Modeling Policy Reform in the US Wheat and Feed Grain Sectors

  • Richard E. Just
  • Gordon C. Rausser
  • David Zilberman


A major objective of the GATT negotiation is an international agreement on permitted domestic agricultural policies referred to as green light policies (e.g., environmental and decoupled support policies) to replace nonpermitted or red light policies (e.g., trade distortion subsidies). To be implementable, these policies must improve the efficiency of resource allocation while being politically sustainable. Economists are challenged to develop quantitative estimates of the impacts of alternative policy proposals that serve both of these goals. Such impacts must be quantified not only for efficiency and distributional effects but also for short- and long-term effects over time. A conceptual and empirical modeling framework that meets this challenge is presented in this chapter. Specifically, the model is applied to assess the impacts of three alternative policy reform scenarios for the US feed grain, soybean, livestock, and wheat sectors.


Consumer Surplus Policy Reform Welfare Effect Direct Payment Target Price 
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. Chambers RG, Foster WE (1983) Participation in the farmer-owned reserve program: a discrete choice model. Am J Agric Econ 65:120–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chambers RG, Just RE (1981) Effects of exchange rates on US agriculture: a dynamic analysis. Am J Agric Econ 63:32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gardner BG (1984) Policy options for grains. In: Rausser GC, Farrell KR (eds) Alternative agricultural and food policies and the 1985 Farm Bill. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, pp 81–92Google Scholar
  4. Gardner BG (1988) Gains and losses in the wheat program. Working Paper 88–11, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  5. Johnson SR, Rausser GC (1982) Composite forecasting in commodity systems. In: Rausser GC (ed) New directions in econometric modeling and forecasting in US agriculture, Chap 21. Elsevier North-Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Just RE (1981) Farmer-owned grain reserve program needs modification to improve effectiveness: theoretical and empirical considerations in agricultural buffer stock policy under the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977. Prepared for Report to Congress, US General Accounting Office, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Just RE (1987) Making economic welfare analysis useful in the policy process: implications of the public choice literature. Am J Agric Econ 70:488–453Google Scholar
  8. Just RE (1988) The role of monetary, fiscal, and agricultural variables in farmland prices. Working Paper, University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  9. Just RE (1990) Modelling the interactive effect of alternative sets of policies on agricultural prices. In: Winters LA, Sapsford D (eds) Primary commodity prices: economic models and economic policy. Center for Economic Policy Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Just RE, Hueth DK, Schmitz A (1982) Applied welfare economics amd public policy. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  11. Just RE, Zilberman D, Rausser GC (1989) Building sustainable coalitions for welfare improving policies. Prepared for the Office of the US Trade Representative, Washington, DC, DecGoogle Scholar
  12. Just RE, Zilberman D, Rausser GC (1990) A framework for evaluating specific policy reform. Prepared for the Office of the US Trade Representative, Washington, DC, FebGoogle Scholar
  13. Lichtenberg E, Zilberman D (1988) Efficient regulation of environmental health risks. Q J Econ 103, 1:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lins Q (1988) Gains and losses from the corn program. Unpublished Working Paper, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Love HA (1987) Flexible public policy: the case of the United States wheat sector. Ph D Diss, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Ott SL (1990) Supermarket shoppers’ pesticide concerns and willingness to purchase certified pesticide residue-free fresh produce. Agribusiness: Int J 6:593–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rausser GC (1985) Macroeconomics and US agricultural policy. In: Gardner BL (ed) US agricultural policy: 1985 farm legislation. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC, pp 207–252Google Scholar
  18. Rausser GC (1992) Predatory versus productive governments: the case of US agricultural policy. J Econ Perspect 6: 133–158Google Scholar
  19. Rausser GC, Foster WE (1992) The evolution and coordination of US commodity and resource policies. In: Just RE, Bockstael N (eds) Commodity and resource policies in agricultural systems. Agricultural management and economics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 17–45Google Scholar
  20. Rausser GC, Just RE (1982) Principles of policy modeling. In: Rausser GC (ed) New directions in econometric modeling and forecasting in US agriculture. Elsevier North-Holland, New York, pp 763–800Google Scholar
  21. Rausser GC, Chalfant JA, Love HA, Stamoulis KG (1986) Macroeconoic linkages, taxes, and subsidies in the US agricultural sector. Am J Agric Econ 68:399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard E. Just
  • Gordon C. Rausser
  • David Zilberman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations