Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Structure And Efficiency Of Timber Markets

  • Chapter
Forests in a Market Economy

Part of the book series: Forestry Sciences ((FOSC,volume 72))

Abstract

Perfect competition has long been the standard by which economists have judged the market’s ability to achieve an efficient social outcome. The competitive process, unfettered by the imperfections discussed below, forges an outcome in which goods and services are produced at their lowest possible cost, and market equilibrium is achieved at the point at which the cost of the last unit supplied just equals its value in use to the demander. This point maximizes the amount of utility that consumers obtain and the profit that producers procure through the existence of the market. Therein lies the appeal of perfect competitive markets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  • Abildtrup, J., J. Rils, and B.J. Thorsen. 1997. The reservation price approach and informationally efficient markets. J. For. Econ. 3:229–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, E. 1982. The estimation of the degree of oligopoly power. J. Economet. 19: 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azzam, A. 1998. Competition in the U.S. meatpacking industry: Is it history? Agr. Econ.: Int. J. 18:107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azzam, A.M., and E. Pagoulatos. 1990. Testing oligopolistic and oligopsonistic behavior: An application to the U.S. meat-packing industry. J. Agr. Econ. 41(3):362–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, M.A., and M. Nilsson. 1999. Imports of pulpwood and price discrimination: A test of buying power in the Swedish pulpwood market. J. For. Econ. 5(3): 365–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, M.A., and R. Brannlund. 1995. Measuring oligopsony power: An application to the Swedish pulp and paper industry. Rev. Ind. Org. 10:307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannlund, R. 1989. The social loss from imperfect competition: The case of the Swedish pulpwood market. Scan. J. Econ. 91(4):689–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brazee, R.J., and R. Mendelsohn. 1988. Timber harvesting with fluctuating prices. For. Sci. 34(2):359–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazee, R.J., and E. Bulte. 2000. Optimal harvesting and thinning with stochastic prices. For. Sci. 46(1):23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnahan, T.F. 1987. Competition and collusion in the American automobile industry: The 1955 price war. J. Ind. Econ. 35(4):457–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buongiorno, J., and J. Uusivuorl. 1992. The law of one price in the trade of forest products: Cointegration tests for U.S. exports of pulp and paper. For. Sci. 38(3):539–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, H.R., and W.J. Reed. 1989. The tree-cutting problem in a stochastic environment: The case of age-dependent growth. J. Econ. Dyn. Control. 13:565–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A., and G. Laroque. 1992. On the behaviour of commodity prices. Rev. Econ. Stud. 59:1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A., and G. Laroque. 1996. Competitive storage and commodity price dynamics. J. Polit. Econ. 104(5):896–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickey, D.A., and W.A. Fuller. 1979. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74(366):427–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F. 1970. Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. J. Financ. 25:383–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F. 1991. Efficient capital markets: II. J. Financ. 46:1575–1617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forboseh, P.F., R.J. Brazee, and J.B. Pickens. 1996. A strategy for multiproduct stand management with uncertain future prices. For. Sci. 42(1):58–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forest Products Laboratory. 1987. Wood handbook: Wood as an engineering material. Ag. Handbook 72. USDA. 466 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong, P. 1999. Optimal harvest policy with first-order autoregressive price process. J. For. Econ. 5:413–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haight, R.G., and T.P. Holmes. 1991. Stochastic price models and optimal tree cutting: Results for loblolly pine. Nat. Res. Mod. 5:423–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. 1994. Testing for a unit root in time series with pretest data-based model selection. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 12:461–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardie, I., P. Parks, P. Gottlieb, and D. Wear. 2000. Responsiveness of rural and urban land use to land rent determinants in the U.S. South. Land Econ. 76(4): 659–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hänninen, R., A. Toppinen, and P. Ruuska. 1997. Testing arbitrage in newsprint imports to United Kingdom and Germany. Can. J. For. Res. 27(12):1946–1952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotelling, H. 1929. Stability in competition. Economic J. 39:41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hultkrantz, L. 1993. Informational efficiency of markets for stumpage: Comment. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 75(1):234–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iwata, G. 1974. Measurement of conjectural variations in oligopoly. Econometrica 42:947–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, P.O., and K.G. Lofgren. 1985. The economics of forestry and natural resources. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 304 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, P.O., and K.G. Lofgren. 1983. Monopsony, conjectural equilibria, and the Swedish roundwood market. For. Sci. 29(3):439–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, C., and K. Doroodian. 1994. The Law of One Price for U.S. softwood lumber: A multivariate cointegration test. For. Sci. 40(4):595–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiatkowski, D., P.C.B. Phillips, P. Schmidt, and Y. Shin. 1992. Testing the null of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? J. Economet. 54(1–3):159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, A.P. 1934. The concept of monopoly and the measurement of monopoly power. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1:157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leroy, S. F. 1989. Efficient capital markets and martingales. J. Econ. Lit. 27(4):1583–1621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leybourne, S.J., and B.P.M. McCabe. 1994. A consistent test for a unit root. