Alternative Specifications of Reference Income Levels in the Income Stabilization Tool

In this chapter, different approaches for the specification of reference income levels in the income stabilization tool (IST) are analyzed. The current proposal of the European Commission suggests a 3-year average or a 5-year Olympic average to specify the farm-level reference income that is used to identify if and to what extent a farmer is indemnified in a specific year. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we investigate the impact of income trends on indemnification if these average-based methods are used in the IST. In addition, we propose and investigate a regression-based approach that considers observed income trends to specify reference income levels. Furthermore, we apply these three different approaches to farm-level panel data from Swiss agriculture for the period 2003–2009. We find that average-based approaches cause lower than expected indemnification levels for farmers with increasing incomes, and higher indemnifications if farm incomes are decreasing over time. Small income trends are sufficient to cause substantial biases between expected (fair) and realized indemnification payments at the farm level. In the presence of income trends, average-based specifications of reference income levels will thus cause two major problems for the IST. First, differences between expected and realized indemnification levels can lead to significant mismatches between expected and real costs of the IST. Second, indemnity levels that do not reflect farm-level income losses do not allow achieving the actual purpose of the IST of securing farm incomes. Our analysis shows that a regression-based approach to specify reference income levels can contribute to bound potential biases in cases of decreasing or increasing income levels.

[1]  R. Huirne,et al.  Income Insurance in European Agriculture , 2003 .

[2]  Keith H. Coble,et al.  Modeling Conditional Yield Densities , 2003 .

[3]  R. Huirne,et al.  Income insurance as a risk management tool after 2013 CAP reforms , 2011 .

[4]  J. Atwood,et al.  Are Crop Yields Normally Distributed? A Reexamination , 2003 .

[5]  N. Schenker,et al.  Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: What do they mean in terms of statistical significance? , 2003, Journal of insect science.

[6]  Keith H. Coble,et al.  Understanding Regional Differences in Farm Policy Preferences , 2012 .

[7]  Ardian Harri,et al.  Crop Yield Distributions: A Reconciliation of Previous Research and Statistical Tests for Normality , 2009 .

[8]  J. Glauber The Growth Of The Federal Crop Insurance Program, 1990–2011 , 2013 .

[9]  J. Cooper Average Crop Revenue Election: A Revenue‐Based Alternative to Price‐Based Commodity Payment Programs , 2010 .

[10]  P. J. Huber The 1972 Wald Lecture Robust Statistics: A Review , 1972 .

[11]  R. Finger Investigating the performance of different estimation techniques for crop yield data analysis in crop insurance applications , 2013 .

[12]  Gallego Pinilla Francisco,et al.  Agricultural Insurance Schemes II , 2008 .

[13]  J. Elser,et al.  A microfluorometric method for quantifying RNA and DNA in terrestrial insects , 2003, Journal of insect science.

[14]  V. Yohai,et al.  Robust Statistics: Theory and Methods , 2006 .

[15]  David A. Hennessy,et al.  Crop Yield Skewness and the Normal Distribution , 2009 .

[16]  R. Finger,et al.  Gross revenue risk in Swiss dairy farming. , 2013, Journal of dairy science.

[17]  S. Misra,et al.  Crop‐Yield Distributions Revisited , 2003 .

[18]  C. Turvey Whole Farm Income Insurance , 2012 .

[19]  R. Finger,et al.  A Note on the Effects of the Income Stabilisation Tool on Income Inequality in Agriculture , 2014 .

[20]  Quinn Weninger,et al.  Are Crop Yields Normally Distributed? , 1999 .

[21]  B. Goodwin,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation of Crop Insurance Rates Revisited , 2000 .

[22]  J. You A Monte Carlo comparsion of several high breakdown and efficient estimators , 1999 .