INTERACTION EFFECTS OF PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR U.S. COTTON



Table 3. Effects of Interaction with Government Cotton Programs on Domestic Producer ROI,
1996-2000 (2000$)

Marginal Benefits, Costsa

Free Market

LDP

Step 2

LDP and

Step 2

Weighted

Averageb

Net Producer Benefits,
Promotion

$1,339,915

$1,065,155

$2,081,637

$1,473,021

$1,611,416

Net Producer Benefits, Non
Ag Research

$18,871,694

$15,365,473

$28,341,000

$20,570,558

$22,337,780

Net Producer Benefits,
Combined

$20,166,529

$16,384,866

$30,380,092

$21,998,879

$23,905,031

Domestic Producer Costs,
Promotion

$290,084

$290,084

$290,084

$290,084

$290,084

Domestic Producer Costs, Non
Ag Research

$67,334

$67,334

$67,334

$67,334

$67,334

Domestic Producer

Assessment, Combined

$453,447

$453,447

$453,447

$453,447

$453,447

Producer Benefits/Producer
Costs, Promotion

4.6

3.7

7.2

5.1

5.6

Producer Benefits/Producer

Costs, Non Ag Research

280.3

228.2

420.9

305.5

331.7

Producer Benefits/Producer

Assessments, Combined

44.5

36.1

67.0

48.5

52.7

aThese values correspond to a 1 percent increase in expenditures and costs/assessments. For promotion and research the costs to
domestic producers of a marginal increase in CRPP expenditures are calculated as 1 percent of the expenditures on those
activities multiplied by the share of total assessments paid by domestic producers (about 67 percent). For the combined
measure, the costs are calculated as a 1 percent increase in the total assessments paid by domestic producers.

bWeights for the four policy regimes are based on the number of months each was in effect during 1996-2000.

mills) does not increase as much as it would in a free market. When demand shifts out, the market price
will rise. However, this will trigger larger government subsidies per pound of cotton. The net price after
subsidy will rise much less than the price received by producers as a result of these payments. Thus, the
quantity purchased and the price received by producers both increase more than they would under free
market conditions. The LDP program, on the other hand, acts to reduce the ROI of promotion and
nonagricultural research activities when binding. This is because part of the increase in market price
isoffset by reductions in government LDP payments. A weighted average of the returns under different
government programs in existence from 1996 through 2000 yields a return that is about 18 percent higher
than the estimated return in the absence of government programs.

25



More intriguing information

1. The Role of Evidence in Establishing Trust in Repositories
2. The problem of anglophone squint
3. DEMAND FOR MEAT AND FISH PRODUCTS IN KOREA
4. Modellgestützte Politikberatung im Naturschutz: Zur „optimalen“ Flächennutzung in der Agrarlandschaft des Biosphärenreservates „Mittlere Elbe“
5. Credit Markets and the Propagation of Monetary Policy Shocks
6. The Impact of Financial Openness on Economic Integration: Evidence from the Europe and the Cis
7. Bargaining Power and Equilibrium Consumption
8. Bird’s Eye View to Indonesian Mass Conflict Revisiting the Fact of Self-Organized Criticality
9. The name is absent
10. American trade policy towards Sub Saharan Africa –- a meta analysis of AGOA
11. The name is absent
12. Distribution of aggregate income in Portugal from 1995 to 2000 within a SAM (Social Accounting Matrix) framework. Modeling the household sector
13. Determinants of U.S. Textile and Apparel Import Trade
14. Feeling Good about Giving: The Benefits (and Costs) of Self-Interested Charitable Behavior
15. Fiscal Policy Rules in Practice
16. The name is absent
17. Accurate, fast and stable denoising source separation algorithms
18. A Unified Model For Developmental Robotics
19. Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Development in the United States
20. Education as a Moral Concept