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 12(2):157–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lofgren, K.G. 1985. The pricing of pulpwood and spatial price discrimination: Theory and practice. Eur. Rev. Agr. Econ. 12: 283–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmander, P. 1988. Pulse extraction under risk and a numerical forestry application. Syst. Anal. Model Simul. 5(4):339–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, S.T., and J.C. Winfrey. 1974. The kinked cost curve and the dual resource base under oligopsony in the pulp and paper industry. Land Econ. 50:185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNew, K. and P.L. Fackler. 1997. Testing market equilibrium: Is cointegration informative? J. Agr. Res. Econ. 22(2):191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, W.J. 1966. Competition and oligopsony in the Douglas-fir lumber industry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B.C. 1995a. Measuring oligopsony power with shadow prices: U.S. markets for pulpwood and sawlogs. Rev. Econ. Stat. 77(3):486–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B.C. 1995b. Oligopsony, vertical integration, and output substitution: Welfare effects in U.S. pulpwood markets. Land Econ. 71(2):193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B.C., and D.N. Wear. 1998. Federal timber restrictions and interregional arbitrage in U.S. lumber. Land Econ. 74(1):76–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B.C. 1992. Testing for imperfect competition in spatially differentiated input markets: The case of U.S. markets for pulpwood and sawlogs. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muth, J.F. 1961. Rational expectations and the theory of price movements. Econometrica 29(3):315–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muth, M.K., and M.K. Wohlgenant. 1999. A test for market power using marginal input and output prices with application to the U.S. beef processing industry. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 81(3):638–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagubadi, V., I.A. Munn, and A. Tahai. 2001. Integration of hardwood stumpage markets in the southcentral United States. J. For. Econ. 7(1):69–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris Foundation. 1977–2002. Timber Mart-South. The Daniel B. Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norstrøm, C.J. 1975. A stochastic model for the growth period decision in forestry. Swed. J. Econ. 77:329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, A.J. 1998. The optimal timber rotation: An option value approach. For. Sci. 44(2):192–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prestemon, J.P., and R.C. Abt. 2002. Timber products supply and demand, P. 299–325 in The southern forest resource assessment, D.N. Wear and J.G. Greis (eds.). USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. SRS-53, Asheville, North Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prestemon, J.P., and T.P. Holmes. 2000. Timber price dynamics following a natural catastrophe. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 82(1):145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prestemon, J.P., and J.M. Pye. 2000. Merging areas in Timber Mart-South data. South. J. App. For. 24(4):219–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravallion, M. 1986. Testing market integration. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 68(1):102–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronnila, M., and A. Toppinen. 2000. Testing for oligopsony power in the Finnish wood market. J. For. Econ. 6(1): 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Said, S.E., and D.A. Dickey. 1984. Testing for unit roots in autoregressive moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika 71(3):599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. 1952. Spatial price equilibrium and linear programming. Am. Econ. Rev. 42(3):283–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeter, J.R. 1988. Estimating the degree of market power in the beef packing industry. Rev. Econ. Stat. 70:158–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwert, G.W. 1989. Tests for unit roots: A Monte Carlo investigation. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 7:147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J., and R. A. Sherwin. 1985. The extent of the market. J. Law Econ. 28:555–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A.M. 2001. Potential pitfalls for the purchasing power parity puzzle? Sampling and specification biases in mean-reversion tests of the law of one price. Econometrica 69(2):473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, T.A. 1992. Optimal forest rotation when stumpage prices follow a diffusion process. Land Econ. 68(3):329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J. 1988. The theory of industrial organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Manufacturing industry series (EC97M-3211A: sawmills; — 3221A: pulp mills; -3222B: paper mills; -322C: newsprint mills; -322D: paperboard mills). U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, C.L., and C.S. Binkley. 1990. Informational efficiency of markets for stumpage. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 72(2):394–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, C.L., and C.S. Binkley. 1993. Informational efficiency of markets for stumpage: Reply. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 75(1):239–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J.C., and Wright, B.D. 1991. Storage and commodity markets. Cambridge University Press, New York. 502 p.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R., and D.H. Newman. 1996. The effect of catastrophic risk on forest investment decisions. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 31:186–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Triangle Institute, USA

    Brian C. Murray & Jeffrey P. Prestemon

  2. USDA Forest Service, USA

    Brian C. Murray & Jeffrey P. Prestemon

Authors
  1. Brian C. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey P. Prestemon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

    Erin O. Sills (Assistant Professor) (Assistant Professor)

  2. Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA

    Karen Lee Abt (Research Economist) (Research Economist)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Murray, B.C., Prestemon, J.P. (2003). Structure And Efficiency Of Timber Markets. In: Sills, E.O., Abt, K.L. (eds) Forests in a Market Economy. Forestry Sciences, vol 72. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6177-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0219-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation