Category Archives: Social issues

327 – Heterogeneity of farmers

Farmers are highly heterogeneous. Even farmers growing the same crops in the same region are highly variable. This is often not well recognised by policy makers, researchers or extension agents.

The variation between farmers occurs on many dimensions. A random sample of farmers will have quite different soils, rainfall, machinery, access to water for irrigation, wealth, access to credit, farm area, social networks, intelligence, education, skills, family size, non-family labour, history of farm management choices, preferences for various outcomes, and so on, and so on. There is variation amongst the farmers themselves (after all, they are human), their farms, and the farming context.

This variation has consequences. For example, it means that different farmers given the same information, the same technology choices, or facing the same government policy, can easily respond quite differently, and they often do.

Discussions about farmers often seem to be based on an assumption that farmers are a fairly uniform group, with similar attitudes, similar costs and similar profits from the same practices. For example, it is common to read discussions of costs and benefits of adopting a new farming practice, as if the costs and the benefits are the same across all farmers. In my view, understanding the heterogeneity of farm economics is just as important as understanding the average.

Understanding the heterogeneity helps you have realistic expectations about how many farmers are likely to respond in particular ways to information, technologies or policies. Or about how the cost of a policy program would vary depending on the target outcomes of the program.

We explore some of these issues in a paper recently published in Agricultural Systems (Van Grieken et al. 2019). It looks at the heterogeneity of 400 sugarcane farmers in an area of the wet tropics in Queensland (the Tully–Murray catchment). These farms are a focus of policy because nutrients and sediment sourced from them are likely to be affecting the Great Barrier Reef. “Within the vicinity of the Tully-Murray flood plume there are 37 coral reefs and 13 seagrass meadows”.

Our findings include the following.

  • Different farmers are likely to respond differently to incentive payments provided by government to encourage uptake of practices that would reduce losses of nutrients and sediment.
  • Specific information about this can help governments target their policy to particular farmers, and result in the program being more cost-effective.
  • As the target level of pollution abatement increases, the cost of achieving that target would not increase linearly. Rather, the cost would increase exponentially, reflecting that a minority of farmers have particularly high costs of abatement. This is actually the result that economists would generally expect (see PD182).

Further reading

Van Grieken, M., Webster, A., Whitten, S., Poggio, M., Roebeling, P., Bohnet, I. and Pannell, D. (2019). Adoption of agricultural management for Great Barrier Reef water quality improvement in heterogeneous farming communities, Agricultural Systems 170, 1-8. Journal web page * IDEAS page

308 – Vote yes for marriage equality

Australians currently have a chance to vote for marriage equality by postal ballot. I know this is a bit off the usual topics for this blog, but it’s something I feel strongly about. If you have the right to vote, here are six reasons to vote yes.

1. Because it’s the kind and decent thing to do. It would create joy for many thousands of people without hurting anybody.

2. Because gay people still face prejudice in many forms, and still attempt suicide at higher rates than their peers. Voting yes would be one small step towards turning this around.

3. Because we should not let the religious beliefs of a minority dictate how the rest of us live our lives. There is and should be a separation of church and state in Australia. Nobody should be required to follow the dictates of a religion to which they do not voluntarily subscribe. That is the real issue of religious freedom here – quite the opposite of what some “no” advocates are claiming.

4. Because the position of some Christians against same-sex marriage is not supported by the Bible anyway (Whitaker, 2017). The Bible has vastly more to say about being kind and generous than the few vague fragments it includes on homosexuality. Nowhere does it actually proscribe same-sex marriage. In the Old Testament, it does say that a man lying with another man instead of his wife is an “abomination”. But (a) this is about adulterous sex, not marriage between a loving couple, and (b) there is an interesting list of other things that the Old Testament also describes as abominations, including wearing mixed-fabric clothing, tattoos, mocking the blind by putting obstacles in their way, and trimming your beard. Why are we not having a postal plebiscite on the trimming of beards? The highly selective focus of some Christians on homosexuality is hypocritical. Neither testament of the Bible says anything whatsoever against lesbians.

5. Because Australia is lagging behind the rest of the civilised world. Same-sex marriage is already legal in The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, the US, Luxemburg, Colombia, Greenland, Finland, Slovenia, Germany and Taiwan.

6. Because this change is inevitable, and saying no now would needlessly delay us doing the right thing. It prolongs the debate and increases the number of public expressions of anti-gay prejudices.

Post your completed survey form back by 31 October to be sure of meeting the deadline.

Further reading

Whitaker, R.J. (2017). Same-sex marriage: What does the Bible really have to say? Here

304 – Predicting behaviour change by farmers

I have a new paper out describing ADOPT, the Adoption and Diffusion Outcome Prediction Tool. We’ve paid the money to make it Open Access, so I hope you will make it worth our while having done that by going to the journal web site and downloading the paper for free.

There are many hundreds of research papers on the adoption of new practices by farmers. Pretty much all of them set out to explain the relative contributions of different factors to the past adoption or non-adoption of particular practices in particular regions. There are a bunch of review papers that try to make sense of the voluminous literature (including a beauty by Pannell et al. (2006)).

However, neither the original papers nor the reviews set out to address an issue that really matters to many people working in the agricultural sector, in research, extension, natural resource management, policy, sales, etc. That issue is the likely future adoption of a new practice that has not yet been adopted. An interdisciplinary group of us set out to fill this gap by developing ADOPT.

There are a large number of users of ADOPT – there have been over 1000 downloads of the tool, and many examples where it has been used effectively in planning or evaluation of research, extension or policy.

Now we have published this paper, which describes how we developed and validated the tool, how it is structured, and some example of its use.

You can download the paper for free here and you can download the ADOPT tool for free here. If you do it quickly, you’ll be one of the first to get a new update of the model, just released on June 29.

Also available now is Version 1.0 of the “Smallholder” version of ADOPT, designed for use in developing countries. Download it from the same web site here.

Also see http://www.ruralpracticechange.net for a set of videos on the topic of farmers adopting new practices.

References

Kuehne, G., Llewellyn, R., Pannell, D.J., Wilkinson, R., Dolling, P., Ouzman, J. and Ewing, M. (2017). Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: a tool for research, extension and policy, Agricultural Systems 156, 115-125. Journal web site for free download of the paper.

Pannell, D.J. and Vanclay, F.M. (eds) (2011). Changing Land Management: Adoption of New Practices by Rural Landholders, CSIRO Publishing, Canberra. Available at the publisher’s website.

Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. and Wilkinson, R. (2006). Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11): 1407-1424. Journal web site, or email David.Pannell@uwa.edu.au to ask for a copy.

 

301 – Inequality in the USA

Following the catastrophic result of the US unpopularity contest last week, one of the many suggested explanations was the level of economic inequality in the country. This made me think of the graph below, which I saw last year. It shows that, when it comes to inequality, the US is truly exceptional.

The graph shows the Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality) for 115 countries, plotted against their GDP per capita (a measure of their average income). There is a very clear pattern. Above a certain level of inequality (Gini coefficient of about 37), almost all countries have really low average income levels, while above a certain level of average income (GDP per capita of $12,000), almost all countries have fairly low inequality.

 

gini

Source: http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2006/01/04/gdp-per-capital-vs-gini-index

 

The exception is the US, which has both high average income and high inequality. There is a lot of wealth in the US but it is concentrated into a minority of hands. As one illustration, between 2009 and 2012, 95% of income gains in the US accrued to the top 1% of income earners. Other data seems to show that their inability to share around the wealth has become worse over time. Other countries with a similar level of inequality have about one eighth as much average income.

If it is true that inequality is behind this incredible electoral result, we can perhaps draw some solace from the fact that inequality is so much less in all other wealthy countries.

On the other hand, inequality was clearly not the only factor. Already, like-minded politicians around the world are feeling empowered and emboldened to spread their noxious views throughout their societies. We can see that happening in Australia, France and The Netherlands, for example.

