Search results

"Agricultural and energy commodity prices have traditionally exhibited relatively low correlation. However, recent increases in biofuel production have altered the agriculture-energy relationship in a fundamental way. This increase has drawn on corn previously sold to other uses, as well as acreage devoted to other crops. The US RFS envisions a further boost of ethanol production to 15 billion gallons per year, which might be expected to further strengthen the linkages. We estimate that, in the presence of a binding RFS, the inherent volatility in the US coarse grains market will rise by about one-quarter. And the volatility of the US coarse grains price to supply side shocks in that market will rise by nearly one-half. Under a high oil price scenario, rather than the RFS binding, the binding constraint is likely to be the blend wall. With a binding blend wall, we see similar, although somewhat smaller, increases in market volatility. If both the RFS and the blend wall are on the verge of being binding, then our results suggest that US coarse grains price volatility in response to corn supply shocks would be 57% higher than in the non-binding case, and world price volatility would be boosted by 25%"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site

In formulating empirically tractable, economy-wide models, researchers are often forced to employ "convenient" functional forms that embody restrictively maintained hypotheses. Alternatively, flexible functional forms may be utilized in a partial equilibrium setting. Estimation & incorporation of flexible functions into computable general equilibrium models is considerably more demanding of research resources. Assuming that shortcuts will continue to be necessary for researchers attempting to respond to current policy problems, these two alternatives are compared using a general equilibrium model of the NY state economy to evaluate the relative performances of flexible partial equilibrium models & their more restrictive, general equilibrium counterpart. In this particular application, the former approach is found to dominate. 4 Tables, 1 Appendix, 21 References. HA

AbstractClimate change is not just a topic for the future—it is already producing real consequences. Economically, the issue has three principal dimensions: impacts, that is, how vulnerable are we; adaptation, that is, what can we do to reduce the impacts by altering operations; and mitigation, that is, what can we do to reduce the drivers causing climate change and thus the long‐term extent of climate change? All of these issues have economic dimensions, including appraising damages and the value of effects reducing actions, as well as the formulation of efficient policies. Thus, it is not surprising that this is both an active agricultural economic research area and one with many more research possibilities. We review the impacts, adaptation, and mitigation literature, identifying issues, summarizing main findings, commenting on methods, and pointing out research needs, with a special focus on what agricultural/applied economists have to offer.