Canadian Agricultural Research Articles

Testing for Dynamic Misspecification of Input Demand Functions: An Application to Canadian Agriculture

Previous applications of the inter‐temporal quadratic adjustment cost model in agriculture have failed to consider information gained from pre‐testing in choosing an appropriate specification for dynamic demand of quasi‐fixed inputs. A test strategy is outlined taking account of this information in order to consistently estimate adjustment cost and discount rate parameters. Canadian agricultural data are used in the empirical analysis. Test results suggest that the intertemporal quadratic adjustment cost model is inappropriate for modeling dynamic demand for land, labor and machinery.

What Are the AAEA Meetings Worth?

AbstractAttendee valuations of AAEA meetings are estimated using the Professional Activities Committee survey of the 1990 Vancouver meetings. Meeting participation, direct expenditures, and willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) are presented. WTP is described in a utility maximization framework and estimated by censored regression. Respondents spent an average $@@‐@@1,022 attending the meetings and were willing to pay an additional $@@‐@@399. Meeting benefits increased with duration and frequency of attendance. Members of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists benefited more than did nonmembers. Respondents with service appointments, associate professors, and Canadian Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Society members benefited less than did their respective counterparts.

Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomieVolume 40, Issue 3 p. 522-523 Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society First published: November 1992 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1992.tb03714.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume40, Issue3November 1992Pages 522-523 RelatedInformation

Cost Structure, Interfactor Substitution and Complementarity, and Efficiency in the Canadian Agricultural Sector

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the cost structure, painvise input relationships and the technological aspects of the Canadian agricultural sector. The theoretical approach applied in this investigation is the CES‐translog production technology in its generalized form. The theoretical model has been tested by using time‐series data (1947‐85) and four factors of production (i.e., land, capital, labor and intermediate inputs). The method used to estimate the model is the full‐information maximum likelihood technique.L'objet de I'article est d'examiner la structure des cofits, les rapports d'intrants en paires et les aspects technologiques du secteur agricole canadien. La demarche theorique utiliske est celle de la fonction de production CES‐translog dans sa forme gknCralisCe. Le modele theorique a ete test6 sur des series chronologiques (1947–1985) et sur quatre facteurs de production: fonds de terre, capital, main‐d'euvre et intrants intermediaires La methode d'estimation du modele est la technique dite de I'information totale‐probabilitk maximale.

The State, Organized Interests and Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy: The Impact of Institutions

AbstractThis article examines the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the objective of explaining the inclusion of agriculture in the FTA, the negotiation process surrounding the FTA and the outcomes with respect to agricultural commodities. It departs from both the systemic and state-centred models which have dominated Canadian foreign economic policy to argue that, while developments in the international trading system are important factors in explaining Canada's decision to pursue the FTA, the negotiation process and outcomes of the FTA are importantly accounted for in terms of domestic institutions: specifically, state-societal linkages in combination with federal structures. Evidence that the autonomy and capacity of national trade officials was constrained throughout the negotiation process and in terms of the FTA provisions regarding agricultural commodities requires a re-formulation of foreign economic policy-making that links it to the domestic institutional context. Within the latter, the sub-national governments, in combination with durable state-group policy networks, are important factors.

Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Society

Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Society

Fellows of the Canadian Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Society

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomieVolume 39, Issue 3 p. 532-532 Fellows of the Canadian Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Society First published: November 1991 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1991.tb03596.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume39, Issue3November 1991Pages 532-532 RelatedInformation

Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society

Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society

Book Reviews

Book reviewed in this article:Economic Restructuring and African Public Administration: Issues, Actions and Future Choices Edited by m.J. balogun and G. mutahabaManaging Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State Edited by Robert paFXlke and douQlas torGerson.Agricultural Trade: Domestic Pressures and International Tensions Edited by grace skogstad and andrew fenton cooper.Farming the System: How Politicians and Producers Shape Canadian Agricultural Policy By barry K. wilson.Negotiating the Past: The Making of Canada's National Historic Parks and Sites By C.J. TaylorPrivatizing a Province: The New Right in Saskatchewan By james M. pitsula and ken rasmussen.Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Working Situations By MARY ellen guy.

