Revenue-neutral tax policy under price uncertainty

The firm's response to revenue-neutral taxation is investigated under price uncertainty. Revenue-neutral policies adjust simultaneously the marginal tax rate and the level of exemptions while keeping expected tax receipts constant. Nonincreasing absolute risk aversion is sufficient to sign the firm's response: a reduction in the marginal rate causes the firm to contract output. Implications are established for the equilibrium level of treasury receipts.

Revenue-neutral tax policies under price uncertainty: reply

In their comment on my 1990 article, Yeh, Suwanakul, and Mai extend my analysis-which focused attention exclusively on firm output-to allow for simultaneous endogeneity of price, aggregate output, and numbers of firms. They show that, with downward- sloping demand, industry output adjusts positively to revenue-neutral changes in the marginal rate of taxation. This result is significant for two reasons. First, we are more often interested in predictions about aggregate phenomena than we are in predictions about individual firms. Indeed, firm-level predictions are frequently irrefutable since firm data are often unavailable. Second, the authors derive their result under a set of conditions that appear to be more general than those invoked in my 1990 article. In particular, they circumvent the need to invoke specific assumptions about the nature of firms' aversions toward risk. I consider this a useful extension and I appreciate the careful scrutiny of my paper.

Distribution of research gains in multistage production systems: further results

The "marketing" sector in Muth's single-stage model is disaggregated in to two sequential stages: "processing" and "distribution. "Comparative statics are used to derive necessary and sufficient conditions for farmers to gain from downstream research. The farm benefits are shown to depend crucially on the stage in "marketing" to which research is directed.

Food marketing technology and contingency market valuation

Marketing activities are introduced into a rational expectations model of the food marketing system. The model is used to evaluate effects of alternative marketing technologies on the distribution of the benefits of contingency markets in agriculture. Benefits depend on two parameters: the cost share of farm inputs and the elasticity of substitution between farm and nonfarm inputs in food marketing. Over a broad spectrum of technologies, consumers are likely to be the net beneficiaries and farmers the net losers from the provision of contingency markets

Evaluating the alternatives

In this article, I study the impacts of a specific incentives-based approach to safety regulation, namely the control of quality through sampling and threatening penalties when quality fails to meet some minimum standard. The welfare-improving impacts of this type of scheme seem high and are cogently illustrated in a recent contribution by Segerson, which stimulated many of the ideas in this paper. For this reason, the reader is referred to Segerson for a background on some of the motivation, and throughout, I make an effort to indicate differences between the two approaches. There are three major differences. First, I dispense with the calculus as much as possible, seeking readily interpreted, closedform solutions to illustrate the main ideas. Second, (strategically optimal, symmetric) Nash equilibria are the mainstay of each of the current models. Third, in the uncertainquality- provision equilibria, each of the Nash suppliers chooses the level of the lower bound for quality as a control and offers a draw from its (private) distribution in a contribution to the (public) pool of quality.

Demand, supply and willingness-to-pay for extension services in an emerging-market setting

Although it may be wholly inappropriate to generalize, the most important resource available to a subsistence household is the total amount of time that its members have available to spend in productive enterprises. In this context, services that minimize the time that it takes to perform productive activities are valuable to the household. Consequently the household is willing to relinquish quantities of other resources in exchange for quantities of the time-saving service. These simple observations motivate a search for the values that subsistence households place on time-saving services. This search is especially important when it is realized that extension services promote productivity, enhance the surplus-generating potential of the household and can, as a consequence, promote immersion into markets that are currently constrained by thinness and instability. In this capacity, extension visitation has the potential to overcome one of the principal impediments to economic development, namely lack of density of market participation. In this article, we consider this issue in the context of a rich data set on milk-market participation by small-holder dairy producers in the Ethiopian highlands.

When do export subsidies have a redistributional role?

If an export subsidy is efficient, that is, has a surplus-transfer role, then there exists an implicit function relating the optimal level of the subsidy to the income target in the agricultural sector. If an export subsidy is inefficient no such function exists. We show that dependence exists in large-export equilibrium, not in small-export equilibrium and show that these results remain robust to concerns about domestic tax distortions. The failure of previous work to produce this result stems from its neglect of the income constraint on producer surplus in the programming problem transferring surplusfrom consumersand taxpayers to farmers.

