Skip to content

Month: January 2011

Folbre on Trees

Nancy Folbre, whose 1984 paper in Economic Development and Cultural Change used to be  required reading in my development seminar has an excellent column in today’s New York Times on the economics of trees.

In her column, Folbre addresses trees as private and public goods, coordination failures in tree planting, deforestation, carbon sequestration, etc. I only dream of writing well enough so as to eventually be able to effectively address so many issues so concisely.

If you are interested in the economics of common property management regimes, Jean-Marie Baland and Jean-Philippe Platteau have a chapter in the Handbook of Enviromental Economics on the topic. Jean-Marie also has a number of other works on deforestation.

Messing with Markets: Eggs in Québec

Danielle Landreville, an egg producer in Sainte-Mélanie, Québec was given a reminder by the Québec Ministry of Agriculture and the Québec Federation of Egg Producers that she would be fined C$2,250 ($2266) if she kept giving away some of her farm’s eggs to food banks during the holidays (article in French here).

The Ministry of Agriculture enforces a policy of supply management which aims at artificially raising the price of eggs on the market. The eggs produced by most of Mrs. Landreville’s 36,000 hens eventually hatch chickens. She gives away the eggs which she knows cannot hatch as consumption eggs.

According to GO5, a Québec “coalition for an equitable agricultural model: supply management,” there were 44 farms such as Mrs. Landreville’s in Québec in 2006, representing a total of about 200 million eggs — about 27 percent of the Canadian market — per year.

Consumers Pay Twice

Unless the demand for that commodity is perfectly elastic (which is unlikely for whole eggs, a commodity that has few substitutes), this means that the price of the commodity whose supply is managed increases. This price increase is borne by egg consumers. Because Mrs. Landreville’s “consumers” are the farms raising broiler chickens, part of the price increase is passed on to the consumer of broiler chickens.

There is another, more subtle way in which consumers end up paying more under supply management. Supply management of agricultural commodities is equivalent to giving agricultural producers a subsidy. Eventually, this subsidy leads to too many producers being on the market with respect to the number of producers who would be able to operate at a profit without such subsidies. Such subsidies are partly paid for by consumers via their tax bills, so that consumers end up paying twice for supply management policies.

In 2006, there were 44 farms in Québec producing broiler eggs, and there were 103 farms producing consumption eggs, all under a supply management scheme.

If I were a gambling man, I would bet a substantial fraction of my annual salary that there were more than 44 consumers of broiler chickens and more than 103 consumers of eggs in Québec in 2006.

(HT: @Liberte_Quebec)

Smallholder Participation in Agricultural Value Chains

I have a new working paper with Chris Barrett, Maren Bachke, Hope Michelson, Sudha Narayanan, and Tom Walker on agricultural value chains in developing countries. Here is the abstract:

“Supermarkets, specialized wholesalers, and processors and agro-exporters’ agricultural value chains have begun to transform the marketing channels into which smallholder farmers sell produce in low-income economies. We develop a conceptual framework through which to study contracting between smallholders and a commodity-processing firm. We then conduct an empirical meta-analysis of agricultural value chains in five countries across three continents (Ghana, India, Madagascar, Mozambique, and Nicaragua). We document patterns of participation, the welfare gains associated with participation, reasons for non-participation, the significant extent of contract non-compliance, and the considerable dynamism of these value chains, as farmers and firms enter and exit frequently.”

Comments and suggestions would be most welcome.