IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea04/20245.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Serrao, Amilcar
  • Coelho, Luis

Abstract

The mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy will change the way the European Union supports its farm sector. The new Common Agricultural Policy will be geared towards consumers, and taxpayers, while giving farmers the freedom to produce what the market wants. In the future, the majority of the subsidies will be paid independentlty from the volume of production. To avoid abandonment of production, Member States may choose to maintain a limited link between subsidy and production under well conditions and within clear limits. These new "single farm payment" will be linked to the respect of environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards. Severing the link between subsidies and production will make farmers more competitive and market oriented, while providing the necessary income stability. As the subsidy becomes a common component of all the alternatives of decision, the farmer will segregate that common component of the problem in the edition phase, starting to make decisions with base in negative results, what can determine the abandonment of the farming activity. This research work intends to know, to characterize and to identify the farmers' behavior in the Alentejo dryland region of Portugal, when they face to the emerging reality of the new Common Agricultural Policy. The Cumulative Prospect Theory allows to model the farmers' behavior, because besides defining that the results are appraised in agreement with variations in relation to the initial wealth, this theory treats in a differentiated way gains and losses. The value functions and the weighting probabilities are elicited by the Trade-off and Certainty Equivalent methods for a group of farmers in the Alentejo dryland region. These functions will constitute the objective function of a discrete sequential stochastic programming model, whose restrictions describe the crop and livestock farms in their productive, financial, commercial and taxes components. Model results show that the introduction of the total decoupling payments leads to the abandonment of the crop production in the Alentejo dryland region and an increase of the livestock production in the natural pastures. The crop farms stop producing, except the farms that have good soils continue to produce, although these farms do not produce durum wheat and they start to produce barley and oats. With respect to the beef cattle farms, these farms maintain the number of cattle heads, they increase the pasture and forage areas and they substitute durum wheat for oats and barley. The sheep farms reduce the number of cattle heads drastically and they substitute durum wheat for barley and oats.

Suggested Citation

  • Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea04:20245
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.20245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/20245/files/sp04se04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.20245?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCarl, Bruce A. & Apland, Jeffrey, 1986. "Validation Of Linear Programming Models," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(2), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Anderson, Jock R. & Dillon, John L. & Hardaker, Brian, 1977. "Agricultural Decision Analysis," Monographs: Applied Economics, AgEcon Search, number 288652, November.
    4. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2343-2378, Elsevier.
    5. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    6. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    7. Buschena, David E. & Zilberman, David, 1994. "What Do We Know About Decision Making Under Risk And Where Do We Go From Here?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2006. "The Role of area-yield crop insurance program face to the Mid-term Review of Common Agricultural Policy," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21411, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2005. "Analysing Farmers' Decision-Making Process Face to the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy in the Alentejo region of Portugal," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19266, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    4. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    5. Coelho, Luís Alberto Godinho & Pires, Cesaltina Maria Pacheco & Dionísio, Andreia Teixeira & Serrão, Amílcar Joaquim da Conceição, 2012. "The impact of CAP policy in farmer's behavior – A modeling approach using the Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 81-98.
    6. Bard, Sharon K. & Barry, Peter J., 2000. "Developing A Scale For Assessing Risk Attitudes Of Agricultural Decision Makers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-17.
    7. John Quiggin, 1981. "Risk Perception And The Analysis Of Risk Attitudes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 25(2), pages 160-169, August.
    8. Phillips Peter J. & Pohl Gabriela, 2018. "The Deferral of Attacks: SP/A Theory as a Model of Terrorist Choice when Losses Are Inevitable," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 71-85, February.
    9. dos Santos, Lindomar Soares & Destefano, Natália & Martinez, Alexandre Souto, 2018. "Decision making generalized by a cumulative probability weighting function," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 490(C), pages 250-259.
    10. Anderson, Kim B. & Mapp, Harry P., Jr., 1996. "Risk Management Programs In Extension," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-8, July.
    11. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    12. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    13. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    14. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    15. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    16. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    17. Parton, Kevin A., 2009. "Agricultural Decision Analysis: The Causal Challenge," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48150, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 208-216, January.
    19. Loreto Llorente & Josemari Aizpurua, 2008. "A Betting Market: Description and a Theoretical Explanation of Bets in Pelota Matches," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 421-446, March.
    20. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management;

    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:ags:aaea04:20245. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: AgEcon Search (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.