模型与混沌:评“用正数学规划校正农业风险规划模型”

IF 2.6 3区经济学 Q2 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Pub Date : 2022-04-26 DOI:10.1111/1467-8489.12407

Athanasios Petsakos, Stelios Rozakis

{"title":"模型与混沌:评“用正数学规划校正农业风险规划模型”","authors":"Athanasios Petsakos, Stelios Rozakis","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.12407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is an emerging strand in the agricultural economics literature which examines the calibration of risk programming models using the principles of Positive Mathematical Programming (PMP). In a recent contribution to this journal, Liu et al. (2020) compare three different PMP approaches and attempt to find the ‘most practical’ method for calibrating risk programming models to be used in policy analysis. In this article, we argue that the comparison design by Liu et al. (2020) is problematic, as it is based on inappropriate metrics and it ignores recent advancements in PMP. This word of caution intends to provide constructive criticism and aims at contributing to the use of risk programming models in policy analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"66 3","pages":"713-728"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.12407","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Models and muddles: comment on ‘Calibration of agricultural risk programming models using positive mathematical programming’\",\"authors\":\"Athanasios Petsakos, Stelios Rozakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-8489.12407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There is an emerging strand in the agricultural economics literature which examines the calibration of risk programming models using the principles of Positive Mathematical Programming (PMP). In a recent contribution to this journal, Liu et al. (2020) compare three different PMP approaches and attempt to find the ‘most practical’ method for calibrating risk programming models to be used in policy analysis. In this article, we argue that the comparison design by Liu et al. (2020) is problematic, as it is based on inappropriate metrics and it ignores recent advancements in PMP. This word of caution intends to provide constructive criticism and aims at contributing to the use of risk programming models in policy analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics\",\"volume\":\"66 3\",\"pages\":\"713-728\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.12407\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8489.12407\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8489.12407","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在农业经济学文献中有一个新兴的分支，它使用正数学规划(PMP)的原理来检验风险规划模型的校准。Liu等人(2020)在本期刊最近的一篇文章中比较了三种不同的PMP方法，并试图找到“最实用”的方法来校准用于政策分析的风险规划模型。在本文中，我们认为Liu等人(2020)的比较设计是有问题的，因为它基于不适当的指标，并且忽略了PMP的最新进展。这句谨慎的话意在提出建设性的批评，目的是促进在政策分析中使用风险规划模型。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Models and muddles: comment on ‘Calibration of agricultural risk programming models using positive mathematical programming’

There is an emerging strand in the agricultural economics literature which examines the calibration of risk programming models using the principles of Positive Mathematical Programming (PMP). In a recent contribution to this journal, Liu et al. (2020) compare three different PMP approaches and attempt to find the ‘most practical’ method for calibrating risk programming models to be used in policy analysis. In this article, we argue that the comparison design by Liu et al. (2020) is problematic, as it is based on inappropriate metrics and it ignores recent advancements in PMP. This word of caution intends to provide constructive criticism and aims at contributing to the use of risk programming models in policy analysis.

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

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 管理科学-农业经济与政策

CiteScore

6.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>24 weeks

期刊介绍： The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (AJARE) provides a forum for innovative and scholarly work in agricultural and resource economics. First published in 1997, the Journal succeeds the Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics and the Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, upholding the tradition of these long-established journals. Accordingly, the editors are guided by the following objectives: -To maintain a high standard of analytical rigour offering sufficient variety of content so as to appeal to a broad spectrum of both academic and professional economists and policymakers. -In maintaining the tradition of its predecessor journals, to combine articles with policy reviews and surveys of key analytical issues in agricultural and resource economics.