[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jproda/v43y2015i1p75-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using ex ante output elicitation to model state-contingent technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Chambers
  • Teresa Serra
  • Spiro Stefanou
Abstract
Survey-elicited ex ante outputs are used to develop an empirical representation of an Arrow–Debreu–Savage state-contingent technology in an activity-analysis framework. An empirical test of output-cubicality is developed for that framework. We apply those tools to assess production characteristics of a sample of Catalan farmers specialized in arable crops. Results suggest that imposing nonsubstitutability between ex ante outputs results in no significant loss of information. Even though the technology appears to be output cubical, efficiency measurements based on ex post output observations do not appear to adequately represent the stochastic production environment and apparently yield downward biased technical efficiency measures. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Chambers & Teresa Serra & Spiro Stefanou, 2015. "Using ex ante output elicitation to model state-contingent technologies," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 75-83, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jproda:v:43:y:2015:i:1:p:75-83
    DOI: 10.1007/s11123-014-0385-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11123-014-0385-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11123-014-0385-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher O’Donnell & Robert Chambers & John Quiggin, 2010. "Efficiency analysis in the presence of uncertainty," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Chambers, Robert G., 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Valuing Agricultural Insurance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), pages 1-2, August.
    3. Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-168, March.
    4. C. J. O'Donnell & W. E. Griffiths, 2006. "Estimating State-Contingent Production Frontiers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 249-266.
    5. Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles a., 1993. "Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 8(2), pages 179-212.
    6. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 193-205, October.
    7. Leopold Simar & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2006. "On Testing Equality of Distributions of Technical Efficiency Scores," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 497-522.
    8. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    9. Manski, Charles F, 1999. "Analysis of Choice Expectations in Incomplete Scenarios," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 49-66, December.
    10. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    11. Sriram Shankar & John Quiggin, 2013. "Production under uncertainty: a simulation study," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 207-215, June.
    12. Robert G. Chambers & John Quiggin, 1998. "Cost Functions and Duality for Stochastic Technologies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 288-295.
    13. Just, Richard E. & Pope, Rulon D., 1978. "Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 67-86, February.
    14. Jean-Paul Chavas, 2008. "A Cost Approach to Economic Analysis Under State-Contingent Production Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 435-466.
    15. Robert G. Chambers, 2007. "Valuing Agricultural Insurance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), pages 596-606.
    16. Richard E. Just & Rulon D. Pope, 1979. "Production Function Estimation and Related Risk Considerations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 276-284.
    17. Chambers,Robert G. & Quiggin,John, 2000. "Uncertainty, Production, Choice, and Agency," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521622448.
    18. Hung-Jen Wang, 2002. "Heteroscedasticity and Non-Monotonic Efficiency Effects of a Stochastic Frontier Model," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 241-253, November.
    19. Jean-Paul Chavas & Robert G. Chambers & Rulon D. Pope, 2010. "Production Economics and Farm Management: a Century of Contributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 356-375.
    20. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    21. Harrison, Glenn W, 1994. "Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 223-253.
    22. Wayne A. Fuller, 1965. "Stochastic Fertilizer Production Functions for Continuous Corn," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 47(1), pages 105-119.
    23. Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2002. "Specification and Estimation of Production Risk, Risk Preferences and Technical Efficiency," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 8-22.
    24. Antle, John M, 1983. "Testing the Stochastic Structure of Production: A Flexible Moment-based Approach," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(3), pages 192-201, July.
    25. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sidhoum, Amer Ait & Serra, Teresa, 2018. "Measuring Sustainability Efficiency At Farm Level: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276184, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Serra, Teresa & Chambers, Robert G. & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2014. "Measuring technical and environmental efficiency in a state-contingent technology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 706-717.
    3. Amer Ait Sidhoum, 2023. "Measuring farm productivity under production uncertainty," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(4), pages 672-687, October.
    4. Yin, Pengzhen & Sun, Jiasen & Chu, Junfei & Liang, Liang, 2016. "Evaluating the environmental efficiency of a two-stage system with undesired outputs by a DEA approach: An interest preference perspectiveAuthor-Name: Wu, Jie," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 1047-1062.
    5. Bouali Guesmi & Ahmed Yangui & Ibtissem Taghouti & José Maria Gil, 2022. "Trade-Off between Land Use Pattern and Technical Efficiency Performance: Evidence from Arable Crop Farming in Tunisia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Serra, Teresa & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2014. "Measuring the impacts of production risk on technical efficiency: A state-contingent conditional order-m approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(1), pages 237-242.
    2. Theodoros Skevas & Teresa Serra, 2016. "The role of pest pressure in technical and environmental inefficiency analysis of Dutch arable farms: an event-specific data envelopment approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 139-153, December.
    3. Orea, Luis, 2019. "The Econometric Measurement of Firms’ Efficiency," Efficiency Series Papers 2019/02, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).
    4. Serra, Teresa & Chambers, Robert G. & Oude Lansink, Alfons, 2014. "Measuring technical and environmental efficiency in a state-contingent technology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 706-717.
    5. Amer Ait Sidhoum, 2023. "Assessing the contribution of farmers’ working conditions to productive efficiency in the presence of uncertainty, a nonparametric approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8601-8622, August.
    6. Amer Ait Sidhoum, 2023. "Measuring farm productivity under production uncertainty," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(4), pages 672-687, October.
    7. Antti Saastamoinen, 2015. "Heteroscedasticity Or Production Risk? A Synthetic View," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 459-478, July.
    8. Huettel, Silke & Narayana, Rashmi & Odening, Martin, 2011. "Measuring dynamic efficiency under uncertainty," Structural Change in Agriculture/Strukturwandel im Agrarsektor (SiAg) Working Papers 129062, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Céline Nauges & Christopher J. O'Donnell & John Quiggin, 2011. "Uncertainty and technical efficiency in Finnish agriculture: a state-contingent approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(4), pages 449-467, October.
    10. John Quiggin & Robert G. Chambers, 2006. "The state-contingent approach to production under uncertainty ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(2), pages 153-169, June.
    11. Celine Nauges & Phoebe Koundouri & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2004. "Endogenous Technology Adoption Under Production Risk: Theory and Application to Irrigation Technology," Working Papers 0411, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    12. Hardaker, J. Brian & Lien, Gudbrand, 2010. "Probabilities for decision analysis in agriculture and rural resource economics: The need for a paradigm change," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 345-350, July.
    13. Silva, Andres & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Park, John L., 2011. "Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.
    14. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    15. Ragnar Tveteras & Ola Flaten & Gudbrand Lien, 2011. "Production risk in multi-output industries: estimates from Norwegian dairy farms," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(28), pages 4403-4414.
    16. Yin, Pengzhen & Sun, Jiasen & Chu, Junfei & Liang, Liang, 2016. "Evaluating the environmental efficiency of a two-stage system with undesired outputs by a DEA approach: An interest preference perspectiveAuthor-Name: Wu, Jie," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 1047-1062.
    17. Celine Nauges & Phoebe Koundouri & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2004. "Endogenous Technology Adoption Under Production Risk: Theory and Application to Irrigation Technology," Working Papers 0411, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    18. Serra, Teresa & Zilberman, David & Gil, Jose Maria, 2008. "Farms' technical inefficiencies in the presence of government programs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(1), pages 1-20.
    19. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Kota Minegishi, 2016. "Comparison of production risks in the state-contingent framework: application to balanced panel data," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 121-138, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    State-contingent production; Uncertainty; Inefficiency; Output cubicality; D21; D81; Q12;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jproda:v:43:y:2015:i:1:p:75-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.