IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/crc990/14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing the use of risk-influencing production inputs and experimentally measured risk attitude: Do decisions of Indonesian small-scale rubber farmers match?

Author

Listed:
  • Moser, Stefan
  • Mußhoff, Oliver

Abstract

This article compares the use of risk-increasing and risk-reducing production inputs with the experimentally measured risk attitudes of farmers. For this purpose, the Just-Pope production function indicates production inputs' influence on output risk and a Holt-Laury lottery is used to measure the producer´s risk attitude. We test whether more risk averse farmers use more risk-reducing and less risk-increasing production inputs. Therefore, we apply a unique data set which includes 185 small-scale farmers which are producing rubber on 260 plots on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia. The Just-Pope production function indicates that fertiliser usage has a risk-reducing effect, whereas herbicide usage and plot size have risk-increasing effects. For labour and plantation age, the influence on output risk is ambiguous. By including the outcome of a Holt-Laury lottery into the analysis, we found the expected result that more risk averse farmers use more (risk-reducing) fertiliser and less (risk-increasing) herbicides. These consistent results provide an example for the external validity of measuring risk attitude with the Holt-Laury lottery.

Suggested Citation

  • Moser, Stefan & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Comparing the use of risk-influencing production inputs and experimentally measured risk attitude: Do decisions of Indonesian small-scale rubber farmers match?," EFForTS Discussion Paper Series 14, University of Goettingen, Collaborative Research Centre 990 "EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia)".
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:crc990:14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/117326/1/EFForTS_dp-14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Subal C. Kumbhakar & Ragnar Tveterås, 2003. "Risk Preferences, Production Risk and Firm Heterogeneity," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 105(2), pages 275-293, June.
    2. Rulon D. Pope, 2003. "Agricultural Risk Analysis: Adequacy of Models, Data, and Issues," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1249-1256.
    3. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    4. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2007. "Ambiguity Aversion as a Predictor of Technology Choice: Experimental Evidence from Peru," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-01, CIRANO.
    5. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor, 2009. "Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 137-160, October.
    6. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Understanding the Investment Behavior of Ugandan Smallholder Farmers: An Experimental Analysis," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150331, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2002. "Risk preference and productivity measurement under output price uncertainty," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 461-472.
    8. Z. Bar‐Shira & R.E. Just & D. Zilberman, 1997. "Estimation of farmers' risk attitude: an econometric approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 211-222, December.
    9. Cornelis Gardebroek & María Daniela Chavez & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2010. "Analysing Production Technology and Risk in Organic and Conventional Dutch Arable Farming using Panel Data," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 60-75, February.
    10. Florin-Marius PAVELESCU, 2011. "Some aspects of the translog production function estimation," Romanian Journal of Economics, Institute of National Economy, vol. 32(1(41)), pages 131-150, June.
    11. Otsuka, Keijiro & Suyanto, S. & Sonobe, Tetsushi & Tomich, Thomas P., 2001. "Evolution of land tenure institutions and development of agroforestry: evidence from customary land areas of Sumatra," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 85-101, June.
    12. Sergio H. Lence, 2007. "Joint Estimation of Risk Preferences and Technology: Flexible Utility or Futility?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 581-598.
    13. Just, Richard E. & Pope, Rulon D., 1978. "Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 67-86, February.
    14. Key, Nigel D. & MacDonald, James M., 2006. "Agricultural Contracting Trading Autonomy for Risk Reduction," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages 1-6, February.
    15. Richard E. Just & Rulon D. Pope, 1979. "Production Function Estimation and Related Risk Considerations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 276-284.
    16. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    17. Murat Isik & Madhu Khanna, 2003. "Stochastic Technology, Risk Preferences, and Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 305-317.
    18. Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2002. "Specification and Estimation of Production Risk, Risk Preferences and Technical Efficiency," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 8-22.
    19. Anderson, Lisa R. & Mellor, Jennifer M., 2008. "Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1260-1274, September.
    20. Christian Gollier, 2004. "The Economics of Risk and Time," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262572249, December.
    21. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    22. Chavas, Jean-Paul & Holt, Matthew T, 1996. "Economic Behavior under Uncertainty: A Joint Analysis of Risk Preferences and Technology," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 329-335, May.
    23. Masclet, David & Colombier, Nathalie & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Lohéac, Youenn, 2009. "Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 470-484, June.
    24. Ruth Vargas Hill, 2009. "Using Stated Preferences and Beliefs to Identify the Impact of Risk on Poor Households," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 151-171.
    25. Christopher B. Barrett & Christine M. Moser & Oloro V. McHugh & Joeli Barison, 2004. "Better Technology, Better Plots, or Better Farmers? Identifying Changes in Productivity and Risk among Malagasy Rice Farmers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(4), pages 869-888.
    26. Torben Tiedemann & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2013. "Production Risk and Technical Efficiency in Organic and Conventional Agriculture – The Case of Arable Farms in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 73-96, February.
    27. Daniel Hellerstein & Nathaniel Higgins & John Horowitz, 2013. "The predictive power of risk preference measures for farming decisions -super-†," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(5), pages 807-833, December.
    28. Abdullahi Abdulkadri, 2003. "Estimating risk aversion coefficients for dry land wheat, irrigated corn and dairy producers in Kansas," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(7), pages 825-834.
    29. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    30. Lence, Sergio H., 2009. "Ajae Appendix For “Joint Estimation Of Risk Preferences And Technology: Flexible Utility Or Futility?”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 1-6, January.
    31. Jean-Paul Chavas & Robert G. Chambers & Rulon D. Pope, 2010. "Production Economics and Farm Management: a Century of Contributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 356-375.
    32. Richard E. Just, 2001. "Addressing the Changing Nature of Uncertainty in Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1131-1153.
    33. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Investment Behavior of Ugandan Smallholder Farmers: An Experimental Analysis," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 154775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    34. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    35. George E. Battese, 1997. "A Note On The Estimation Of Cobb‐Douglas Production Functions When Some Explanatory Variables Have Zero Values," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 250-252, January.
    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. Do, Huu-Luat & Dang Thuy, Truong, 2022. "Productivity response and production risk: A study of mangrove forest effects in aquaculture in the Mekong River Delta," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).

    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. Xavier Vollenweider & Salvatore Di Falco & Cathal O�Donoghue, 2011. "Risk preferences and voluntary agrienvironmental schemes: does risk aversion explain the uptake of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme?," GRI Working Papers 48, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    2. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Affect Risk Preference Outcomes? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    3. 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).
    4. Bougherara, Douadia & Nauges, Céline, 2018. "How laboratory experiments could help disentangle the influences of production risk and risk preferences on input decisions," TSE Working Papers 18-903, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. Wu, Feng & Guan, Zhengfei, 2014. "Efficient Estimation of Risk Attitude with Seminonparametric Risk Modeling," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170625, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Antti Saastamoinen, 2015. "Heteroscedasticity Or Production Risk? A Synthetic View," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 459-478, July.
    7. Lence, Sergio H., 2008. "How Much Can We Learn About Producers' Utility Functions from Their Production Data?," 2008 Agricultural and Rural Finance Markets in Transition, September 25-26, 2008, Kansas City, Missouri 119534, Regional Research Committee NC-1014: Agricultural and Rural Finance Markets in Transition.
    8. Ward, Patrick S. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Hurley, Terrance M., 2010. "A review of agricultural production risk in the developing world," Working Papers 188476, HarvestChoice.
    10. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    11. Do, Huu-Luat & Dang Thuy, Truong, 2022. "Productivity response and production risk: A study of mangrove forest effects in aquaculture in the Mekong River Delta," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    12. CARPENTIER, Alain & GOHIN, Alexandre & SCKOKAI, Paolo & THOMAS, Alban, 2015. "Economic modelling of agricultural production: past advances and new challenges," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(1), March.
    13. Phoebe Koundouri & Marita Laukkanen, 2004. "Stochastic Production in a Regulated Fishery:The Importance of Risk Considerations," DEOS Working Papers 0403, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    14. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Gassner, Anja & Musshoff, Oliver, 2018. "Experimental insights on the investment behavior of small-scale coffee farmers in central Uganda under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 31-44.
    16. Agabriel, Jacques & Lherm, Michel & Mosnier, Claire & Reynaud, Arnaud & Thomas, Alban, 2009. "Estimating a Production Function under Production and Output Price Risks: An Application to Beef Cattle in France," TSE Working Papers 09-046, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    17. Ragnar Tveteras & Ola Flaten & Gudbrand Lien, 2011. "Production risk in multi-output industries: estimates from Norwegian dairy farms," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(28), pages 4403-4414.
    18. Sauter, Philipp & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Risk attitudes of foresters, farmers and students: An experimental multimethod comparison," DARE Discussion Papers 1514, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    19. Travis J. Lybbert & David R. Just, 2007. "Is Risk Aversion Really Correlated with Wealth? How Estimated Probabilities Introduce Spurious Correlation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 964-979.
    20. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: Methodological issues in assessing policy impacts," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Holt-Laury lottery; Just-Pope production function; output risk; rubber; Indonesia;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets

    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:zbw:crc990:14. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/310995.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.