Advertisement

Small Business Economics

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 305–312 | Cite as

Size, Growth, and Survival in the Upper Austrian Farm Sector

  • Christoph R. Weiss
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the evolution of the size distribution of more than 40,000 farms in the Upper Austrian farm sector over the period 1980–90. Using Gibrat's Law as our point of departure, we find that smaller farms grow much faster towards some minimum efficient scale of production than farms at or above this threshold size. We furthermore find evidence for the existence of two separate "centres of attraction" of farm size supporting the notion of a "disappearing middle" and the emergence of a bimodal structure of farm sizes. Correcting for size-related attrition bias had very little effect on our results.

Keywords

Industrial Organization Small Farm Farm Size Farm Sector Efficient Scale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allanson, P., 1992, ‘Farm Size Structure in England and Wales 1939–89’, Journal of Agricultural Economics 45, 137-148.Google Scholar
  2. Atwood, J. D. and A. Hallam, 1993, ‘Farm Structure and Stewardship of the Environment’, in A. Hallam (ed.), Size, Structure, and the Changing Face of American Agriculture, Westview Press, pp. 561-586.Google Scholar
  3. Cabral, L., 1995, ‘Sunk Costs, Firm Size and Firm Growth’, The Journal of Industrial Economics 43, 161-172.Google Scholar
  4. Chesher, A., 1979, ‘Testing the Law of Proportionate Effects’, The Journal of Industrial Economics 27, 403-411.Google Scholar
  5. Dunne, P. and A. Hughes, 1994, ‘Age, Size, Growth and Survival: U.K. Companies in the 1980s’, The Journal of Industrial Economics 42, 115-140.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, D., 1987, ‘Tests of Alternative Theories of Firm Growth’, Journal of Political Economy 85, 657-674.Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, M., 1992, ‘Do Old Fallacies Ever Die?’, Journal of Economic Literature 30, 2129-2132.Google Scholar
  8. Fürst, E., 1993, Die oberösterreichische Landwirtschaft im Spannungsfeld von Strukturwandel und EG-Beitritt, Statistischer Dienst des Amtes der oberösterreichischen Landesregierung, Linz.Google Scholar
  9. Garcia, P., S. E. Offutt and S. T. Sonka, 1987, ‘Size Distribution and Growth in a Sample of Illinois Cash Grain Farms’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69, 471-476.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, B. D. and R. D. Pope, 1978, ‘How is Scale and Structure Determined in Agriculture?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, 295-302.Google Scholar
  11. Hallam, A. (ed.), 1993, Size, Structure, and the Changing Face of American Agriculture, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  12. Heckman, J., 1979, ‘Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error’, Econometrica 47, 153-161.Google Scholar
  13. Ijiri, Y. and H. A. Simon, 1977, Skew Distributions and the Sizes of Business Firms, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Jovanovic, B., 1982, ‘Selection and Evolution of Industry’, Econometrica 50, 649-670.Google Scholar
  15. Kumbhakar, S. C., 1993, ‘Short-Run Returns to Scale, Farm-Size, and Economic Efficiency’, The Review of Economics and Statistics 75, 336-341.Google Scholar
  16. Leamer, E. E., 1978, Specification Searches: Ad Hoc Inference with Nonexperimental Data, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Lucas, R. E., 1978, ‘On the Size Distribution of Business Firms’, Bell Journal of Economics 9, 508-523.Google Scholar
  18. Maddala, G. S., 1983, Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mansfield, E., 1962, ‘Entry, Innovation, and the Growth of Firms’, The American Economic Review 52, 1023-1051.Google Scholar
  20. Munton, R. and R. Marsden, 1991, ‘Dualism or Diversity in Family Farming? Patterns of Occupancy Change in British Agriculture’, Geoforum 22, 105-117.Google Scholar
  21. Quah, D., 1994, ‘Exploiting Cross-section Variation for Unit Root Inference in Dynamic Data’, Economics Letters 44, 9-19.Google Scholar
  22. Schmitt, G., 1993, ‘Haushalts-und Betriebsgrößen in der Landwirtschaft: Zum Problem der optimalen Betriebsgröße und des optimalen Größenwachstums’, Berichte über Landwirtschaft 71, 377-398.Google Scholar
  23. Shapiro, D., R. D. Bollman and P. Ehrensaft, 1987, ‘Farm Size and Growth in Canada’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69, 477-483.Google Scholar
  24. Simon, H. A. and C. P. Bonini, 1958, ‘The Size Distribution of Business Firms’, The American Economic Review 48, 607-617.Google Scholar
  25. Wagner, J., 1992, ‘Firm Size, Firm Growth, and Persistence of Change: Testing Gibrat's Law with Establishment Data from Lower Saxony, 1978–1989’, Small Business Economics 4, 125-131.Google Scholar
  26. Weiss, C. R., 1996, Exits From a Declining Sector: Econometric Evidence from a Panel of Upper Austrian Farms 1980–90, paper presented at the 8th Congress of the EAAE in Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  27. White, H., 1980, ‘A Heteroskedasticity Consistent Covariance Matrix and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity’, Econometrica 46, 817-838.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph R. Weiss
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of LinzAustria

Personalised recommendations