农业生产者的联邦风险管理工具:综述

Mesbah J. Motamed, Ashley Hungerford, Stephanie D. Rosch, Erik J. O'Donoghue, Matthew J MacLachlan, G. Astill, J. Cessna, J. Cooper
{"title":"农业生产者的联邦风险管理工具:综述","authors":"Mesbah J. Motamed, Ashley Hungerford, Stephanie D. Rosch, Erik J. O'Donoghue, Matthew J MacLachlan, G. Astill, J. Cessna, J. Cooper","doi":"10.22004/ag.econ.276229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This report describes the current landscape of Federal risk management policies, including the Agricultural Act of 2014, and analyzes the outcomes and interactions of these programs. Despite their common objective of risk reduction, Federal programs differ in their payment mechanisms and their impacts on producer revenue, and uptake has varied significantly across programs and crops. Area-loss insurance programs, such as the Stacked Income Protection Plan and Supplemental Coverage Option, received low enrollments, while applications to the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program witnessed sizable growth. Differences in program enrollment and program provisions across crops led the bulk of Agriculture Risk Coverage payments to go to producers with corn and soybean base acres, while most Price Loss Coverage payments went to rice, peanuts, and wheat base acres. Half of dairy producers enrolled in the Margin Protection Program for Dairy, but large national margins led to few payments in 2015 and 2016. In contrast, changes in program design led the Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy program to make significantly more indemnity payments per policy. Outside of dairy, the Livestock Forage Program remains the largest livestock support program, though outlays have fallen in recent years.","PeriodicalId":348588,"journal":{"name":"Economic Research Report","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Federal Risk Management Tools for Agricultural Producers: An Overview\",\"authors\":\"Mesbah J. Motamed, Ashley Hungerford, Stephanie D. Rosch, Erik J. O'Donoghue, Matthew J MacLachlan, G. Astill, J. Cessna, J. Cooper\",\"doi\":\"10.22004/ag.econ.276229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This report describes the current landscape of Federal risk management policies, including the Agricultural Act of 2014, and analyzes the outcomes and interactions of these programs. Despite their common objective of risk reduction, Federal programs differ in their payment mechanisms and their impacts on producer revenue, and uptake has varied significantly across programs and crops. Area-loss insurance programs, such as the Stacked Income Protection Plan and Supplemental Coverage Option, received low enrollments, while applications to the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program witnessed sizable growth. Differences in program enrollment and program provisions across crops led the bulk of Agriculture Risk Coverage payments to go to producers with corn and soybean base acres, while most Price Loss Coverage payments went to rice, peanuts, and wheat base acres. Half of dairy producers enrolled in the Margin Protection Program for Dairy, but large national margins led to few payments in 2015 and 2016. In contrast, changes in program design led the Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy program to make significantly more indemnity payments per policy. Outside of dairy, the Livestock Forage Program remains the largest livestock support program, though outlays have fallen in recent years.\",\"PeriodicalId\":348588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economic Research Report\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economic Research Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.276229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic Research Report","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.276229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本报告描述了联邦风险管理政策的现状,包括2014年农业法案,并分析了这些项目的结果和相互作用。尽管联邦项目的共同目标是降低风险,但它们在支付机制和对生产者收入的影响方面存在差异,不同项目和作物的吸收情况也存在显著差异。区域损失保险项目,如“综合收入保护计划”和“补充保险选择”的申请人数较少,而“无保险作物灾害援助计划”的申请人数则出现了大幅增长。不同作物的项目登记和项目规定的差异导致大部分农业风险保险支付给了玉米和大豆基地的生产者,而大部分价格损失保险支付给了水稻、花生和小麦基地。一半的乳制品生产商参加了乳制品保证金保护计划,但由于全国利润率较高,导致2015年和2016年的支付很少。相比之下,项目设计的变化导致“奶牛的牲畜毛利率”项目每份保单的赔偿额明显增加。除乳制品外,牲畜饲料计划仍然是最大的牲畜支持计划,尽管近年来支出有所下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Federal Risk Management Tools for Agricultural Producers: An Overview
This report describes the current landscape of Federal risk management policies, including the Agricultural Act of 2014, and analyzes the outcomes and interactions of these programs. Despite their common objective of risk reduction, Federal programs differ in their payment mechanisms and their impacts on producer revenue, and uptake has varied significantly across programs and crops. Area-loss insurance programs, such as the Stacked Income Protection Plan and Supplemental Coverage Option, received low enrollments, while applications to the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program witnessed sizable growth. Differences in program enrollment and program provisions across crops led the bulk of Agriculture Risk Coverage payments to go to producers with corn and soybean base acres, while most Price Loss Coverage payments went to rice, peanuts, and wheat base acres. Half of dairy producers enrolled in the Margin Protection Program for Dairy, but large national margins led to few payments in 2015 and 2016. In contrast, changes in program design led the Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy program to make significantly more indemnity payments per policy. Outside of dairy, the Livestock Forage Program remains the largest livestock support program, though outlays have fallen in recent years.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信