Skip to main content

The State-contingent Approach to Modeling Environmental Risk Management

  • Chapter
Risk Management and the Environment: Agriculture in Perspective

Abstract

Risk and uncertainty are crucial features of agricultural production. The particular concern of agricultural economists with risk may be explained in part by the dependence of agricultural production on the natural environment, taken broadly to include climate as well as soil conditions, beneficial and harmful animal populations and so on. Conversely, the activities of agricultural producers have a substantial impact on the natural environment and this impact is subject to both risk and uncertainty.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

References

  • Arrow. K. (1953), Le role des valeurs boursiers pour la, repartition la meillure des risques, Cahiers du Seminair d’Economie CNRS, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G. and J. Quiggin (1996), ‘Nonpoint pollution control as a multitask principal-agent problem’, Journal of Public Economics 59(1): 95 116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G. and J. Quiggin (1997), ‘Separation and hedging results with state-contingent production’, Economica 64(254): 187 209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G. and J. Quiggin (1998), ‘Cost functions and duality for stochastic technologies’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(2): 288 95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G. and J. Quiggin (2000), Uncertainty, Production. Choice and Agency: The State-Contingent Approach, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G. and J. Quiggin (2001), ‘Production externalities and multitask principal-agent problems’, Working Paper, Australian National University. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, G. (1952). ‘A social equilibrium existence theorem’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 38: 886 93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman. S. and O. Hart (1983), ‘An analysis of principal-agent problems’, Econometrica 51: 7–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luenberger, D. G. (1992), ‘Benefit functions and duality’. Journal of Mathematical Economics 21, 461–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmquist. S. (1953), ‘Index numbers and indifference surfaces’, Trabajos de Estotistica 4: 209–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1978), ‘Cost, revenue, and profit functions’, in Fuss, M. and McFadden, D. (eds.), Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirrlees, J. (1974), ‘Notes on welfare economics, information and uncertainty’, in Balch. M., McFadden, D. and Wu. S. (ed.), Essays on Economic Behaviour under Uncertainty, North-Holland. Amsterdam, pp. 243–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. (2002), ‘Risk and self-protection: a state-contingent view ’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. and R. G. Chambers (1998), ‘A state-contingent production approach to principal-agent problems with an application to point-source pollution control’, Journal of Public Economics 70: 441–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. and R.G. Chambers (2000), ‘Increasing and decreasing risk aversion for generalized preferences’. Working Paper, Australian National University. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. and R.G. Chambers (2001), The firm under uncertainty with general risk-averse preferences: a state-contingent approach, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22 (1): 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage. L. J. (1954), Foundations of statistics, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shephard, R. W. (1953). Cost and Production Functions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shogren, J. and T. Crocker (1999), ‘Risk and its consequences’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37 (1): 44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Quiggin, J., Chambers, R.G. (2003). The State-contingent Approach to Modeling Environmental Risk Management. In: Babcock, B.A., Fraser, R.W., Lekakis, J.N. (eds) Risk Management and the Environment: Agriculture in Perspective. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2915-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2915-4_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6158-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2915-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics