IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/foi/msapwp/07_2010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Efficient and Confidential Reallocation of Contracts: How The Danish Sugar Industry Adapted to The New Sugar Regime

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Bogetoft

    (Department of Economics, Copenhagen Business School CBS)

  • Kurt Nielsen

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

Abstract

The first Danish exchange for sugar beet contracts was established in January 2008. It was also the world’s first major application of a particular new technology, secure multiparty computation (SMC), which ensures the security and cost-effectiveness of such exchanges. The technology can also be used in a number of other applications, including voting, negotiations, and benchmarking. The SMC approach makes it possible to combine private knowledge from a large number of players without ever revealing their individual knowledge. This provides unique opportunities for individual players to act together despite conflicting interests and decentralized knowledge, which, in many contexts, constitute the primary obstacle to the creation of economic gains. This exchange was the culmination of a novel and successful collaboration between economists and cryptologists, and it constitutes a successful operations research project using novel scientific methods to solve a real, large-scale problem. This article describes the background for and the implementation of the exchange and discusses some other potential applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Bogetoft & Kurt Nielsen, 2010. "Efficient and Confidential Reallocation of Contracts: How The Danish Sugar Industry Adapted to The New Sugar Regime," MSAP Working Paper Series 07_2010, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:foi:msapwp:07_2010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://okonomi.foi.dk/workingpapers/MSAPpdf/MSAP2010/MSAP_WP07_2010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Bogetoft & Henrik Ballebye Olesen, 2002. "Ten rules of thumb in contract design: lessons from Danish agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(2), pages 185-204, June.
    2. Peter Bogetoft & Kristoffer Boye & Henrik Neergaard-Petersen & Kurt Nielsen, 2007. "Reallocating sugar beet contracts: can sugar production survive in Denmark?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(1), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Peter Bogetoft & Kurt Nielsen & Henrik Ballebye Olesen, 2003. "The single-bid restriction on milk quota exchanges," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(2), pages 193-215, June.
    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. Afsharian, Mohsen & Ahn, Heinz & Bogetoft, Peter & Kamali, Sara & Lopes-Ahn, Ana, 2025. "Endogenous system-wide output prices in incentive regulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 320(1), pages 188-204.
    2. Adu-Gyamfi Poku & Regina Birner & Saurabh Gupta, 2018. "Making Contract Farming Arrangements Work in Africa’s Bioeconomy: Evidence from Cassava Outgrower Schemes in Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Heinz Ahn & Peter Bogetoft & Ana Lopes, 2019. "Measuring potential sub-unit efficiency to counter the aggregation bias in benchmarking," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 53-77, February.
    4. Mugwagwa, Innocent & Bijman, Jos & Trienekens, Jacques, 2020. "Typology of contract farming arrangements: a transaction cost perspective," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 59(2), March.
    5. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    6. Manyise, Timothy & Dentoni, Domenico, 2021. "Value chain partnerships and farmer entrepreneurship as balancing ecosystem services: Implications for agri-food systems resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Sawadogo, Didier & Arouna, Aminou & Ouedraogo, Souleymane, 2020. "Insolvency determinants of the terms of agricultural contracts: The case of rice farmers in Burkina Faso," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(3), September.
    8. H. Holly WANG & Jong Won PARK & Timothy BAKER, 2011. "Contracting, negotiation, and the policy change: The conflict between Korean farmers and their agricultural coo," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 57(10), pages 467-473.
    9. Brümmer, Bernhard & Loy, Jens-Peter & Requate, Till, 2010. "Auction Experiments and Simulations of Milk Quota Exchanges," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61304, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Mai Chiem Tuyen & Prapinwadee Sirisupluxana & Isriya Bunyasiri & Pham Xuan Hung, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Preferences towards Contract Attributes: Evidence from Rice Production in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, March.
    11. Whitten, Stuart M. & Reeson, Andrew & Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "Designing conservation tenders to support landholder participation: A framework and case study assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 82-92.
    12. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Design of substrate supply contracts for biogas plants," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124428, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Sauer, Johannes, 2008. "Quota Deregulation and Organic versus Conventional Milk – A Bayesian Distance Function Approach," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6425, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Irena Benešová & Helena Řezbová & Luboš Smutka & Karel Tomšík & Adriana Laputková, 2015. "European Sugar Market - Impact of Quota System," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 63(6), pages 1825-1838.
    15. Schulze, Birgit & Spiller, Achim & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2006. "More Trust Instead of More Vertical Integration in the German Pork Production? Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations," 99th Seminar, February 8-10, 2006, Bonn, Germany 7756, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 61(3).
    17. Johannes Sauer, 2010. "Deregulation and dairy production systems: a Bayesian distance function approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 213-237, December.
    18. Imre Ferto & Bakucs Lajos Zoltan & Sándor Elek & Csaba Forgacs, 2011. "Contracts in Hungarian Food Chains," MIC 2011: Managing Sustainability? Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, Portorož, 23–26 November 2011 [Selected Papers],, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper.
    19. Bardos, Krisztina & Ferto, Imre, 2006. "The Contract Choice of Retailers in Hungarian Beef Sector," 99th Seminar, February 8-10, 2006, Bonn, Germany 7746, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Lijia, Wang & Xuexi, Huo, 2014. "Grower's Selling Behavior: Transaction Cost Comparison Analysis," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    double auction; secure multiparty computation; sugar beets; data envelopment analysis (DEA);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • D51 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Exchange and Production Economies
    • L23 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Organization of Production
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness

    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:foi:msapwp:07_2010. 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: Geir Tveit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/msakudk.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.