Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
American Economic Review, 84
Marianne Bertrand, E. Duflo, S. Mullainathan (2001)
How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?Experimental & Empirical Studies eJournal
J. Skees, M. Reed (1986)
Rate Making for Farm-Level Crop Insurance: Implications for Adverse SelectionAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68
J. Glauber (2004)
Crop Insurance ReconsideredAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86
USDA-RMA (2012)
Participation in Trend-Adjusted APH for 2012
J. Woodard, B. Sherrick, G. Schnitkey (2011)
Actuarial Impacts of Loss Cost Ratio Ratemaking in U.S. Crop Insurance ProgramsJournal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36
B. Goodwin, M. Vandeveer, John Deal (2004)
An Empirical Analysis of Acreage Effects of Participation in the Federal Crop Insurance ProgramPolitical Economy: Taxation
M. Lechner (2011)
The Estimation of Causal Effects by Difference-in-Difference Methods
B. Goodwin (1993)
An Empirical Analysis of the Demand for Multiple Peril Crop InsuranceAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75
S. Adhikari, T. Knight, E. Belasco (2012)
Evaluation of Crop Insurance Yield Guarantees and Producer Welfare with Upward-Trending YieldsAgricultural and Resource Economics Review, 41
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119
Journal of Human Resources, 44
Richard Blundell, Monica Dias (2002)
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO EVALUATION IN EMPIRICAL MICROECONOMICS
B. Gardner, R. Kramer (1986)
Experience with crop insurance programs in the United States
David Card, A. Krueger (1993)
Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and PennsylvaniaNBER Working Paper Series
V. Smith, J. Glauber (2012)
Agricultural Insurance in Developed Countries: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 34
Economics Letters, 115
V. Smith, A. Baquet (1996)
The Demand for Multiple Peril Crop Insurance: Evidence from Montana Wheat FarmsERN: Other Microeconomics: Decision-Making under Risk & Uncertainty (Topic)
R. Chambers (1989)
Insurability and Moral Hazard in Agricultural Insurance MarketsAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71
Teresa Serra, B. Goodwin, Allen Featherstone (2003)
Modeling changes in the U.S. demand for crop insurance during the 1990sAgricultural Finance Review, 63
Keith Coble, R. Pope, Jeffery Williams (1996)
Modeling Farm‐Level Crop Insurance Demand with Panel DataMicroeconomics: Decision-Making under Risk & Uncertainty eJournal
Saleem Shaik, Keith Coble, T. Knight, A. Baquet, G. Patrick (2008)
Crop Revenue and Yield Insurance Demand: A Subjective Probability ApproachJournal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 40
M. Ravallion, E. Galasso, Teodoro Lazo, Ernesto Philipp (2005)
What Can Ex-Participants Reveal about a Program’s Impact?The Journal of Human Resources, XL
K. West, Whitney Newey (1994)
Automatic Lag Selection in Covariance Matrix Estimation
J. Woodard (2008)
Three Essays on Systemic Risk and Rating in Crop Insurance Markets
PurposeRecently, USDA-RMA introduced a Trend Adjusted-Actual Production History (TA-APH) program, which increases APH by a trend factor to cover yield changes over time. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of the TA-APH program on farmer participation, coverage election, and risk by analyzing data before and after the program.Design/methodology/approachSince the program was carried out in selected counties, the authors employ a difference in differences approach doing comparisons of insurance participation and coverage levels between eligible and ineligible counties.FindingsThe authors find that farmers within the counties where the TA-APH program was available experienced an increase in insured acres of 3 percent for corn and 5 percent for soybeans. The authors also find the farmers eligible for the program purchased lower coverage levels relative to those not eligible. However, the magnitude of that negative effect is relatively small, −0.9 percent in corn and −1.3 percent in soybeans. Collectively the evidence shows the TA-APH program does increase the guaranteed yield level mitigating farmer risk.Research limitations/implicationsThe data set used only permitted analysis at the county level, thus the authors could not look at the individual farmer choices.Practical implicationsThe results suggest that if a greater level of farmer risk protection is desired from crop insurance, the authors find that the trend adjustment as implemented was a successful way to achieve this.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature on the crop insurance by evaluating the program controlling for a non-participating groups, farming experience, liability rates, and subsidy rates. In doing this, it fulfills an identified need to study the actual impact on participation rates and coverage levels elected.
Agricultural Finance Review – Emerald Publishing
Published: Sep 4, 2017
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.