No abstract

A new utility function, which I call expo‐power, is proposed that exhibits decreasing, constant, or increasing absolute risk aversion and decreasing or increasing relative risk aversion, depending on parameter values. Numerical analysis suggests that the expo‐power function performs well in incorporating these risk preference structures, and that arbitrary risk preference specifications may lead to biased risk response estimates.

A method is developed to permit joint estimation of risk preference structure, degree of risk aversion, and production technology. The method is implemented using the Expo-Power utility function, which imposes no restrictions on risk preference structure. The empirical application uses data from a sample of Kansas wheat farmers. Evidence rejects the null hypothesis of risk neutrality and suggests that Kansas farmers exhibit decreasing absolute risk aversion and increasing relative risk aversion. Results also show that combined estimation of production function parameters with the utility function parameter is more efficient than is separate estimation of each.

No abstract

The two-step decision process for food-away-from-home (FAFH) consumption is empirically estimated using a generalization of the Heien and Wessells approach. Household information gathered by the National Panel Diary Group is used for the analysis. Marginal effects are corrected by untangling the respective variable impacts on the inverse Mills ratio. Expenditure and participation probability elasticities are similar to previous studies. Income elasticities ate about 0.20, suggesting that the FAFH commodity is a necessary good for U.S. society. Northeastern households are less likely to consume FAFH than other households, but their expenditures are higher on average.Key words: censored response modeling, food away from home.Socioeconomic and demographic trends are frequently cited as potential influences on food-away-from-home (FAFH) consumption (Prochaska and Schrimper; McCracken and Brandt; Lee and Brown; Yen; Kinsey; Nayga and Capps). Increased participation of women in the labor force places new constraints on household production time. As such, the convenience of FAFH is an attractive attribute to these households as well as to single-adult households. Factors such as age, ethnicity, regionality, urbanization, and education have potential effects on FAFH consumption due to differences in preferences, availability, and price. Successful marketing in the consumer-driven food industry requires an understanding for the role of demographic factors and recent trends of U.S. households on FAFH consumption.Previous studies have offered estimates of income and household size elasticities (Lamm; McCracken and Brandt; Yen). A summary of

No abstract

Concern for the potentially harmful side effects of agricultural chemical inputs, especially pesticides, highlights the need to accurately determine the economic levels of their use. We consider three model specification issues: interaction of direct production inputs with damage control inputs in damage abatement, justification for a priori exclusion of production inputs from the abatement function, and the motivations and consequences of alternative stochastic specifications. Empirical analysis using farm-level data shows that misspecification of the stochastic element in the production function can overestimate the marginal physical productivity of pesticides and grossly underestimate the responsiveness of demand to increases in pesticide prices. Copyright 1997, Oxford University Press.

We present an agricultural household model of consumption, storage, savings, and labor decisions and argue that food crop storage under price risk cannot be fully explained by “risk taking” or speculative behavior alone, as the commodity storage literature suggests. Often, and especially in the case of small farmers, the explanation lies in the household's aversion to risk and in food security considerations. The empirical analysis, using ICRISAT quarterly panel data from Shirapur, provides evidence against risk‐neutral preferences. We find that risk response is particularly significant in the storage and labor decisions of small farm households.