Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T06:33:17.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimates Of Government Intervention Levels In U.S. Peanut Markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Bill R. Miller  and
Carl Mabbs-Zeno
Bill R. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia, Athens
Carl Mabbs-Zeno
Affiliation:
Trade Policy Branch, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unilateral liberalization of U.S. peanut policy was evaluated using a model of U.S. and world peanut supply and demand. Under the proposed policy, world peanut price would rise slightly to $.20 per pound at the U.S. farm level. U.S. production would decline by 578 million pounds per year and would be offset by imports of 582 million pounds. U.S. net farm income would fall by $405 million per year. Lost income per farm would be $21,000 per year while the average outlay of consumers would decrease by $.84 per person at farm level price. Government expenditures would be virtually unchanged because of the market orientation of current policy.

Keywords

trade liberalizationpeanut policysupplydemandPSE
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , July 1992 , pp. 153 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carley, D. H. and Fletcher, S. M.. Analysis of the Impact of Alternative Government Policies on Peanut t Farmers. Experiment Station Special Publication 62, University of Georgia, 1989.Google Scholar
Dubman, R. and Miller, Bill R.. Impact of Peanut Supply on Expected Profits in Peanut Shelling. Experiment Station Research Bulletin 369, University of Georgia, 1989.Google Scholar
Ford, S. and Hewitt, T.. “Optimal Crop Mixes for Southeastern Peanut Farms.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SAEA, Nashville, TN, Feb. 1989.Google Scholar
Miller, Bill R. and Webb, Shwu Eng. “Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE), Cost of Production, and Survival of Peanut Farms in the United States and China.” Invited seminar held at National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, August, 1991.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John, Wainio, John, and Roningen, Vernon. A Database for Trade Liberalization Studies. Washington, D.C.: USDA ERS Staff Report No. AGES 89-12, Mar. 1989.Google Scholar
Tomek, William G. and Robinson, Kenneth L.. Agricultural Product Prices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Census of Agriculture, 1988. Washington, D.C., forthcoming.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. GATT and Agriculture: The Concepts of PSE's and CSE's. Washington, D.C.: USDA ERS Miscellaneous Publication No. 1468, Apr. 1989.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Oil Crops: Situation and Outlook Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: USDA OCS-22, July 1989.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. World Oilseed Situation and Market Highlights. Washington, D. C. Various issues.Google Scholar
Webb, Alan J., Lopez, Michael, and Perm, Renata. Estimates of Producer and Consumer Subsidy Equivalents: Government Intervention in Agriculture. Statistical Bulletin No. 803, Apr. 1990.Google Scholar