This article comprehensively examines the impact of integrated pest management-farmer field school (IPM-FFS) on yield, insecticide expenditures, labor expenditures, herbicide expenditures, fertilizer expenditures, and profit, based on data from onion producers in the Philippines. Propensity score matching (PSM) and regression-based approaches that account for potential bias due to selection problems from observable variables are used to achieve the objective of the study. Sensitivity of our IPM-FFS impact results to potential bias due to "selection on unobservables" was also assessed. We find that farmers who participate in the IPM-FFS training program have statistically lower insecticide expenditures than the non-IPM-FFS farmers. But we do not find any evidence that the IPM-FFS training program significantly affects yield and the other inputs. There is some evidence indicating that IPM-FFS farmers may have statistically higher profit levels than non-IPM-FFS producers, but these results are sensitive to and may still be invalidated by bias due to unobservable variables. Since IPM-FFS seem to only significantly reduce insecticide use, policymakers and extension educators may need to adjust the IPM-FFS curriculum to further emphasize (or include) other agronomic practices that also optimize the use of other inputs like labor, fertilizer, and herbicides. The more efficient use of all inputs would likely reduce total expenditures and eventually translate to higher incomes.JEL classifications: Q10, Q12, Q16

No abstract

PurposeBecause of the increasing differential between farm and retail prices, the study proposes to investigate the extent of market power in the rice value chain of Bangladesh using advanced econometric techniques.Design/methodology/approachUsing a Stochastic Frontier Estimation approach on cross-sectional data, the study examines the price spread along the rice value chain to determine whether millers and wholesalers exercise market power.FindingsEmpirical results reveal that, on average, rice millers and wholesalers charge 33 and 29% above the marginal cost, respectively. This study confirms the non-competitive behavior of the rice market with wholesalers and millers wielding substantial market powerResearch limitations/implicationsA limitation of the study is that it does not include the retailers who also play a major role in the Bangladesh rice value chain. This is left for future study.Originality/valueThis study combines primary and secondary data collected on the Bangladesh rice sector to examine the market power of two major players along the value chain, millers and wholesalers, using an advanced econometrics approach.

With the increasing frequency of extreme climatic events, the new challenge is to develop rice varieties that are tolerant of drought, water submergence, and salinity. There are now new high-yielding green super rice (GSR) cultivars developed at the International Rice Research Institute with increased tolerance to multiple abiotic stresses. But a clear understanding of the economic benefits of these varieties under farmers' production environments is not yet fully understood. In this article, we assess the yield and income effects of GSR rice varieties using a two-year panel data from one province. We use matched samples from a propensity score matching method and a fixed-effects model within a difference-in-difference (DID) framework to estimate the yield effects. The income effects were evaluated using the parameter estimates from the yield/production function model. The results of the ordinary least squares and DID fixed-effects regressions reveal significant and positive effects of GSR varieties on yield. The most important finding is that the benefits from these varieties are strongly felt when there is flooding. This evidence was not as robust when matched samples were used. However, it is clear that the yield benefits from GSR varieties could improve rice food security and help alleviate poverty in the country.JEL classifications: Q12, Q16

No abstract

We extend the recently proposed multi-dimensional asymmetric information model to show that advantageous selection could be present in crop insurance with two types of coverage: (i) multiple perils (e.g. a multi-peril, 'all risk' policy), and (ii) a specific named peril (or set of perils). Our theoretical model suggests that certain characteristics of an insured farmer (or farm) under both types of coverage can be sources of advantageous selection. Farmers who advantageously select are more likely to purchase insurance coverage and less likely to realise a loss. A supplementary empirical analysis, based on data from the Philippine crop insurance market, illustrates how sources of advantageous selection can be identified econometrically.

The potential contributions of new biotechnologies to sustainable food and income security have been the subject of widespread discussions around the turn of the 21st century. But distributional issues of which segments of adopters of genetically modified (GM) crops benefit the most have not been given ample attention). Using propensity scores, we apply the (a) stratification-multilevel method of estimating heterogeneous treatment effects; and the (b) matching-smoothing method of estimating heterogeneous treatment effects proposed by Xie et al. We find that the incidence of higher yields, lower insecticide use, and reduced seed utilization in the Philippines diminishes progressively as a farmer's propensity to adopt Bt corn increases. Farmers with a low propensity to adopt Bt are those who farm smaller, nonirrigated farms located farther from seed suppliers and farmers without previous training on pest identification. In most cases, while these farmers are typically poorer farmers in smaller parcels, cannot afford irrigation and are situated in remote areas away from easily accessible seed suppliers, there is no evidence, however, that profits differ across farmers with varying propensities to adopt the Bt variety.JEL classifications: Q10, Q12, Q16

This article examines the moral hazard and adverse selection effects of cost‐of‐production (COP) crop insurance products. Building on existing crop insurance models of moral hazard, as well as a survey‐based data set that allows us to separately identify moral hazard from adverse selection, we find evidence that farmers insured under COP contracts spend more on chemical fertilizers and pesticides (i.e. those inputs whose costs determine the indemnity payments). However, since these same COP insured farmers are still likely to use less inputs (like effort) whose costs do not enter the indemnity payment formula, and yield depends on both types of inputs (i.e. the determinants and non‐determinants of the indemnity payments), the final moral hazard effect of COP insurance on yields is ambiguous. Our analysis also suggests that farmers who tend to spend less on chemical fertilizers and pesticides are the ones with private information on soil conditions and pest incidence. These are the types of farmers who adversely select into COP contracts that only cover weather related losses.