Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

Living Edition
| Editors: David M. Kaplan

Equipment Sharing in Agriculture

  • Georgeanne Artz
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_66-4

Synonyms

Introduction

For many farming operations, shared use of machinery may offer a “trifecta” for improving farm business performance – increased profitability through production efficiency and cost reduction, reduced risk, and a reduction in invested capital. Shared use of machinery, with or with joint ownership, is one strategy growers have explored to gain access to equipment that is used only infrequently and is relatively expensive, making individual ownership impractical or even infeasible. Access to new, technologically advanced farming equipment can directly affect the income statement through improved productivity and quality and replace expensive or hard-to-find labor. Higher capacity equipment than could otherwise be owned alone can reduce time windows needed to complete critical operations (e.g., planting or harvesting before the rains) significantly reducing production risk. In many cases, owning only a share of a...

Keywords

Moral Hazard Problem Enforceable Contract Farm Equipment Joint Ownership Sharing Arrangement 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allen, D. W., & Lueck, D. (1998). The nature of the farm (pp. 343–386). XLI: Journal of Law and Economics.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, H., Larsén, K., Lagerkvist, C. J., Andersson, C., Blad, F., Samuelsson, J., & Skargren, P. (2005). Farm cooperation to improve sustainability. Ambio, 34, 383–387.Google Scholar
  3. Artz, G., Colson, G., & Ginder, R. (2010). A return of the threshing ring? A case study of machinery and labor sharing in Midwestern farms. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 42(4), 805–819.Google Scholar
  4. Cai, H. (2003). A theory of joint asset ownership. Rand Journal of Economics, 34(1), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Toro, A., & Hansson, P. (2004). Machinery co-operatives – a case study in Sweden. Biosystems Engineering, 87, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Toro A (2005). Influences on timeliness costs and their variability on arable farms. Biosystems Engineering, 92, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, W. (2009a). Machinery management: joint machinery ownership. Ames: Iowa State University Extension, Pub. No. A3-34.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, W. (2009b). Machinery management: farm machinery joint ventures. Ames: Iowa State University Extension, Pub. No A3-37.Google Scholar
  9. Gertler, M. E. (1981). A comparison of agricultural resource management on selected group and individual farms in Saskatchewan. M.Sc thesis, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
  10. Gertler, M. E., & Murphy, T. (1987). The social economy of Canadian agriculture: family farming and alternative futures. In B. Galeski & E. Wilkening (Eds.), Family farming in Europe and America. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  11. Groger, L. B. (1981). Of men and machines: co-operation among French family farmers. Ethnology, 20, 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansmann, H. (2000). The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, A., & Fulton, M. (2000a). The CUMA farm machinery co-operatives. Saskatoon: Center for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, A., & Fulton, M. (2000b). Farm machinery co-operative: an idea worth sharing. Saskatoon: Center for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  15. Holderness, C. G. (2003). Joint ownership and alienability. International Review of Law and Economics, 23, 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holmstrom, B. (1982). Moral hazard in teams. Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1994). The firm as an incentive system. American Economic Review, 84(4), 972–991.Google Scholar
  18. Larsén, K. (2007, July 29–31). Participation, incentives and social norms in partnership arrangements among farms in Sweden. Selected paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Portland.Google Scholar
  19. Love, J. (2010). Opportunism, hold-up and the (contractual) theory of the firm. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 166, 479–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Samuelsson, J., Larsen, K., Lagerkvist, C. J., & Andersson, H. (2008). Risk, return and incentive aspects on partnerships in agriculture. Food Economics – Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section C, 5, 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wolfley, J. L., et al. (2011). Machinery – sharing contractual issues and impacts on cash flows of agribusinesses. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36(1), 139–159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsIowa State UniversityAmesUSA