Equilibrium displacement modeling is used to analyze the effects of incremental advertising expenditure by the Australian beef, lamb, and pork industries in domestic and export markets. The effects on prices, quantities traded, revenues, producer surpluses, and profits net of advertising expenditure are reported. Cross-commodity impacts of advertising are highlighted, including how one industry has to adjust its advertising expenditure to preserve profit levels in the face of increased advertising by another industry. The procedures used are useful when decisions about advertising expenditure need to be made quickly.
The primary objective in this paper is to 'promote' the use of equilibrium displacement modelling, or comparative static analyses of general function models, as a research tool in agricultural price and policy analyses This is by no means a new tool, but it does seem to be used much less in Australia than it is in the US where it has been the basis of several important journal papers in recent times. The paper includes applications to: (a) reproduce important results obtained by Buse (1958) regarding total elasticities; and (b) examine the price premium argument that has been advanced in favour of single-desk selling arrangements. The latter is the secondary objective in the paper. Whilst equilibrium displacement modelling has its shortcomings, it is a research tool that can provide useful results with few assumptions. It can be a substitute for econometric modelling when resource and time constraints are binding. The application to the price-premium argument rc-confirms the doubts that many analysts have expressed about singlc-desk selling.
Vector autoregression (VAR) methods are used to analyse the contribution of supply, demand and policy shocks to unpredictable fluctuations in the market for Australian wool. VAR procedures are compared with conventional structural econometric models as methods for decomposing sources of instability. While each has advantages and disadvantages, VAR procedures might be viewed as preferable when the underlying market structure is complex and uncertain, as it is in the case of wool. Based on the results obtained, demand shocks are the dominant source of uncertainty in the wool market in the absence of Australian Wool Corporation intervention, but intervention has blunted their effects, reducing market uncertainty and increasing the average level of prices and revenues.
University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351In this paper the impact of changes in wool promotion expenditure and changes in expenditure on the promotion of competing fibres are examined using an equilibrium displacement model. The emphasis is on examining impacts on producer profits net of promotion expenditure and on benefit-cost ratios measuring changes in producer surplus relative to changes in promotion expenditure. It was found, for example, that incremental expenditure on apparel wool promotion on the domestic market is unprofitable but incremental expenditure on promotion of apparel wool on the export market is generally profitable. Further, it was found that increased promotion of cotton and man-made fibres on the export market, with promotion of apparel wool unchanged, would reduce profits to apparel wool producers. Finally, a case is made for improved data availability in order to allow more comprehensive ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of promotion programs, thereby increasing the intensity of scrutiny of promotion programs to a level more in line with that for investment in rural research and development.'Clever promotion is in large part art. The logic behind a successful promotion is seldom obvious unless someone imagines the promotion.
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.