Multiple Objective Analysis for a Spatial Market System: A Case Study of U.S. Agricultural Policy

  • Elizabeth Erickson
  • Robert House
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 249)


Spatial models of market equilibrium for use in policy analysis often require inclusion of multiple objectives. This becomes a problem in multi-level programming for which there are not yet effective algorithms for large-scale models. This paper reports use of a heuristic method for developing non-dominated alternatives, using a two-level approximating and incorporating experimental design techniques. The analysis is of alternative pricing policies for the 1985 U.S. Farm Bill.


Policy Instrument Target Variable Loan Rate Target Price Price Support 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ballinger, N. 1984. An analysis of Mexican trade policy. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Box, G.E.P. and Wilson, K. B. 1951. On the experimental attainment of optimal conditions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B 13:1–45.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Candler, W. and Norton, R. 1977. Multi-level Programming and Development Policy. Washington D.C.: World Bank Staff Working Paper 250.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Candler, W., Fortuny-Amat J., and McCarl, B. 1981. The potential role of multi-level programming in agricultural economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63,3: 521–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Candler, W. and Cartwright, W. 1969. Estimation of performance functions for budgeting and simulation studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 51, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chanchong, V. and Haimes, Y. 1983. Multiple objective decisionmaking. New York: New Holland.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohon, J. 1978. Multiobjective programming and planning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duloy, J. and Norton, R. 1975. Prices and incomes in linear programming models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, 4: 591–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erickson, E. E. and House, R. M. 1984. Multiple objective policy analysis: A factor analysis and tradeoff approach applied to the agriculture sector of the Dominican Republic. Journal of Policy Modeling Sept.:1–19.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    House, R. 1984. USMP regional agricultural programming model: theoretical and data description. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ERS Technical Bulletin (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kleinjen, J.P.C. 1977. Design and analysis of simulations: practical statistical methods. Simulation.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCarl, B. and Spreen, T. 1980. Price endogenous mathematical programming as a tool for sector analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62, 1: 87–102.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, T. A., Sharpies, J. A., House, R. M., and Moore, C. V. 1984. Implications of increasing world grain market fluctuations on U.S. agriculture. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ERS Agricultural Economic Report (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montgomery, D. 1984. Design and analysis of experiments. 2nd Edn. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Myers, R. 1971. Response surface methods.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naylor, T. 1970. Computer simulation experiments with models of economic systems. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norton, R., Santaniello, V., and Echevarria, J. 1983. Economic evaluation of an agricultural sector investment program: a case study for Peru. JOURNAL OF POLICY MODELING.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samuèlson, P. 1952. Spatial price equilibrium and linear programming. American Economic Review 42, 3:283–303.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schruben, L. 1984. Operations Research Department, Cornell University, private communication.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steinberg, D. and Hunter, W. 1984. Experimental design: review and comment. Technometrics 26, 2.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Theil, H. 1961. Economic forecasts and policy. Amsterdam: New Holland.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Willis, C. E. and Perlack, R. D. 1980. A comparison of generating techniques and goal programming for public investment in multiple objective decisionmaking. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62, 1: 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zionts, S. 1984. Multiple Criteria decision making: an overview and several applications. Paper delivered at the VIth International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decisionmaking, Case Western Reserve University, June 4–8, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Erickson
    • 1
  • Robert House
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of AkronAkronUSA
  2. 2.Economic Research Service National Economics DivisionU.S. Department of AgricultureUSA

Personalised recommendations