Agricultural supply response: A survey

Abstract

Rao, J.M., 1989. Agricultural supply response: a survey. Agric. Econ., 3: 1-22.This paper surveys the literature on agricultural supply response to prices in developing countries. Empirical estimates of elasticities depend both on the methodology adopted and on countryspecific factors relating to technology, economic structure and macro constraints. The paper seeks to establish some general conclusions on supply responsiveness within these limitations. Supply response to output prices at the aggregate and at the crop levels is considered first. Crop-specific acreage elasticities range between zero and 0.8 in the short run while long-run elasticities tend to be higher -between 0.3 and 1.2. Yield elasticities are smaller and less stable than acreage elasticities. Clearly, inter-crop pricing can be relied upon to effect shifts in the commodity composition of agricultural output. Evidence also suggests that supply elasticities vary systematically with such factors as price and yield risks, multiple-cropping, the importance of the crop, farm incomes, farm size, tenancy and literacy. The most controversial and important aspect of supply response is the effect on aggregate agricultural output of agriculture's terms of trade. Conventional time-series estimates range from 0.1 to 0.3. A major cross-country study reports an aggregate elasticity as high as 1.66. It is argued that cross-country estimates are apt to exaggerate aggregate responsiveness while time-series studies underestimate it somewhat. For LDCs, a tentative range of 0.4 to 0.5 seems plausible. Hence, the distributive effects of the terms of trade are likely to be more significant than the allocative effects. Asian evidence shows that only a third of the inter-country differences in fertilizer use can be attributed to fertilizer price policies. Provided new technologies and infrastructure are in place, fertilizer subsidies can help in technology diffusion and in overcoming credit constraints. The choice between price supports and input subsidies will depend on a variety of country-or situation-specific factors. Nevertheless, a significant general factor favoring price supports is that they can more easily be coupled with price stabilization goals than input subsidies. Though sparse, the available evidence on the response of marketed surplus suggests that price policy is not a reliable instrument for regulating inter-sectoral trade. . Economic incentives and supply responseThe importance of agricultural price policies in economic development derives from three key characteristics of agriculture: (a) it is the dominant production and employment sector in LDCs, particularly at low levels of devel-0169-5150/89/$03.50

What economic theory tells us about the impacts of reducing food losses and/or waste: implications for research, policy and practice

“…i Evidence on supply elasticities for agricultural commodities is mixed but the literature [34,35] suggests that the supply response in the short run is relatively inelastic (elasticity of less than one and more often than not close to zero) and in the long run more elastic (elasticity range from below one to over one), though not perfectly so. …”

Worldwide Acreage and Yield Response to International Price Change and Volatility: A Dynamic Panel Data Analysis for Wheat, Rice, Corn, and Soybeans

“…Several studies preferred to use acreage when modeling output supply response (Coyle 1993;Haile et al 2014) because acreage, unlike observed output, is not influenced by external shocks that occur after planting. However, acreage elasticities may only serve as a lower bound for the total supply elasticity (Rao 1989) because the latter depends also on how yield responds to prices. Several studies estimated both acreage and yield responses to prices (Weersink et al 2010;Yu et al 2012).…”

The potential benefits of herbicide-resistant transgenic rice in Uruguay: Lessons for small developing countries

“…Chavas and Cox (1995) found own-price elasticities of supply in the United States for ''other field crops'', where rice is presumably included, to be between 0.60 and 1.31. Rao (1989), in a survey of supply response studies for developing countries, finds that acreage elasticities for specific crops vary from 0 to 0.8 in the short-run and 0.3-1.2 in the long-run. He points out that acreage elasticities are used in most studies as a proxy for supply response because farmers have greater control over acreage than output.…”