Alternative trade organizations (ATOs) based on philosophies of social justice and/or environmental well-being are establishing new channels of trade and marketing. Partisans promote ATOs as systems to transfer benefits from consumers in the wealthy northern hemisphere to producers in the poor southern hemisphere. The central public policy question is whether the well-being of poor agricultural producers in the southern hemisphere is actually being improved by fair-trade practices, or are consumers who buy products on this premise deceived? The research reported here partially answers the question whether participation in a fair-trade coffee marketing channel delivers benefits to smallscale producers in Latin America. The authors employ a survey methodology to compare TransFair USA (TF) cooperative participants and nonparticipating farmers in three countries on socioeconomic indicators of well-being. According to the analysis, the economic effects of fair-trade participation are unassailable; the effects on educational and health outcomes are uneven. However, TF cooperative participation positively affects educational attainment and the likelihood that a child is currently studying. The authors find positive health-related consequences of TF cooperative participation.
Despite being generally accepted as a promising conservation practice to reduce nitrate pollution and promote soil sustainability, cover crop adoption in Midwestern US agriculture is low. Based on focus groups, surveys and partial budgets, we calculated the annual net returns to cover crop use for farmers in Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota; and elicited farmers’ perceptions about the pros and cons of incorporating cover crops to their row cropping systems. The novelty of our methodology resides in comparing each farmer's practices in the portion of their cropping system with cover crops (typically small), against their practices in the other portion of their cropping system without cover crops. The resulting comparisons, accounting for farmer heterogeneity, are more robust than the typical effects calculated by comparing indicators across cover crop users and unrelated non-adopters. Our results highlight the complicated nature of integrating cover crops into the crop production system and show that cover crops affect whole farm profitability through several channels besides establishment and termination costs. Despite farmers’ positive perceptions about cover crops and the availability of cost-share programs, calculated annual net returns to cover crops use were negative for most participants.
Despite the active promotion of cover crops as a key conservation practice, their adoption is very limited. We developed a series of partial budgets based on a statewide survey of Iowa farmers to evaluate the changes in net returns resulting from the incorporation of cover crops into a corn or soybean production system. The average net returns to cover crop use for farmers who did not use cover crops for grazing livestock or forage were consistently negative across different planting and termination methods, tillage practices, and experience levels. Only farmers who used cover crops for grazing livestock or forage and received cost-share payments tended to derive net positive returns from cover crop use. Our results can be used as benchmarks for current or potential cover croppers and for ground-truthing agricultural and conservation policy design.
The present study aims at improving our understanding of the individual contribution of the components of total factor productivity (TFP) change to U.S. agricultural productivity. A novel sequential primal-dual estimation routine to calculate TFP change is proposed, using a multi-output input distance function in the first stage, followed by a cost minimization routine in the second stage. TFP change is estimated as the direct sum of the estimates of technical change, technical efficiency change, allocative efficiency change, input price effects, changes in output markup, and changes in returns to scale in each state. The validity of the proposed methodology is supported by the remarkable overlap and high correlation of our annual estimates of TFP change with the USDA's measures of change in TFP by state. Although technical change tends to be the largest contributor to productivity change, it bears a low and statistically insignificant correlation with TFP change on an annual basis, whereas annual changes in the markup effect and returns to scale are highly and significantly correlated with TFP changes. This is the first study to find a slowdown of technical progress in the U.S. farm sector in the 1990s and 2000s, and technical regress during the farm crisis of the 1980s. While technical efficiency shows a positive overall trend, allocative efficiency shows a negative overall trend, and their combined effect (i.e., the overall cost efficiency) slows down TFP growth. The profound implications of these findings for agricultural policy design beg for a revision of the literature on the major drivers of TFP change.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.