Agricultural Decision Making in the Argentine Pampas: Modeling the Interaction between Uncertain and Complex Environments and Heterogeneous and Complex Decision Makers
Simulated outcomes of agricultural production decisions in the Argentine Pampas were used to examine “optimal” land allocations among different crops identified by maximization of the objective functions associated with expected utility and prospect theories. We propose a more mathematically tractable formulation for the prospect theory value-function maximization, and explore results for a broad parameter space. Optimal actions differ among some objective functions and parameter values, especially for land tenants, whose enterprise allocation is less constrained by rotations. Our results demonstrate in a nonlaboratory decision context that psychologically plausible deviations from EU maximization matter.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.J. R. Anderson and J. L. Dillon. Risk Analysis in Dryland Farming Systems. Number 2 in Farm Systems Management Series. FAO, Rome, 1992.Google Scholar
- 3.K. J. Boote and J. W. Jones. Simulation of crop growth: CROPGRO model. In R. M. Peart and R. B. Curry, editors, Agricultural Systems Modeling and Simulation, pages 651–692. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1998.Google Scholar
- 4.C. Camerer. Prospect theory in the wild. In D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, editors, Choice, Values, and Frames, pages 288–300. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
- 6.D. Díaz. Una fábrica de empleos. Clarín Rural, page 4, 2002.Google Scholar
- 7.J. A. Dutton. Opportunities and priorities in a new era for weather and climate services. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 83:1303–1311, 2002.Google Scholar
- 8.D. M. Eddy. Probabilistic reasoning in medicine: Problems and opportunities. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, editors, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pages 249–267. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
- 10.P. E. Gill, W. Murray, B. A. Murtagh, M. A. Saunders, and M. Wright. GAMS/MINOS. In GAMS–The Solver Manuals. GAMS Development Corporation, 2000.Google Scholar
- 12.E. Guevara, S. Meira, M. Maturano, and G. Coco. Maize simulation for different environments in Argentina. In International Symposium: Modelling Cropping Systems, pages 193–194. European Society of Agronomy, University of Lleida, Catalonia, Spain, 1999.Google Scholar
- 14.A. J. Hall, C. M. Rebella, C. M. Ghersa, and J. P. H. Culot. Field crops systems of the Pampas. In C. J. Pearson, editor, Field Crops Systems: Ecosystems of the World, pages 413–449. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992.Google Scholar
- 16.J. B. Hardaker, R. B. M. Huirne, J. R. Anderson, and G. Lien. Coping with Risk in Agriculture. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, 2004.Google Scholar
- 17.J. Jones, G. Tsuji, G. Hoogenboom, L. Hunt, P. Thornton, P. Wilkens, D. Imamura, W. Bowen, and U. Singh. Decision support system for agrotechnology transfer. In G. Tsuji, G. Hoogenboom, and P. Thornton, editors, Understanding Options for Agricultural Production, chapter Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pages 157–177. Kluwer, Boston, 1998.Google Scholar
- 21.C. E. Laciana and E. U. Weber. Using prospect theory in optimization problems. Technical report, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, 2005.Google Scholar
- 25.S. Meira, E. Baigorri, E. Guevara, and M. Maturano. Calibration of soybean cultivars for two environments in Argentina. In Global Soy Forum, Chicago, IL, August 1999.Google Scholar
- 29.National Research Council. Our Common Journey: A Transition Towards Sustainability. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999.Google Scholar
- 30.National Research Council. A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward the Future. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001.Google Scholar
- 33.M. Rabin. Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36:11–46, 1998.Google Scholar
- 34.J. Ritchie, V. Singh, D. Godwin, and W. Bowen. Cereal growth, development and yield. In G. Tsuji, G. Hoogenboom, and P. Thornton, editors, Understanding Options for Agricultural Production, pages 79–98. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998.Google Scholar
- 35.E. H. Satorre. Cambios tecnológicos en la agricultura actual. Ciencia Hoy, 15:24–31, 2005.Google Scholar
- 37.P. J. H. Schoemaker. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20:529–563, 1982.Google Scholar
- 40.J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1944/1947.Google Scholar
- 41.R. T. Woodward. Should agricultural and resource economists care that the subjective expected utility hypothesis is false? In Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Salt Lake City, UT, August 1998. http://agecon2.tamu.edu/people/faculty/woodward-richard/paps/AAEA98-Uncertainty.pdf.