| Working Paper |
File Downloads |
Abstract Views |
| Last month |
3 months |
12 months |
Total |
Last month |
3 months |
12 months |
Total |
| AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN LATIN AMERICA: NEW DIRECTIONS AND NEW CHALLENGES |
0 |
1 |
4 |
7 |
0 |
1 |
12 |
20 |
| Agricultura de contrato en los países en desarrollo: aspectos teóricos y análisis de algunos ejemplos en México |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
| An Overview of Beginning Farms and Farmers |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
| CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS IN RESPONSE TO CROP INSURANCE: EVIDENCE FROM CENSUS MICRO DATA |
0 |
0 |
1 |
32 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
190 |
| Carbon Emissions, Renewable Electricity and Profits: Comparing Alternative Policies to Promote Anaerobic Digesters on Dairies |
0 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
42 |
| Carbon Prices and the Adoption of Methane Digesters on Dairy and Hog Farms |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
40 |
| Changes in Manure Management in the Hog Sector |
0 |
0 |
1 |
27 |
0 |
1 |
9 |
101 |
| Changes in Manure Management in the Hog Sector: 1998-2004 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
9 |
| Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Hog Farms, 2004 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
104 |
| Climate Change Policy and the Adoption of Methane Digesters on Livestock Operations |
0 |
0 |
1 |
37 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
73 |
| Climate Change, Heat Stress, and U.S. Dairy Production |
0 |
0 |
1 |
41 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
60 |
| Commodity Payments, Farm Business Survival, and Farm Size Growth |
0 |
1 |
1 |
24 |
2 |
4 |
12 |
115 |
| Contracts, Markets, and Prices: Organizing the Production and Use of Agricultural Commodities |
0 |
1 |
2 |
58 |
3 |
5 |
12 |
228 |
| DOES CONTRACTING RAISE FARM PRODUCTIVITY? THE IMPACT OF PRODUCTION CONTRACTS ON HOG FARM PERFORMANCE |
0 |
0 |
0 |
31 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
98 |
| Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Change in the U.S. Hog Industry, 1992-2004 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
21 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
94 |
| Did the Baby Boom Cause the Farm-Size Boom? |
0 |
0 |
1 |
18 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
121 |
| Do Decoupled Payments Stimulate Production? Estimating the Effect on Program Crop Acreage Using Matching |
0 |
0 |
2 |
47 |
2 |
3 |
10 |
149 |
| Do Government Payments Influence Farm Business Survival? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
98 |
| Do Most U.S. Farms Really Lose Money? Taxation and Farm Income Underreporting |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
20 |
| Do Wealth Gains from Land Appreciation Cause Farmers to Expand Acreage or Buy Land? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
54 |
| Does Crop Insurance Affect Crop Yields? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
72 |
| Does Federal Crop Insurance Encourage Farm Specialization and Fertilizer and Chemical Use? |
0 |
0 |
2 |
25 |
1 |
2 |
13 |
83 |
| Does Federal Crop Insurance Make Environmental Externalities from Agriculture Worse? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
39 |
2 |
2 |
19 |
71 |
| Does proprietor wealth influence small business decisions? Land appreciation and farm business borrowing, land ownership, and output |
0 |
1 |
1 |
12 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
101 |
| Does risk matter for farm businesses? The effect of crop insurance on production and diversification |
0 |
0 |
1 |
54 |
3 |
5 |
17 |
188 |
| ECONOMIC AND STRUCTURAL RELATIONSHIPS IN U.S. HOG PRODUCTION |
0 |
0 |
0 |
47 |
1 |
7 |
13 |
255 |
| Economics of Antibiotic Use in U.S. Livestock Production |
0 |
1 |
7 |
69 |
2 |
7 |
23 |
189 |
| Effects of CAFO Regulations on Livestock Producers’ Behaviors |
0 |
0 |
2 |
50 |
1 |
5 |
12 |
95 |
| Effects of Clean Water Act Regulations on Firm-Level Decisions in Agriculture |
0 |
0 |
1 |
16 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
94 |
| Effects of Increased Environmental Regulation of Manure Management at Livestock Operations: A Differences-in-Differences Approach |
0 |
0 |
0 |
27 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
25 |
| FACTORS AFFECTING CONTRACTOR AND GROWER SUCCESS IN HOG CONTRACTING |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
| Farm Household Income Volatility: An Analysis Using Panel Data From a National Survey |
0 |
0 |
3 |
11 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
27 |
| Farmland Values, Land Ownership, and Returns to Farmland, 2000-2016 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
17 |
| Financial Conditions in the U.S. Agricultural Sector: Historical Comparisons |
0 |
1 |
21 |
21 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
7 |
| GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS AND STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN AGRICULTURE |
0 |
0 |
0 |
34 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
116 |
| Government Payments and Farmland Concentration |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
78 |
| HOW MUCH DO FARMERS VALUE THEIR INDEPENDENCE? ESTIMATING THE RISK AND AUTONOMY PREMIA ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTION CONTRACTS |
1 |
1 |
1 |
30 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
128 |
| Household Income Volatility in U.S. Farm Households |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
29 |
| How Much Do Decoupled Payments Affect Production? An Instrumental Variable Approach with Panel Data |
0 |
0 |
1 |
26 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
86 |
| Leveraging Wealth from Farmland Appreciation: Borrowing, Land Ownership, and Farm Expansion |
0 |
0 |
0 |
23 |
0 |
3 |
14 |
129 |
| Local Monopsony Power in the Market for Broilers - Evidence from a Farm Survey |
0 |
0 |
0 |
45 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
155 |
| MANAGING MANURE TO IMPROVE AIR AND WATER QUALITY |
0 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
159 |
| Manure Application Standards and EQIP Payments: The Distribution of Economic and Environmental Costs and Benefits across US Hog Farms |
0 |
0 |
1 |
16 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
60 |
| Multiple Environmental Externalities and Manure Management Policy |
0 |
1 |
1 |
15 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
93 |
| NONPECUNIARY BENEFITS TO FARMING AND DECOUPLED PAYMENTS |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
78 |
| PRODUCTION CONTRACTS AND FARM PRODUCTIVITY: EXAMINING THE LINK USING INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES |
0 |
0 |
1 |
34 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
98 |
| Production Contracts and Farm Business Growth and Survival |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
3 |
6 |
13 |
79 |
| Production Contracts and the Spot Market Price of Hogs |
0 |
0 |
2 |
12 |
0 |
3 |
9 |
40 |
| Production Effects of Decoupled Commodity Program Payments: An Instrumental Variables Approach |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
103 |
| RISK AND STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN AGRICULTURE: HOW INCOME SHOCKS INFLUENCE FARM SIZE |
0 |
0 |
0 |
34 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
148 |
| Reducing Nutrient Losses From Cropland in the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin: Cost Efficiency and Regional Distribution |
0 |
0 |
1 |
21 |
1 |
3 |
8 |
18 |
| Separating Moral Hazard from Adverse Selection: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Crop Insurance Program |
1 |
5 |
17 |
103 |
3 |
11 |
60 |
324 |
| Social and Environmental Consequences of the Mexican Reforms: Common Pool Resources in the Ejido Sector |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
13 |
| Sub-therapeutic Antibiotics and Impacts on U.S. Hog Farms |
0 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
51 |
| Sub-therapeutic Antibiotics and Productivity in U.S. Hog Production |
0 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
0 |
2 |
7 |
203 |
| Sub-therapeutic Antibiotics and the Efficiency of U.S. Hog Farms |
0 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
107 |
| Subsidies, production structure and technical change – A cross-country comparison |
0 |
0 |
0 |
36 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
92 |
| THE IMPORTANCE OF INCOME RISK IN LABOR ALLOCATION DECISIONS |
0 |
0 |
1 |
12 |
0 |
1 |
9 |
63 |
| The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act: Correcting a Distortion? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
132 |
| The Changing Economics of U.S. Hog Production |
0 |
0 |
1 |
30 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
178 |
| The Potential Effects of Climate Change on the Productivity of U.S. Dairies |
0 |
0 |
0 |
28 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
85 |
| The Potential Effects of Climate Change on the Productivity, Costs, and Returns of U.S. Dairy Production |
0 |
0 |
0 |
34 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
70 |
| The Potential Role for Nitrogen Compliance in Mitigating Gulf Hypoxia |
1 |
1 |
1 |
13 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
30 |
| Trends and Developments in Hog Manure Management: 1998-2009 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
| Trends in U.S. Local and Regional Food Systems: Report to Congress |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
7 |
7 |
| U.S. Hog Production From 1992 to 2009: Technology, Restructuring, and Productivity Growth |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
12 |
21 |
| Total Working Papers |
3 |
14 |
84 |
1,587 |
40 |
127 |
489 |
5,931 |
| Journal Article |
File Downloads |
Abstract Views |
| Last month |
3 months |
12 months |
Total |
Last month |
3 months |
12 months |
Total |