A Model of Production with Supply Management for the Canadian Agricultural Sector: Reply

A Model of Production with Supply Management for the Canadian Agricultural Sector: Reply

A Model of Production with Supply Management for the Canadian Agricultural Sector: Comment

In a recent paper Moschini (1988) claims to prove that cost complementarities between outputs do not exist when outputs are joint because of fixed allocatable factors which are normal inputs. This comment demonstrates that Moschini's proposition is incorrect, shows where the proof of the proposition is faulty, and identifies the additional condition that must hold in order for Moschini's proposition to be true. Correct derivation of this proposition is important because technology with fixed allocatable factors and multiple outputs is common in agriculture and standard analyses of multiple output cost functions, such as Sakai's or Lau's, do not apply directly to this technology. Consider the multiple output cost function used in Moschini (1988) to characterize production which is joint in outputs because of constraints on allocatable fixed factors. Jointness is not present in the primal representation of this technology. The production possibility set can be represented with individual production functions for each output. But outputs are joint in the dual cost and profit functions because they must compete for a constrained quantity of some allocatable input. The joint cost function is defined by Moschini's equation (15), which is reproduced here as equation (1):

Canadian Agricultural Policy 1967 to 1990: Issues, Review Process and Decisions

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomieVolume 38, Issue 4 p. 541-548 Canadian Agricultural Policy 1967 to 1990: Issues, Review Process and Decisions C. Gilson, C. Gilson Department of Agricultural Economics, Universily of Manitoba, Winneg, Manitoba.Search for more papers by this author C. Gilson, C. Gilson Department of Agricultural Economics, Universily of Manitoba, Winneg, Manitoba.Search for more papers by this author First published: December 1990 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1990.tb03487.xCitations: 2AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume38, Issue4December 1990Pages 541-548 RelatedInformation

Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Society

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomieVolume 38, Issue 3 p. 537-537 Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Society First published: November 1990 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1990.tb00867.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume38, Issue3November 1990Pages 537-537 RelatedInformation

Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomieVolume 38, Issue 3 p. 536-537 Presidents of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society First published: November 1990 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1990.tb00866.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume38, Issue3November 1990Pages 536-537 RelatedInformation

Fellows of the Canadian Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Society

Fellows of the Canadian Agricultural Economics and Farm Management Society

Exchange Rate Effects on Inputs and Outputs in Canadian Agriculture

In a seminal piece of work, Schuh demonstrates, using a single market partial equilibrium model, that exchange rates have a large impact on the price received for farm products. He argued that the overvalued U.S. dollar reduced export demand and the domestic price of U.S. grains. Since then, much of the work on estimating the impact of exchange rate changes on agriculture has implicitly assumed that inputs to the agricultural sector come from the nontraded sector.' We argue this assumption can result in an error in the estimation of the effects of exchange rates. In an examination of the passthrough of changes in the $US/CDN exchange rate, we find the data from 1975 to 1989 are consistent with the hypothesis of a complete passthrough of exchange rates for many important variable inputs to Canadian agricultural production. This analysis indicates that, while exchange rates may have had significant impacts on the return to fixed factors and farm income, they have had little effect on grain production. In the case of livestock feeding in Canada, exchange rate devaluations may actually reduce production and reduce the return to fixed factors because inputs (especially grain) are more tradeable than outputs. Finally, we examine the potential welfare impact on nontradeables (such as land) from changes in the exchange rate. Theoretical Model

Canadian Agricultural Policy and Prairie Agriculture

Canadian Agricultural Policy and Prairie Agriculture

Effects of the Monetary Macro-Economy on Canadian Agricultural Prices

This paper examines the importance of monetary macro-economic variables on Canadian agricultural prices using vector autoregressive (VAR) modeling. The research results suggest that U.S. monetary macro-economic policy as represented by the u.s. /world exchange rate is the most significant monetary factor influencing Canadian agricultural price instability. The paper also examined how agricultural prices and manufactures prices respond to a monetary shock. The results suggest that agricultural prices respond more quickly in the short run but that manufactures prices catch up in later periods. This conclusion supports Bordos contract length hypothesis and Frankel's overshooting hypothesis. It does not support Tweeten's cost-price squeeze hypothesis.

Canadian Agricultural Finance in the 1980s and 1990s

Canadian Agricultural Finance in the 1980s and 1990s

Financial Distress in the Canadian Agricultural Sector: A Macro Analysis

Financial Distress in the Canadian Agricultural Sector: A Macro Analysis