And there seems plenty to worry about from what could now happen in the US. The world’s most powerful country will soon be led by a deeply ignorant man of appalling values and character. Even by the low standards of politicians, he tells obvious lies to an extraordinary extent. I feel angry that so many Americans were taken in by this conman, and now the whole world will have to suffer the consequences.

The other thing I can’t stop thinking about is a certain historical parallel. Can you think of another prominent national leader from the 20th century who was elected on a promise of making his country great again? This other leader also used an ethnic minority group as a scapegoat for his society’s problems, and found a sympathetic ear from countrymen who felt they had been badly treated. He had notable authoritarian tendencies, fomented hatred and resentment, was not averse to jailing his political opponents, did not respect the rule of law or democratic institutions, and was unable ever to admit that he had made an error. He excited mobs with messages that were simple and bold but facile and dangerous. He was friendly with other authoritarian leaders (although that didn’t last). And he had a distinctive hair style.

I’m not expecting that the US will now proceed to annex Alberta as a prelude to invading all of the countries they can practically get to, but I do think there is a serious risk that voices of reason, balance, kindness and openness within the country will be repressed and perhaps even persecuted. We have to hope that good Americans will be able to moderate or even prevent the barrage of stupid and repugnant policies that will now come forth.

299 – Are higher house prices a benefit or a problem?

In the research reported in PD298, we used the impact on house prices as an indicator of the benefits of an investment in a public amenity. This is a well-established approach, but twice in recent times I’ve encountered an attitude that higher house prices are more of a cost than a benefit. Could that be right?

The issue that people have in mind when they raise this concern is housing affordability. This certainly is something that is worthy of attention. House prices in many parts of Australia (and other developed countries) are often so high that they place great financial stress on buyers with relatively low incomes or they result in too many people being excluded from the housing market.

However, talking to a former government minister last year, she said that measuring improved local amenity by the resulting rise in house prices was not acceptable because rising house prices are a problem for housing affordability.

housingAlthough I applaud her concerns for the welfare of low-income groups, her rejection of rising house prices as a measure of community benefits is not sound at all.

For one thing, it implies that rising house prices are a bad thing regardless of the cause of the rise. The logical extension of that thinking is that we would prefer completely impoverished suburbs with no amenities or services for residents. Let’s encourage crime, leave road potholes unrepaired, remove all street trees and encourage toxic industries to set up in urban areas. That would certainly result in affordable housing! This is obviously not the solution to the housing-affordability problem.

The second flaw in the politician’s logic was that it confused measurement with objectives. Improving the amenity of a suburb does result in benefits for the residents, and these benefits are reflected in the prices that people are willing to pay to become residents in that area. So the change in house prices that is attributable to the improved amenity is a sound quantitative measure of the benefits. There may also be spillover effects that are viewed as being negative, but the requirement then is to measure those negatives as well, not to reject the valid measurement of the benefits.

Thirdly, the politician is implicitly suggesting we should aim to achieve two different policy objectives (affordable housing and improved urban amenity) using only one policy mechanism, the decision about whether to invest in urban amenity. An important economic insight, known at Tinbergen’s Rule, says that you need at least one policy mechanism for each policy objective – in this case, one related to urban amenity (e.g. investment in drain restoration) and a different one related to affordable housing (e.g. increased land releases). If you try to achieve two objectives with only one mechanism, the community will end up worse off overall than it might have been.

I was completely unprepared for the ex-minister’s comment at the time, and so dazzled by its many problems that I wasn’t able to quickly provide a very coherent counter-argument. I’ll be better prepared if it comes up again.

Further reading

Borrowman, L. Kazakevitch, G. and Frost, L. (2014). Measuring Housing Affordability: What Types of Australian Households are in Stress? Discussion Paper 42/14, Department of Economics, Monash University. Full paper ♦ IDEAS page

Polyakov, M., Fogarty, J., Zhang, F., Pandit, R. and Pannell, D. (2016). The value of restoring urban drains to living streams, Water Resources and Economics Journal web site ♦ IDEAS page