| AJAE Appendix for “Agricultural Payments and Land Concentration: A Semi-parametric Spatial Regression Analysis” |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
33 |
| AJAE appendix for “Nonpecuniary Benefits to Farming: Implications for Supply Response to Decoupled Payments” |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
32 |
| Agricultural Contracting Trading Autonomy for Risk Reduction |
0 |
0 |
2 |
35 |
0 |
2 |
12 |
88 |
| Agricultural Contracting and the Scale of Production |
0 |
0 |
2 |
61 |
1 |
2 |
12 |
184 |
| Agricultural Contracting and the Scale of Production |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
| Agricultural Payments and Land Concentration: A Semiparametric Spatial Regression Analysis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
0 |
2 |
10 |
124 |
| Antibiotics Used For Growth Promotion Have a Small Positive Effect on Hog Farm Productivity |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
17 |
| Beginning Farm Operators and Spouses More Likely To Work Off the Farm Than Established Counterparts |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
| Carbon Emissions, Renewable Electricity, and Profits: Comparing Policies to Promote Anaerobic Digesters on Dairies |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
14 |
| Carbon Emissions, Renewable Electricity, and Profits: Comparing Policies to Promote Anaerobic Digesters on Dairies |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
81 |
| Carbon Markets and Methane Digesters: Potential Implications for the Dairy Sector |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| Carbon Markets and Methane Digesters: Potential Implications for the Dairy Sector |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
81 |
| Changing Farmland Values Affect Renters and Landowners Differently |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
| Contract Farming, Smallholders, and Rural Development in Latin America: The Organization of Agroprocessing Firms and the Scale of Outgrower Production |
3 |
10 |
25 |
587 |
10 |
23 |
62 |
1,307 |
| Cropland Concentrating Faster Where Payments Are Higher |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
| Current Indicators of Farm Sector Financial Health |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
| Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Change in the U.S. Hog Industry |
0 |
0 |
1 |
96 |
3 |
4 |
19 |
303 |
| Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Change in the U.S. Hog Industry |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
| Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Change in the U.S. Hog Industry |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
14 |
| Did the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act Alter Farm Enterprise Diversification? |
2 |
2 |
3 |
44 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
166 |
| Do Government Payments Influence Farm Size and Survival? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
35 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
154 |
| Do Most U.S. Farms Really Lose Money? Taxation and Farm Income Underreporting |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
5 |
| Do Production Contracts Raise Farm Productivity? An Instrumental Variables Approach |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
| Do Production Contracts Raise Farm Productivity? An Instrumental Variables Approach |
0 |
0 |
2 |
74 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
276 |
| Do Wealth Gains from Land Appreciation Cause Farmers to Expand Acreage or Buy Land? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
24 |
| Does Federal Crop Insurance Make Environmental Externalities from Agriculture Worse? |
0 |
0 |
2 |
10 |
1 |
4 |
19 |
51 |
| Does the Prevalence of Contract Hog Production Influence the Price Received by Independent Hog Producers? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
110 |
| Effects of Size-Based Environmental Regulations: Evidence of Regulatory Avoidance |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
2 |
7 |
73 |
| Estimating the Extent of Moral Hazard in Crop Insurance Using Administrative Data |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
12 |
17 |
| Estimating the Extent of Moral Hazard in Crop Insurance Using Administrative Data * |
0 |
0 |
0 |
49 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
153 |
| Examining Farm Sector and Farm Household Income |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
| Expansion in Direct Payments Did Not Lead to More Crop Production |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
22 |
| Farm Size Behind Regional Differences in Hog Output and Productivity |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
21 |
| Farm size and productivity growth in the United States Corn Belt |
1 |
1 |
4 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
23 |
36 |
| Farm-Level Production Effects from Participation in Government Commodity Programs: Did the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act Make a Difference? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
