Economic hysteresis in hog production

German hog production only responds in a very limited way to price fluctuations in the pork market. The hog production concentrates on a few regions though it is not bound to special natural conditions such as soil quality. Furthermore, the volume of production does not vary over time. Relatively high market risks, sunk costs and the flexibility of the decision maker to defer investments characterize decision problems in hog production. Thus the real option approach is chosen to explain the inertia in production capacity. By the use of panel data of specialized hog farms from the German Farm Accountancy Data Network, an empirical investment model is estimated. Formally, the model has the structure of a generalized ordered probit model. This approach allows to test for economic hysteresis in the adjustment of hog production capacity. The results confirm that uncertainty and flexibility widen the optimal range of inaction.

[1]  Cornelis Gardebroek.  Capital adjustment patterns on Dutch pig farms , 2004 .

[2]  Stephen Pudney,et al.  Gender, race, pay and promotion in the British nursing profession: estimation of a generalized ordered probit model , 2000 .

[3]  Adrian Pagan,et al.  The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics , 1980 .

[4]  C. Lagerkvist,et al.  ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION, CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT , 2001 .

[5]  K. Foster,et al.  Capital Investment under Alternative Marketing Scenarios in the Hog Industry: A Real Option Approach , 2002 .

[6]  A. Dixit.  Entry and Exit Decisions under Uncertainty , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[7]  Yu-Fu Chen,et al.  Protection and employment under uncertainty: a real option approach , 2005 .

[8]  E. Prescott,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty , 1971 .

[9]  A. Balmann,et al.  Investment decisions in hog finishing: an application of the real options approach , 2004 .

[10]  Atanu Saha,et al.  He came, he saw, (and) he waited: an empirical analysis of inertia in technology adoption , 1998 .

[11]  Stan Hurn.  Panel Data Econometrics , 2010 .

[12]  T. Schatzki.  Options, uncertainty and sunk costs:: an empirical analysis of land use change , 2003 .

[13]  Michael Boehlje,et al.  Alternative Models Of Structural Change In Agriculture And Related Industries , 1992 .

[14]  Peter Tufano,et al.  When are Real Options Exercised? An Empirical Study of Mine Closings , 2000 .

[15]  Richard H. Bernhard,et al.  INVESTMENT UNDER UNCERTAINTY Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994, xiv + 468 pp. ISBN 0-69I-034I0-9. List: S39.50. , 1995 .

[16]  Timothy J. Richards,et al.  Economic Hysteresis in Variety Selection , 2003, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[17]  O. Musshoff,et al.  Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs’ and non-entrepreneurs’ disinvestment choices , 2010 .

[18]  R. Myers,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty and Dynamic Adjustment in the Finnish Pork Industry , 2000 .

[19]  M. Porter.  The Competitive Advantage Of Nations , 1990 .

[20]  A. Wossink.  THE FAILURE OF MARKETABLE PERMIT SYSTEMS AND UNCERTAINTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: A SWITCHING REGIME MODEL APPLIED TO THE DUTCH PHOSPHATE QUOTA PROGRAM , 2000 .

[21]  B. Provencher.  Structural Versus Reduced‐Form Estimation of Optimal Stopping Problems , 1997 .