IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v56y1974i3p497-508..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Test of Utility vs. Profit Maximization in Agricultural Production

Author

Listed:
  • William Lin
  • G. W. Dean
  • C. V. Moore

Abstract

Production economics literature contains many studies which assume that the producer's goal is to maximize profits. This study tests the hypothesis that Bernoullian and lexicographic utility are more accurate predictors of farmer behavior than profit maximization. Six large California farms were used to test the hypothesis. After-income tax E-V (expectation-variance) boundaries were developed for each farm and utility, and profit maximizing crop plans were determined for each. A goodness-of-fit criterion showed that Bernoullian utility formulations provided the greatest accuracy in predicting actual and planned crop patterns, followed by the lexicographic formulation. Profit maximization showed the poorest predictive power.

Suggested Citation

  • William Lin & G. W. Dean & C. V. Moore, 1974. "An Empirical Test of Utility vs. Profit Maximization in Agricultural Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 56(3), pages 497-508.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:56:y:1974:i:3:p:497-508.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1238602
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:56:y:1974:i:3:p:497-508.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.