When do export subsidies have a redistributional role? Reply

Our differences are three. The first arises from the belief that "... a nonzero value for the optimally chosen policy instrument implies that the instrument is efficient for redistribution" (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 3). Consider the two equations: (1) o* = f(P3) and (2) = -f(3) ++r h* (a, P3) representing the solution to the problem of maximizing weighted, Marshallian surplus using, simultaneously, a per-unit border intervention, 9, and a per-unit domestic intervention, wr. In the solution, parameter ot denotes the weight applied to producer surplus; parameter p denotes the weight applied to government revenues; consumer surplus is implicitly weighted one; and the country in question is small in the sense that it is unable to affect world price by any of its domestic adjustments (see the Appendix). Details of the forms of the functions f((P) and h(ot, p) are easily derived, but what matters in the context of Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's Comment is: Redistributivep referencest hatf avorp roducers are consistent with higher values "alpha," and whereas the optimal domestic intervention, 7r*, has both "alpha and beta effects," the optimal border intervention, r*, has only a "beta effect,"-it does not have a redistributional role. Garth Holloway is reader in agricultural economics and statistics, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy, and Development, University of Reading. The author is very grateful to Xavier Irz, Bhavani Shankar, Chittur Srinivasan, Colin Thirtle, and Richard Tiffin for their comments and their wisdom; and to Mario Mazzochi, Marinos Tsigas, and Cal Turvey for their scholarship, including help in tracking down a fairly complete collection of the papers that cite Alston and Hurd. They are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Note, in equation (1), that the border intervention is positive whenever a distortion exists because 8 > 0 implies 3 - 1 + 8 > 1 and, thus, f((P) > 0 (see Appendix). Using Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's definition, the instrument is now "efficient," and therefore has a redistributive role. But now, suppose that the distortion is removed so that 3 - 1 + 8 = 1, 8 = 0, and consequently the border intervention is zero. According to Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, the instrument is now "inefficient" and has no redistributive role. The reader will note that this thought experiment has said nothing about supporting farm incomes, and so has nothing whatsoever to do with efficient redistribution. Of course, the definition is false. It follows that a domestic distortion arising from the "excess-burden argument" 3 = 1 + 8, 8 > 0 does not make an export subsidy "efficient." The export subsidy, having only a "beta effect," does not have a redistributional role. The second disagreement emerges from the comment that Holloway "... uses an idiosyncratic definition of the relevant objective function of the government (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 2)." The objective function that generates equations (1) and (2) (see the Appendix) is the same as the objective function used by Gardner (1995) when he first questioned Alston, Carter, and Smith's claim that a "domestic distortion can make a border intervention efficient in transferring surplus from consumers and taxpayers to farmers." The objective function used by Gardner (1995) is the same objective function used in the contributions that precede it and thus defines the literature on the debate about borderversus- domestic intervention (Streeten; Yeh; Paarlberg 1984, 1985; Orden; Gardner 1985). The objective function in the latter literature is the same as the one implied in another literature that originates from Wallace and includes most notably Gardner (1983), but also Alston and Hurd. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 86(2) (May 2004): 549-552 Copyright 2004 American Agricultural Economics Association This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:58:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 550 May 2004 Amer. J. Agr. Econ. The objective function in Holloway is this same objective function-it is, of course, Marshallian surplus.1 The third disagreement concerns scholarship. The Comment does not seem to be cognizant of several important papers, especially Bhagwati and Ramaswami, and Bhagwati, both of which precede Corden (1974, 1997); but also Lipsey and Lancaster, and Moschini and Sckokai; one important aspect of Alston and Hurd; and one extremely important result in Holloway. This oversight has some unfortunate repercussions. First, it misdirects to the wrong origins of intellectual property. Second, it misleads about the appropriateness of some welfare calculations. Third, it prevents Alston, Smith, and Vercammen from linking a finding in Holloway (pp. 242-43) with an old theorem (Lipsey and Lancaster) that settles the controversy (Alston, Carter, and Smith 1993, 1995; Gardner 1995; and, presently, Alston, Smith, and Vercammen) about the efficiency of border intervention in the presence of domestic distortions.

Budget constrained tax policy under price uncertainty: implications for supply control

Tax policies that constrain net transfers between the farm sector and the fisc are modeled under price uncertainty. Increasing the level of tax on profits causes the firm to expand output. Implications are derived for supply control and the distributions of profits and net receipts at the fisc.

Market power and its effects on equilibrium in the food system

When food processors have conjectures about rival firms' responses, their profit functions can be used to estimate the degree of market power in the food system. The effects of this power are investigated analytically and through applying the results to the U.S. pork sector

Comparing hypotheses about competition in the food system

A procedure is presented for comparing hypotheses about competition that makes no parametric assumptions about cost and demand functions, can be implemented with a modicum of data, and relies on Bayesian comparisons of non-nested hypotheses. The methodology is applied to data on five of the major U.S. food industries

Keeping the dream of rigorous hypothesis testing alive

This article reviews recent work on hypothesis testing in the American Journal of AGricultural Economics and its predecessor journal, the Journal of Farm Economics

Admissible conjectures and consistent conjectures

Firms' conjectures are consistent if their ex post behavior rationalizes their ex ante beliefs. Admissible conjectures are those that satisfy the necessary conditions for consistency. Competition is inadmissible unless aggregate output is stationary. Relaxing this restriction, admissibility eliminates Cournot behavior and constrains conduct to be collusive

Consistent comparative statics for the food industries

Consistent conjectures are derived in an oligopoly model with homogeneous products and identical firms. The exercise uncovers two important findings. Absent entry, the monopolistic conjecture, is the unique consistent conjecture. With endogenous entry, no consistent conjecture exists. These results provide foundations for deriving consistentc omparatives taticsf or the food industries

A characterization of the food industries

Consistent conjectures applied to the food industries are investigated. This is a homogeneous-product, quantity-setting model with identical firms. When firm numbers are fixed, the consistent conjecture is monopolistic. When variable, consistency requires firm output to expand with exit and contract with entry, but no conjecture exists that is consistent with equilibrium.