Abstract
Economic impacts of pesticide regulations are assessed using five alternative methodologies. The regulations include crop supply-enhancing eradication programs and crop supply-decreasing pesticide bans. Alternative assessment methodologies differ regarding assumptions about market price and crop acreage adjustments. Results show that market and producer adjustments substantially impact conclusions about winners and losers from regulations, and estimated welfare effects can differ widely between the different methodologies. For small technological changes such as the hypothetical pendimethalin regulation, farm budgeting and sector modeling yield similar estimates. For more severe technological changes—like the boll weevil eradication program—simple budgeting approaches lead to a substantial bias.
Highlights
Farm linear programming models [21,22,23,24] have been used and these relax the assumption of constant crop acres allowing adjustments in the farm’s crop mix. Incorporating such adjustments can be important, if a pesticide action decreases the profitability of a crop, causing it to be planted on a smaller area
Agriculture 2018, 8, 53 examined that tilt the balance toward the superiority of particular methods? The objective of this paper is to examine the consequences of alternative assumptions and methodologies for the economic assessment of pesticide regulations
For comparative reasons we added the welfare changes obtained from the individual pesticide bans and listed the resulting number under single-market equilibrium welfare changes from the combined pesticide regulation
Summary
Governmental regulatory activities involving use of pesticides have stimulated numerous economic analyses regarding the consequences of pesticide withdrawal [1,2,3], pest eradication [4,5,6], integrated pest management (IPM) [7,8,9,10], pesticide reduction technologies [11,12], and genetically engineered pesticide resistance [13,14,15], along with many other pest-related issues. Farm linear programming models [21,22,23,24] have been used and these relax the assumption of constant crop acres allowing adjustments in the farm’s crop mix. Incorporating such adjustments can be important, if a pesticide action decreases the profitability of a crop, causing it to be planted on a smaller area. Few assessments use full sectoral level analyses that allow for shifts in crop mix, crop management, total production, market prices, and patterns of product usage [27,28,29]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
