Quality and Grading Risk

  • Ethan Ligon
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 23)

Abstract

Many (perhaps most) sorts of agricultural commodities are not homogeneous, but instead vary according to a set of quality characteristics. Some of these characteristics may be easy to inexpensively measure — many sorts of fresh fruit, for example, are sorted into different sizes by using a sizing belt. However, others may be difficult to measure non-destructively — think of trying to measure the color of flesh of a whole melon. In between these extremes (characteristics that are easily measured and those that are difficult or impossible to non-destructively measure) lie the sorts of characteristics that consumers may place a high value on, yet which can be easily measured only by the prospective consumer, such as the smell of a tomato.

Keywords

Quality Characteristic Agricultural Commodity Price Function Post Ranking Price Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akerlof, G.A. 1970. “The Market for `Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84: 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berck, P., and G.C. Rausser. 1982. “Consumer Demand, Grades, and Margin Relationships.” In G.C. Rausser, ed., New Directions in Econometrics Modeling and Forecasting in U.S. Agriculture. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. Bierlen, R., and O. Grunewald. 1995. “Price Incentives for Commercial Fresh Tomatoes.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27: 138–148.Google Scholar
  4. Bockstael, N.E. 1984. “The Welfare Implications of Minimum Quality Standards.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 466–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bockstael, N.E. 1987. “Economic Efficiency Issues of Grading and Minimum Quality Standards.” In R.E. Kilmer and W.I. Armbruster, eds., Economic Efficiency in Agricultural and Food Marketing. Ames, IA: Farm Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Chalfant, I.A., I.S. James, N. Lavoie, and R.I. Sexton. 1999. “Asymmetric Grading Error and Adverse Selection: Lemons in the California Prune Industry.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 24: 57–79.Google Scholar
  7. Considine, I.I., W.A. Kerr, G.R. Smith, and S.M. Ulmer. 1986. “The Impact of a New Grading System on the Beef Cattle Industry: The Case of Canada.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 11: 184–194.Google Scholar
  8. Dimitri, C., J.K. Horowitz, and E. Lichtenberg. 1996. “Grading Services as a Mechanism for Dispute Resolution in Fruit and Vegetable Markets.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  9. Dupré, R. 1990. “Regulating the Quebec Dairy Industry, 1905–1921: Peeling Off the Joseph Label.” The Journal of Economic History 50: 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egan, T. 2000. “`Perfect’ Apple Pushed Growers into Debt.” The New York Times (November 4, 2000, p. Al).Google Scholar
  11. Espinosa, J.A., and B.K. Goodwin. 1991. “Hedonic Price Estimation for Kansas Wheat Characteristics.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 16: 72–85.Google Scholar
  12. Freebairn, J.W. 1973. “The Value of Information Provided by a Uniform Grading System.” Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 17: 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hennessy, D.A. 1995. “Microeconomics of Agricultural Commodity Grading: Impacts on the Marketing Channel.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77: 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hollander, A., S. Monier, and H. Ossard. 1999. “Pleasures of Cockaigne: Quality Gaps, Market Structure, and the Amount of Grading.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hueth, B., and E. Ligon. 1999. “Producer Price Risk and Quality Measurement.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 512–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jewitt, I. 1988. “Justifying the First-Order Approach to Principal-Agent Problems.” Econometrica 56: 1177–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lancaster, K.J. 1966. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 74: 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marette, S., J.M. Crespi, and A. Schiavina. 1999. “The Role of Common Labelling in Context of Asymmetric Information.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 26: 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nelson, P. 1970. “Information and Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Political Economy 78: 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Price, D.W. “Discarding Low Quality Produce with an Elastic Demand.” Journal of Farm Economics 49: 622–632.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ethan Ligon
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations