1 research projects: a summary of objectives, procedures, and findings by dr. shida henneberry...
Post on 18-Jan-2016
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Research Projects:
A Summary of Objectives, Procedures, and Findings
By
Dr. Shida HenneberryProfessor of Agricultural Economics
Oklahoma State Universitysrh@okstate.edu
SH, Feb 2004 2
A Summary of Objectives, Procedures, and Findings
• International Development
• International Trade
• Food Marketing and Demand Analysis
SH, Feb 2004 3
International Development:
• Economic and Social Impacts of NAFTA in Mexico
• Industrial – Agricultural Interactions in Pakistan
• Linkage between Ag. Exports and Economic Growth– Pakistan
SH, Feb 2004 4
Economic & Social Impacts of NAFTA in Mexico
NAFTA Concerns:
U.S.: American unskilled labor are not able to compete against Mexican labor
Mexico: Small manufacturers and agriculturalists unable to compete against large American & Canadian firms
Canada: The impact on traditionally subsidized & protected
–Employment sector–Production sector
SH, Feb 2004 5
Economic and Social Impacts of NAFTA in Mexico
Objective:
To evaluate the impact of NAFTA on peasant welfare in five rural villages in Traxcala, Mexico
SH, Feb 2004 6
Economic and Social Impacts of NAFTA in Mexico
Procedures:
• Comparative Static Analysis
• Linear Programming Model of Household Production System
• Incorporating expected Post-NAFTA changes in Agricultural Prices and Industrial Demand for Labor
SH, Feb 2004 7
Economic and Social Impacts of NAFTA in Mexico
Results:• Inequitable distribution of NAFTA
changes across:– Genders– Producers with varying resource bases
• Increased industrial demand for labor has injected additional income– Offsetting losses caused by Ag. Prices
SH, Feb 2004 8
Industrial – Agricultural Interactions - Pakistan
Objective:
To analyze the relationship between Pakistan’s industrial and agricultural sectors. The relationship between cotton production & industrial growth.
SH, Feb 2004 9
Industrial – Agricultural Interactions - Pakistan
Pakistan:
1. Semi-industrialized
2. Heavy dependence on Ag
3. Policy makers face major ag. policy reforms in quest for industrial development
4. Much of Pakistan’s industrial growth has been funded at the expense of the agricultural sector.
SH, Feb 2004 10
Industrialization has been successful in GDP Growth
SH, Feb 2004 11
Industrial – Agricultural Interactions
Procedure:
Econometric Analysis of the growth rate in:
Agricultural GDP
Industrial GDP
SH, Feb 2004 12
Industrial – Agricultural Interactions
Results:
• Both sectors (Agricultural & Industrial) have benefited from their relationship
• The industrial sector has gained more
SH, Feb 2004 13
Industrial – Agricultural Interactions
Conclusions:
• Agricultural growth and rural development should be given top priority
• Their growth helps the industrial sector grow even faster
• Ag. Development does not have to be abandoned in order to focus resources on industrial development
SH, Feb 2004 14
Linkage Between Ag. Exports and Economic Growth
Objectives:
The relationship between Agricultural exports & economic growth in Pakistan
SH, Feb 2004 15
Linkage Between Ag. Exports and Economic Growth
Procedures:
Econometric estimation of three simultaneous equations on:GDPAg. ExportsTotal Imports
SH, Feb 2004 16
Linkage Between Ag. Exports and Economic Growth
• Independent variables:Income remittances form abroadInvestmentManufactured exports
SH, Feb 2004 17
Linkages Between Ag. Exports & Econ. Growth
Findings:
A favorable relationship exists between agricultural exports & growth in GDP
SH, Feb 2004 18
International Trade
• Wheat Export Market Development:– A case study of Oklahoma Direct Shipments to
Mexico
SH, Feb 2004 19
Economic Analysis of
Unit-train Facility Investment
Shida R. Henneberry, Professor
Haerani N. Agustini, Graduate AssistantDepartment of Agricultural Economics
Oklahoma State University
SH, Feb 2004 20
INTRODUCTION
NAFTA has increased grain trade between the U.S. and Mexico.
Oklahoma is among the largest producers of Hard Red Winter Wheat.
SH, Feb 2004 21
Changes in consumption patterns in Mexico
Advances in milling & baking technologies
Quality Characteristics Demanded by Mexican Buyers are Changing:
SH, Feb 2004 22
In recent years, there have been direct shipments of wheat from Oklahoma to Mexico.
Suppliers are Oklahoma farmer-owned cooperatives/elevators.
Buyers are Mexican Millers.
SH, Feb 2004 23
Benefits of Direct Shipments:
To Buyer
Identity-Preservation
Availability of processed-based information (e.g. Non-biotech)
To Sellers
Price Premiums
SH, Feb 2004 24
IP Marketing Arrangement is Attributed to: Diversification/specialization in
production
Technological advancements in processing/marketing
Sophistication in consumer demand
Low commodity grain prices
SH, Feb 2004 25
Typical Grain Transportation Network
SH, Feb 2004 26
Shipping via Direct Shipment Involves:No other stops at other elevators
No co-mingling of wheat from the specific source (that meets buyer specification) with wheat from other sources (that may not meet specification).
SH, Feb 2004 27
Transportation Structure Involved in Direct Shipments:
Single-car trains (1-24 cars)Multi-car trains (25-49 cars)Unit-car trains (50-99 cars or more)
SH, Feb 2004 28
Unit-Car Train Benefits:Rate Savings because of reduced:
Loading/unloading time
Switching time
Waiting time per car
SH, Feb 2004 29
Larger investment in load-out facility (several mil. $’s):
[unit-trains are on a strict schedule]
Unit-Car Train Costs:
SH, Feb 2004 30
ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to calculate the financial returns to investment in unit-train facilities in Oklahoma for direct shipment of wheat to Mexico.
SH, Feb 2004 31
Sources of DataFixed investment cost
of unit-train (100+ car) structures from Oklahoma elevators.
Annual operating costs were adapted from Vachal, et. Al (1999)
SH, Feb 2004 32
Methods of AnalysisThree methods were used to evaluate the profitability of investment in a unit-train facility:
1. Net Present Value (NPV)
2. Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C)
3. Return-to-Investment (RTI) or Internal-Rate-of Return (IRR)
SH, Feb 2004 33
Methods of AnalysisTotal Benefit:
B is the difference between total revenue from selling
wheat through direct shipments (IP wheat) and
selling through the traditional channels, at the
elevator’s posted price (terminal market price)
Q is quantity of wheat available for shipment
PIP is the price received from Mexican miller
PTR is the terminal market price
TS is the transportation savings per bushel from using
a unit-train
B = Q (PIP- PTR) + Q (TS)
SH, Feb 2004 34
1 (1 )
Nt t
tt
B CNPV
i
Net Present Value (NPV) of Investment is Calculated as:
Bt is as defined before, in period t
Ct is the cost of investment in unit-train, in period t, first year is the cost of investment, the remaining periods is the annual operating cost.
i is the discount rate and N is the number of years the investment lasts.
SH, Feb 2004 35
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) or Return-to-Investment is the discount rate i that sets NPV = 0.
Return-to-Investment
SH, Feb 2004 36
Cost of unit-train Investment : $3,000,000 (Investment on unit-train load-out facilities) Annual operating costs: $1,090,000 Fixed Costs +Variable Costs Quantity of wheat transported per year: 10,000,000
bushels NPV, BC, and RTI are calculated at: 3%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 18% and 20% Transptn saving is assumed to be $.10 per bushel Price premium are assumed at $.05, $.08, and $.11
Base Cost:
SH, Feb 2004 37
Results
NPV
The present value of the net return to investment in load-out facility are calculated for:
Various discount rates
Price premiums
Transportation savings
SH, Feb 2004 38
The results show that assuming a price premium of 5 cents per bushel, a discount rate of 3 percent, and transportation cost savings of 10 cents per bushel, the net-present-value is a positive number and benefit-cost ratio is 1.01.
Moreover, at discount rates above 3 percent, calculations show that present value of costs exceed the present value of benefits.
Conclusions:
SH, Feb 2004 39
The financial return-to-investment (RTI) assuming base level costs, is around 3.8 percent; which is slightly above the current U.S. market discount (long-term interest) rate.
Results were also calculated for a 10 percent increase in variable costs. Under this scenario, the net-present-value becomes negative at 3 percent discount rate; the benefit-cost ratio remains around 1.00, while the RTI decreases to 1.78 percent.
Conclusions: (continued)
SH, Feb 2004 40
Thank you
SH, Feb 2004 41
Food Marketing and Demand Analysis
Food Safety
SH, Feb 2004 42
AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF FOOD SAFETY
CONCERNS ON FOOD CONSUMPTION
SH, Feb 2004 43
Objective:
To Evaluate the Impact of:•Prices•Expenditure•Consumer food safety concerns
On food consumption of major food products in the U.S.
SH, Feb 2004 44
Major Food Groups Studied:
•Poultry•Red meats•Dairy products•Fresh produce
SH, Feb 2004 45
The Hypothesis to be Tested:
The net negative info. w.r.t.
•Chemical residues
•Salmonella
•BST•Growth hormones
SH, Feb 2004 46
The Model:The Linear Approximate of an Almost Ideal Demand System:
lnP = j Wjt-1lnPjt
n
kikikii PYPCW
1
)/log(log
SH, Feb 2004 47
Results:
Compared to food safety concerns, prices and expenditure exhibit a greater and statistically significant impact.
SH, Feb 2004 48
THE END
top related