consumer protection levels in food commodities: a cross-country, aggregate and commodity-specific analysis," ISU General Staff Papers 1992010108000017588, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    12. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    13. Harvey, David R., 2003. "Policy Dependency And Reform: Economic Gains Versus Political Pains," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25865, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Bin, Sheng, 2000. "The Political Economy of Trade Policy in China," Working Papers 10/2000, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Management, Politics & Philosophy.
    15. Jae W. Chung, 1998. "Effects of U.S. Trade Remedy Law Enforcement under Uncertainty: The Case of Steel," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 151-159, July.
    16. Francois, Joseph & Nelson, Douglas & Pelkmans-Balaoing, Annette, 2008. "Endogenous Protection in General Equilibrium: Estimating Political Weights in the EU," CEPR Discussion Papers 6979, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Metiu, Norbert, 2021. "Anticipation effects of protectionist U.S. trade policies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Kara M. Reynolds, 2009. "From Agreement to Application: An Analysis of Determinations under the WTO Antidumping Agreement," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 969-985, November.
    19. Harvey, David R., 2004. "Policy dependency and reform: economic gains versus political pains," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 265-275, December.
    20. Benjamin Liebman, 2004. "ITC voting behavior on sunset reviews," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 140(3), pages 446-475, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural Finance;

    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:iaaeo6:197732. 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/iaaeeea.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.