Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Designing farm supplemental revenue coverage options on top of crop insurance coverage

Designing farm supplemental revenue coverage options on top of crop insurance coverage Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to use simulation analysis to assess farmer choice between crop insurance and supplemental revenue options as proposed during development of the Agricultural Act of 2014. Design/methodology/approach – The certainty equivalent of wealth is used to rank farm choices and assess the effects of supplemental revenue options on the crop insurance plan and coverage level chosen by the producer under a range of farm attributes. The risk‐reducing effectiveness of the select programs is also examined through their impact on the farm revenue distribution. The dependence structure of yield and prices is modeled by applying copula techniques on historical data. Findings – Farm program supplemental revenue programs generally have no effect on crop insurance choices. Crop insurance supplemental revenue programs typically reduce crop insurance coverage at high coverage levels. An individual plan of crop insurance combined with a supplemental revenue insurance plan may substitute for incumbent area crop insurance plans. Originality/value – The analysis provides insights into farmers’ possible choices by focussing on alternative crops and farm attributes and extensive scenarios, using current data, crop insurance plans and programs contained in the 2014 Farm Bill and related bills. The results should be of value to policy officials and producers in regards to the design and use of risk management tools. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agricultural Finance Review Emerald Publishing

Designing farm supplemental revenue coverage options on top of crop insurance coverage

Harun Bulut; Keith J. Collins
Agricultural Finance Review , Volume 74 (3): 30 – Aug 26, 2014
Download PDF
30 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/designing-farm-supplemental-revenue-coverage-options-on-top-of-crop-CXpgJ4hGd0
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0002-1466
DOI
10.1108/AFR-08-2013-0032
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to use simulation analysis to assess farmer choice between crop insurance and supplemental revenue options as proposed during development of the Agricultural Act of 2014. Design/methodology/approach – The certainty equivalent of wealth is used to rank farm choices and assess the effects of supplemental revenue options on the crop insurance plan and coverage level chosen by the producer under a range of farm attributes. The risk‐reducing effectiveness of the select programs is also examined through their impact on the farm revenue distribution. The dependence structure of yield and prices is modeled by applying copula techniques on historical data. Findings – Farm program supplemental revenue programs generally have no effect on crop insurance choices. Crop insurance supplemental revenue programs typically reduce crop insurance coverage at high coverage levels. An individual plan of crop insurance combined with a supplemental revenue insurance plan may substitute for incumbent area crop insurance plans. Originality/value – The analysis provides insights into farmers’ possible choices by focussing on alternative crops and farm attributes and extensive scenarios, using current data, crop insurance plans and programs contained in the 2014 Farm Bill and related bills. The results should be of value to policy officials and producers in regards to the design and use of risk management tools.

Journal

Agricultural Finance Review – Emerald Publishing

Published: Aug 26, 2014

Keywords: Crop insurance; Agricultural risk; Farm programs; Plans of insurance; Supplemental revenue coverage

References

  • Should basic underwriting rules be applied to average crop revenue election and supplemental revenue?
    Barnaby, A.
  • Understanding regional differences in farm policy preferences
    Barnett, B.J.; Coble, K.H.
  • Optimal coverage level choice with individual and area insurance plans
    Bulut, H.; Collins, K.; Zacharias, T.
  • Distributional and risk reduction effects of commodity revenue program design
    Coble, K.H.; Dismukes, R.
  • Policy implications of crop yield and revenue variability at differing levels of aggregation
    Coble, K.H.; Dismukes, R.; Thomas, S.
  • House agricultural committee version of 2012 farm bill
    Coble, K.H.; Barnett, B.J.; Miller, C.
  • Senate agricultural committee version of 2012 farm bill
    Coble, K.H.; Barnett, B.J.; Miller, C.; Ubilava, D.
  • A comprehensive review of the RMA APH and COMBO rating methodology final report
    Coble, K.H.; Knight, T.O.; Goodwin, B.K.; Miller, M.F.; Rejesus, R.
  • H.R. 1947, Agriculture reform and risk management act of 2013, cost estimate
    Congressional Budget Office
  • S.954, Agriculture reform and risk management act of 2013, cost estimate
    Congressional Budget Office
  • CBO's April 2014 Baseline for farm programs
    Congressional Budget Office
  • The effects of area‐based revenue protection on producers’ choices of farm‐level revenue insurance
    Dismukes, R.; Coble, K.H.; Miller, C.; O'Donoghue, E.
  • A natural resource theory of US crop insurance contract choice
    Du, X.; Hennessy, D.A.; Feng, H.
  • Impacts of selected provisions of the house and senate farm bills
    Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute
  • Area‐yield crop insurance reconsidered
    Miranda, M.J.
  • Analyzing farmer participation intentions and county enrollment rates for the average crop revenue election program
    Mitchell, P.D.; Rejesus, R.M.; Coble, K.H.; Knight, T.O.
  • Economic impacts of the safety net provisions in the senate (S. 954) and house (H.R. 2642) farm bills on AFPC’S representative crop farms
    Outlaw, J.L.; Richardson, J.W.; Knapek, G.M.; Raulston, J.M.; Bryant, H.L.; Herbst, B.K.; Ernstes
  • Comparing revenue protection offered by ARC and SCO
    Paulson, N.D.
  • Modeling “Shallow Loss” crop revenue programs: issues and implications for the 2013 farm bill
    Paulson, N.D.; Woodard, J.D.; Babcock, B.A.
  • The impact of the average crop revenue election (ACRE) program on the effectiveness of crop insurance
    Power, G.J.; Vedenov, D.V.; Hong, S.W.
  • The accuracy of producers’ probability beliefs: evidence and implications for insurance valuation
    Sherrick, B.J.
  • The SURE program and its interaction with other federal farm programs
    Ubilava, D.; Barnett, B.J.; Coble, K.H.; Harri, A.
  • Area risk protection insurance regulations and area risk protection insurance crop provisions
    USDA, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
  • Quick stats
    USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Services
  • World agricultural supply and demand estimates
    USDA, Office of the Chief Economist
  • Crop policies and pilots
    USDA, Risk Management Agency
  • Area risk protection insurance policy
    USDA, Risk Management Agency
  • Federal agriculture reform and risk management act of 2013
    US House of Representatives
  • Agriculture reform, food, and jobs act of 2013
    US Senate
  • Risk‐reducing effectiveness of revenue versus yield insurance in the presence of government payments
    Vedenov, D.V.; Power, G.J.
  • Statement on behalf of the approved insurance providers
    Weber, T.
  • US farm policy and risk assistance, the competing senate and house agriculture committee bills of July 2012
    Zulauf, C.; Orden, D.
  • ACRE, crop insurance, and SURE: interactions and overlap for US midwest crops
    Zulauf, C.; Schnitkey, G; Langemeier, M.