IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zwi/uconnr/03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Impacts of Agriculture in Eight Northeastern States

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Campbell

    (University of Connecticut)

  • Laura Dunn

    (University of Connecticut)

  • Adam Rabinowitz

    (University of Connecticut)

Abstract

The objective of this report was to provide information to producers, policy makers, and other interested stakeholders on the both the agricultural producer perceived and data driven regulatory environment of Northeastern states. Notably the specific objectives were: Identify regulatory perceptions of Northeastern agricultural producers; quantify the regulatory environment via a data driven index computation; rank states within the Northeast as well as select comparable states throughout the United States; provide recommendations on the state level to lessen the regulatory burden for Northeastern states. Findings: Overall, agricultural producers in the Northeast indicated the number of regulations to be increasing since 2010. Furthermore, the amount of time and money spent on the regulations was also increasing. State regulations were found to have the most impact on producers changing their farming practices, followed by federal and to a lesser extent municipal regulations. Perceptions of regulatory impact are not always consistent with data driven indices. Several states ranking low on regulatory burden had a majority of agricultural producers perceiving there to be a high regulatory burden. In contrast, some states with a high burden had the perception of “just-right” or under-regulated. New Jersey was found to be the least regulated state while Maine and New Hampshire were the most regulated, according to this study’s calculations. It is important to note that these rankings are relative to the other states in this study. On the whole, Northeastern states were more regulated than comparison states from around the United States. Of the sixteen states in the regulatory index, five of the bottom six were in the Northeast. Northeastern states, in general, moved around in how well they performed in the different policy components. Some states scored well in tax policy regulation but low in labor while others did well in labor but scored poorly in environmental. Thus individual components are important to consider with respect to regulatory impact. Using the results from the report it is clear that each state has areas where they can improve their regulatory burden on agricultural producers. Some states need to focus on lessening the burden of taxes while others may need to focus on labor or environmental policies. Furthermore, this report does find support for the anecdotal evidence that Northeastern states by and large have more regulatory burdens than comparable states throughout the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Campbell & Laura Dunn & Adam Rabinowitz, 2015. "Economic Impacts of Agriculture in Eight Northeastern States," Zwick Center Research Reports 03, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:zwi:uconnr:03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://zwickcenter.uconn.edu/outreach_reports_16_1880506637.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hurley, Sean P., 2005. "A Synopsis of the Regulatory Environment Affecting California Specialty Crops," Research Project Reports 121619, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    2. Hurley, Sean P. & Noel, Jay E., 2006. "A Regional and Industry Analysis of the Complexity of the Regulatory Environment Affecting Agricultural Producers in California," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21135, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Pramod, Ganapathiraju & Nakamura, Katrina & Pitcher, Tony J. & Delagran, Leslie, 2014. "Estimates of illegal and unreported fish in seafood imports to the USA," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 102-113.
    4. Jed Kolko & David Neumark & Marisol Cuellar Mejia, 2013. "What Do Business Climate Indexes Teach Us About State Policy And Economic Growth?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 220-255, May.
    5. Nickerson, Cynthia & Ebel, Robert & Borchers, Allison & Carriazo, Fernando, 2011. "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2007," Economic Information Bulletin 291937, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Bruno, Christopher C. & Campbell, Benjamin L., 2016. "Students’ Willingness to Pay for More Local, Organic, Non-GMO and General Food Options," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(3), pages 1-17, November.

    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. McCullough, Michael P. & Hamilton, Lynn L. & MacEwan, Duncan, 2017. "The Cost of Regulation to California Farmers," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259166, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. A. Haven Kiers & Billy Krimmel & Caroline Larsen-Bircher & Kate Hayes & Ash Zemenick & Julia Michaels, 2022. "Different Jargon, Same Goals: Collaborations between Landscape Architects and Ecologists to Maximize Biodiversity in Urban Lawn Conversions," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Jeremy G. Weber & Conor Wall & Jason Brown & Tom Hertz, 2015. "Crop Prices, Agricultural Revenues, and the Rural Economy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 459-476.
    4. Florencia Garcia-Vicente & Daniel Garcia-Swartz & Martin Campbell-Kelly, 2017. "Information technology clusters and regional growth in America, 1970–1980," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1021-1046, April.
    5. Michael Barrowclough & L. Geyer, 2015. "Biofuel Policies: The Underground Limitation on Biofuels," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 55-65, March.
    6. Jacob Bundrick & Weici Yuan, 2019. "Do Targeted Business Subsidies Improve Income and Reduce Poverty? A Synthetic Control Approach," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 33(4), pages 351-375, November.
    7. Georgeanne M. Artz & Kevin D. Duncan & Arthur P. Hall & Peter F. Orazem, 2016. "Do State Business Climate Indicators Explain Relative Economic Growth At State Borders?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 395-419, June.
    8. Xumin Zhang & Hayk Khachatryan, 2023. "Does the Perceived Effectiveness of Voluntary Conservation Programs Affect Household Adoption of Sustainable Landscaping Practices?," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    9. Blasiak, Robert, 2015. "Balloon effects reshaping global fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 18-20.
    10. Anderson, John E., 2012. "State Tax Rankings: What Do They and Don’t They Tell Us?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(4), pages 985-1010, December.
    11. Martin Bohle & Cornelia E. Nauen & Eduardo Marone, 2019. "Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Anita Yadavalli, 2017. "The Effect of Enterprise Zone-Related Tax Savings on Economic Development: A Generalized Propensity Score Approach," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 10, pages 83-96, November.
    13. Michele Romanelli & Otello Giovanardi, 2022. "Commentary on Italy's international seafood trade and its impacts," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 24(3), pages 1-24.
    14. Kurt Mitman & Iourii Manovskii & Fatih Karahan & Marcus Hagedorn, 2013. "Unemployment Benefits and Unemployment in the Great Recession: The Role of Macro Effects," 2013 Meeting Papers 1260, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    15. Neumark, David & Simpson, Helen, 2015. "Place-Based Policies," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 1197-1287, Elsevier.
    16. Stefan Fölster & Li Jansson & Anton Nyrenström Gidehag, 2016. "The effect of local business climate on employment," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5(1), pages 2-24, April.
    17. Samantha Marie Schenck, 2021. "Assessing the Employment Effects of California’s Paid Family Leave Program," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 47(3), pages 406-429, June.
    18. Walls, Margaret & Riddle, Anne, 2012. "Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Land Use: Comparing Three Federal Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-08, Resources for the Future.
    19. MacDonald, James M. & Korb, Penni & Hoppe, Robert A., 2013. "Farm Size and the Organization of U.S. Crop Farming," Economic Research Report 262221, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    20. Hamilton, Lynn L., 2006. "California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops," Research Project Reports 121622, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.

    More about this item

    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:zwi:uconnr:03. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dauctus.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.