3.9 Article

Simultaneous Analysis of Insurance Participation and Acreage Response from Subsidized Crop Insurance for Cotton

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jrfm14110562

关键词

Bt adoption; insurance participation; acreage response; fixed effects; subsidy per pound; rate of return

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that both the rate of return and unit expected subsidy for subsidized crop insurance have a significant positive impact on the percentage of arable acres planted, especially in low-yield counties. Results indicate that different regions respond differently to subsidized crop insurance, suggesting that subsidies should be based on dollars per expected unit of production rather than expected production.
US crop insurance is subsidized to encourage producers to participate and reduce their risk exposure. However, what has been the impact of these subsidies on insurance demand and crop acres planted? Using a simultaneous system of two equations, we quantify both insurance participation and acreage response to subsidized crop insurance for cotton-producing counties across the US at the national and regional levels. We also quantify the impact of both the realized rate of return and the expected subsidy per pound, plus the combined effects of expected yield and price while accounting for the adoption of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) technology and other factors. Results show that both the rate of return and the expected subsidy per unit of production have a statistically significant and positive effect on the percentage of arable acres planted. Furthermore, the marginal effect of expected price on insurance participation is much more significant for low- than high-yield counties. Results indicate that not all regions respond the same to subsidized crop insurance and that subsidies should be based on dollars per expected unit of production rather than expected production to be less distorting. Overall, US cotton acreage response is estimated to be inelastic (0.58) to insurance participation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据