IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saea17/252805.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Effects of Imperfect Information on 2014 Farm Bill Program Enrollment

Author

Listed:
  • Taylor, Mykel
  • Wilson, Candice

Abstract

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The 2014 Farm Bill required Kansas wheat producers to make a series of enrollment decisions that were both complicated and based on incomplete information. With this bill, producers were required to complete a one-time enrollment in one of three programs (ARC-CO, PLC, or ARC-IC) to serve as a safety net for poor crop prices and/or yields over the subsequent five-year life of the legislation. Analyzing the effects of incomplete information on producers’ decisions provides an opportunity to identify challenges associated with program selection under the 2014 Farm Bill and suggest changes for future farm support legislation. METHODS: Kansas county-level enrollment data for wheat base acres obtained from USDA-FSA are used to model aggregate producer sign-up decisions as a function of estimated 2014 payments, county-level yield variability, prior farm program enrollment, and extension programming efforts at the county and state level. This OLS model is subsequently replicated using individual producer data from surveys conducted during fifteen extension meetings held across Kansas. The model based on individual data is a regression of stated preferences for the three programs as a function of farm size, farmer demographics, risk preferences, and knowledge of the Farm Bill. RESULTS: Comparisons of model results from the aggregated enrollment data and the individual survey data offer greater insights into the factors affecting producer decisions. Specifically, aggregate enrollment decisions are primarily explained by expected payments for the first year of the program. For counties with a positive expected payment for 2014 under the ARC-CO program, enrollment in that program was higher. However, when the regression is repeated using individual data, other factors affect the enrollment decision such as the number of years a producer has been farming, the size of the farm, their membership in commodity associations, and their preferences for risk protection. CONCLUSIONS : The 2014 Farm Bill required producers to select participation in a single support program for the five-year life of the legislation. This decision had to be made without knowing exactly how crop prices and yields would behave in the future. It is important to understand how producers made their decisions based on incomplete information to inform future legislative efforts for an effective farm safety net. This research expands that understanding by analyzing both aggregate and individual data to determine the factors that influence program choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Taylor, Mykel & Wilson, Candice, 2017. "Effects of Imperfect Information on 2014 Farm Bill Program Enrollment," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252805, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea17:252805
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.252805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/252805/files/Taylor%20_%20Wilson%20SAEA%20Submission.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.252805?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. Jason R.V. Franken & Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2014. "Measuring the effect of risk attitude on marketing behavior," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 525-535, September.
    2. Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    3. Babcock, Bruce, 2015. "Using Prospect Theory to Explain Anomalous Crop Insurance Coverage Choice," 2015 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 3-5, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts 189682, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Paul D. Mitchell & Roderick M. Rejesus & Keith H. Coble & Thomas O. Knight, 2012. "Analyzing Farmer Participation Intentions and County Enrollment Rates for the Average Crop Revenue Election Program," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 34(4), pages 615-636.
    5. Bruce A. Babcock, 2015. "Using Cumulative Prospect Theory to Explain Anomalous Crop Insurance Coverage Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1371-1384.
    6. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    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. Douadia Bougherara & Laurent Piet, 2018. "On the role of probability weighting on WTP for crop insurance with and without yield skewness," Working Papers hal-02790605, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. Shuoli Zhao & Chengyan Yue, 2020. "Risk preferences of commodity crop producers and specialty crop producers: An application of prospect theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 359-372, May.
    4. Francisco Rosas & Mariana Sans & Santiago Arana, 2018. "The effect of irrigation on income volatility reduction: a prospect theory approach," Documentos de Investigación 118, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.
    5. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2020. "Prospect theory in experiments : behaviour in loss domain and framing effects," Working Papers hal-02987294, HAL.
    6. Zhao, Shuoli & Skevas, Teo & Chai, Yuan & Tack, Jesse B., 2020. "Crop Insurance Decision under Expected Revenue," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304574, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2023. "Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 593-636, May.
    8. Doidge, Mary & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of changes to crop insurance coverage level – a test of third generation prospect theory," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274478, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Rosas, Juan Francisco & Sans, Mariana & Arana, Santiago, 2017. "Quantifying the Benefits of Supplemented Irrigation due to Less Volatile Yields: A Prospect Theory Approach Applied to Summer Crops in Uruguay," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259122, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    11. Mohit Anand & Ruiqing Miao & Madhu Khanna, 2019. "Adopting bioenergy crops: Does farmers’ attitude toward loss matter?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 435-450, July.
    12. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2021. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 89-112, February.
    13. Robert Finger & Viviana Garcia & Chloe McCallum & Jens Rommel, 2024. "A note on European farmers' preferences under cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 465-472, February.
    14. Xiaodong Du & Hongli Feng & David A. Hennessy, 2017. "Rationality of Choices in Subsidized Crop Insurance Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 732-756.
    15. Hongli Feng & Xiaodong Du & David A. Hennessy, 2020. "Depressed demand for crop insurance contracts, and a rationale based on third generation Prospect Theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 59-73, January.
    16. Fezzi, Carlo & Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2021. "Estimating risk preferences integrating insurance choices with subjective beliefs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    17. Bontemps, Christophe & Bougherara, Douadia & Nauges, Céline, 2020. "Do Risk Preferences Really Matter? The Case of Pesticide Use in Agriculture," TSE Working Papers 20-1095, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    18. Christoph Duden & Oliver Mußhoff & Frank Offermann, 2023. "Dealing with low‐probability shocks: The role of selected heuristics in farmers’ risk management decisions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 382-399, May.
    19. Feyisa, Ashenafi Duguma & Maertens, Miet & de Mey, Yann, 2023. "Relating risk preferences and risk perceptions over different agricultural risk domains: Insights from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    20. Thomas Sproul & Clayton P. Michaud, 2017. "Heterogeneity in loss aversion: evidence from field elicitations," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 77(1), pages 196-216, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:saea17:252805. 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/saeaaea.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.