370 0

[英文文献] The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act: Correcting a Disto... [推广有奖]

  • 0关注
  • 0粉丝

等待验证会员

学前班

0%

还不是VIP/贵宾

-

威望
0
论坛币
0 个
通用积分
0
学术水平
0 点
热心指数
0 点
信用等级
0 点
经验
10 点
帖子
0
精华
0
在线时间
0 小时
注册时间
2020-9-21
最后登录
2020-9-21

楼主
移动互联网756 发表于 2005-10-12 07:11:58 |AI写论文

+2 论坛币
k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群
赵安豆老师微信:zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币!

+2 论坛币
英文文献:The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act: Correcting a Distortion?
英文文献作者:Key, Nigel D.,Lubowski, Ruben N.,Roberts, Michael J.
英文文献摘要:
This study makes use of farm-level data from the Agricultural Census to evaluate the effects of the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act, which intended to "decouple" commodity payments from production decisions. Prior to this Act, agricultural support payments were linked to production decisions via prices and a complex set of restrictions that acted to control the supply of agricultural commodities. We compare farm-level 1992-to-1997 changes in commodity crop plantings of farms that participated in government programs with farms that did not participate. We find that the growth rate of program-crop acreage of non-participants was 19 percentage points below that of participants. This estimated difference remains unchanged after we account for unobserved effects relating to farm size, type, location, and interactions of these factors using over 1900 fixed-effects variables. These results may imply that program participation rules associated with pre-1996 programs effectively acted to limit program acreage in 1992. An alternative explanation is that payments associated with decoupled programs instituted with the 1996 Act were in fact distortionary and induced farmers to produce more than they would have without the payments. Additional research would be needed to test these competing theories.
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝


您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 我要注册

本版微信群
扫码
拉您进交流群
GMT+8, 2026-1-29 05:03