Improving the cost-effectiveness of the Conservation Reserve Program: A laboratory study*

被引:0
|
作者
Cramton, Peter [1 ,2 ]
Hellerstein, Daniel [3 ]
Higgins, Nathaniel [4 ]
Iovanna, Richard [5 ]
Lopez-Vargas, Kristian [6 ]
Wallander, Steven [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cologne, Cologne, Germany
[2] Univ Maryland, College Pk, MD 20742 USA
[3] ERS, USDA, Washington, DC USA
[4] Google Inc, Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
[5] USDA, Washington, DC 20250 USA
[6] Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA
关键词
Auctions; Market design; Conservation; Conservation reserve program; Price cap; Bid cap; Reference price; Procurement auction; AUCTIONS; PERFORMANCE; EXPERIENCE; PRICES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102439
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is arguably the world's largest payments-for ecosystem services program, with $1.8 billion paid to farmers in 2017 for practices on 23.4 million acres. The CRP uses a pay-as-bid, reverse auction with field-specific price caps to enroll most of the land in the program. Economic theory and empirical studies from other domains suggest that the restrictive price-cap auction format used in the current design of the CRP exhibits issues in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Using a laboratory experiment, we study the impact of varying the tightness of the price-cap auctions. We also examine two alternative auction formats based on reference prices. We find that excessively tight bid caps reduce efficiency and cost effectiveness by discouraging participation. Conversely, bid caps set too high also reduce cost-effectiveness by allowing higher rents. An exogenous reference price ranking format, which makes medium-cost sellers more competitive against low-cost sellers, reduces both efficiency and cost-effectiveness. An endogenous reference price format increases cost-effectiveness by increasing participation and reducing rents. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cost-effectiveness of the Conservation Reserve Program: Discussion
    Baerenklau, Kenneth A.
    [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 87, No 5, Proceedings, 2005, : 1256 - 1257
  • [2] Cost-effectiveness of the conservation reserve program: Discussion
    Baerenklau, Kenneth A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2005, 87 (05) : 1256 - 1257
  • [3] IMPROVING THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF LABORATORY TEACHING
    ELTON, L
    [J]. STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 1983, 8 (01) : 79 - 85
  • [4] Cost-effectiveness of ovarian reserve testing in an IVF program; the OPTIMIST study
    Torrance, H.
    van Tilborg, T. C.
    Oudshoorn, S. C.
    Eijkemans, M. J. C.
    de Koning, C. H.
    van Santbrink, E. J. P.
    Schoot, B. C.
    Sluijmer, A. V.
    Verhoeff, A.
    Friederich, J.
    Lambalk, C. B.
    van der Veen, F.
    Broekmans, F. J. M.
    Mol, B. W. J.
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2016, 31 : 18 - 18
  • [5] Assessing Cost-effectiveness of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Interactions between the CRP and Crop Insurance
    Miao, Ruiqing
    Feng, Hongli
    Hennessy, David A.
    Du, Xiaodong
    [J]. LAND ECONOMICS, 2016, 92 (04) : 593 - 617
  • [6] Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Military Hearing Conservation Program
    Garcia, Seth L.
    Smith, Kenneth J.
    Palmer, Catherine
    [J]. MILITARY MEDICINE, 2018, 183 (9-10) : E547 - E553
  • [7] Improving cost-effectiveness in a substance abuse treatment program
    Francis, E
    Hughes, P
    Schinka, J
    [J]. PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, 1999, 50 (05) : 633 - 635
  • [8] COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VARIABLE COST-SHARE OPTION IN THE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM
    PARK, WM
    MONTEITH, SE
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION, 1989, 44 (02) : 173 - 176
  • [9] The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments
    Ferraro, PJ
    Simpson, RD
    [J]. LAND ECONOMICS, 2002, 78 (03) : 339 - 353
  • [10] The cost-effectiveness of water conservation
    Platt, JL
    Delforge, MC
    [J]. JOURNAL AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION, 2001, 93 (03): : 73 - +