34 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
127 |
| For Beginning Farmers, Business Survival Rates Increase With Scale and With Direct Sales to Consumers |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
21 |
| Government Payments and Farm Business Survival |
0 |
1 |
1 |
25 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
138 |
| Greater Heat Stress From Climate Change Could Lower Dairy Productivity |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
23 |
| Higher Carbon Prices Could Spur Adoption of Methane Digesters |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
48 |
| Hog Operations Increasingly Large, More Specialized |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
18 |
| Hog Spot Market Prices Not Strongly Associated With Production Contracts |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
25 |
| How much Do Decoupled Payments Affect Production? An Instrumental Variable Approach with Panel Data |
0 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
90 |
| How much do farmers value their independence? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
36 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
157 |
| Larger Farms and Younger Farmers Are More Vulnerable to Financial Stress |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
| Local Foods and Farm Business Survival and Growth |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
34 |
| Losing Under Contract: Transaction-Cost Externalities and Spot Market Disintegration |
0 |
0 |
0 |
101 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
421 |
| Market Power in Poultry Production Contracting? Evidence from a Farm Survey |
0 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
122 |
| Market Power in Poultry Production Contracting? Evidence from a Farm Survey |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
14 |
| Measures of Trends in Farm Size Tell Differing Stories |
0 |
1 |
2 |
20 |
0 |
2 |
8 |
55 |
| Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
95 |
| Multiple Environmental Externalities and Manure Management Policy |
0 |
0 |
0 |
39 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
139 |
| Nonpecuniary Benefits to Farming: Implications for Supply Response to Decoupled Payments |
0 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
130 |
| Potential Effects of Climate Change on the Productivity of U.S. Dairies |
3 |
4 |
5 |
12 |
3 |
8 |
16 |
44 |
| Production Contracts May Help Small Hog Farms Grow in Size |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
15 |
| Production Contracts and Farm Business Growth and Survival |
0 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
93 |
| Production Contracts and Farm Business Growth and Survival |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
21 |
| Production Contracts and Productivity in the U.S. Hog Sector |
0 |
0 |
2 |
78 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
228 |
| Productivity Growth Slows for Specialized Hog Finishing Operations |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
15 |
| Productivity Increases With Farm Size in the Heartland Region |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
| Regulating Ammonia Emissions From Hog Farms Would Raise Costs |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
20 |
| Risk and farm operator labour supply |
0 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
175 |
| Stricter Rules Prompt Livestock Producers To Choose Farm Size Just Below Regulatory Cutoff |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
25 |
| Sub-therapeutic Antibiotics and the Efficiency of U.S. Hog Farms |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
31 |
| Subtherapeutic Antibiotics and Productivity in U.S. Hog Production |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
17 |
| Subtherapeutic Antibiotics and Productivity in U.S. Hog Production |
0 |
0 |
0 |
52 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
232 |
| Technology, Larger Farm Size Increased Productivity on U.S. Hog Farms |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
27 |
| The Income Volatility of U.S. Commercial Farm Households |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
14 |
| The Potential Role for a Nitrogen Compliance Policy in Mitigating Gulf Hypoxia |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
11 |
| The Social Performance and Distributional Consequences of Contract Farming: An Equilibrium Analysis of the Arachide de Bouche Program in Senegal |
1 |
3 |
9 |
166 |
2 |
6 |
20 |
374 |
| Transactions Costs and Agricultural Household Supply Response |
2 |
4 |
11 |
311 |
17 |
34 |
63 |
768 |
| Use of Conservation-Compatible Manure Management Practices Increases on U.S. Hog Farms |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
49 |
| Total Journal Articles |
13 |
29 |
79 |
2,188 |
59 |
149 |
502 |
7,267 |
LogEc is hosted by the
Örebro University School of Business.