Using Insights from Prospect Theory to Enhance Sustainable Decision Making by Agribusinesses in Argentina
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Argentine Pampas
1.2. Literature Review: Prospect Theory and Role Influences
1.3. Research Hypotheses
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design and Games
2.2. Procedures and Participants
3. Results
3.1. PT vs. EU
3.2. Heterogeneity
3.2.1. Land Tenure
3.2.2. Producers Versus Advisors
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Arora, P.; Peterson, N.; Bert, F.E.; Podestá, G.P. Managing the Triple Bottom Line for Sustainability: A Case Study of Argentine Agribusinesses. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2016, 12, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carril, A.F.; Cavalcanti, I.F.A.; Menéndez, C.G.; Sörensson, A.; López-Franca, N.; Rivera, J.A.; Robledo, F.; Zaninelli, P.G.; Ambrizzi, T.; Penalba, O.C.; et al. Extreme events in the La Plata basin: A retrospective analysis of what we have learned during CLARIS-LPB project. Clim. Res. 2016, 68, 95–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavalcanti, I.F.A.; Carril, A.F.; Penalba, O.C.; Grimm, A.M.; Menéndez, C.G.; Sanchez, E.; Cherchi, A.; Sörensson, A.; Robledo, F.; Rivera, J.; et al. Precipitation extremes over La Plata Basin—Review and new results from observations and climate simulations. J. Hydrol. 2015, 523, 211–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Dahe, Q., Eds.; IPCC: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Veldkamp, T.I.E.; Wada, Y.; de Moel, H.; Kummu, M.; Eisner, S.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Ward, P.J. Changing mechanism of global water scarcity events: Impacts of socioeconomic changes and inter-annual hydro-climatic variability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 32, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peterson, T.C.; Heim, R.R.; Hirsch, R.; Kaiser, D.P.; Brooks, H.; Diffenbaugh, N.S.; Dole, R.M.; Giovannettone, J.P.; Guirguis, K.; Karl, T.R.; et al. Monitoring and Understanding Changes in Heat Waves, Cold Waves, Floods, and Droughts in the United States: State of Knowledge. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2013, 94, 821–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatrchyan, A.M.; Erlebacher, R.C.; Chaopricha, N.T.; Chan, J.; Tobin, D.; Allred, S.B. United States agricultural stakeholder views and decisions on climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2017, 8, e469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, E.M.; Knutti, R. Observed heavy precipitation increase confirms theory and early models. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 986–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I; Wuebbles, D.J., Fahey, D.W., Hibbard, K.A., Dokken, B.C., Stewart, B.C., Maycock, T.K., Eds.; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; p. 470.
- Calvino, P.; Monzon, J. Farming Systems of Argentina: Yield Constraints and Risk Management, Crop Physiology: Applications for Genetic Improvement and Agronomy; Elsevier Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Merlos, F.A.; Monzon, J.P.; Mercau, J.L.; Taboada, M.; Andrade, F.H.; Hall, A.J.; Jobbagy, E.; Cassman, K.G.; Grassini, P. Potential for crop production increase in Argentina through closure of existing yield gaps. Field Crops Res. 2015, 184, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bert, F.E.; Podestá, G.P.; Rovere, S.L.; Menéndez, Á.N.; North, M.; Tatara, E.; Laciana, C.E.; Weber, E.; Toranzo, F.R. An agent based model to simulate structural and land use changes in agricultural systems of the Argentine pampas. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 3486–3499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qaim, M.; Traxler, G. Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm level and aggregate welfare effects. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magrin, G.O.; Travasso, M.I.; Rodríguez, G.R. Changes in Climate and Crop Production during the 20th Century in Argentina. Clim. Chang. 2005, 72, 229–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pengue, W. Transgenic Crops in Argentina: The Ecological and Social Debt. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2005, 25, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delvenne, P.; Vasen, F.; Vara, A.M. The “soy-ization” of Argentina: The dynamics of the “globalized” privatization regime in a peripheral context. Technol. Soc. 2013, 35, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arancibia, F. Challenging the bioeconomy: The dynamics of collective action in Argentina. Technol. Soc. 2013, 35, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salembier, C.; Elverdin, J.H.; Meynard, J.-M. Tracking on-farm innovations to unearth alternatives to the dominant soybean based system in the Argentinean Pampa. In Agronomy Sustainable Development; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 36. [Google Scholar]
- Urcola, H.A.; de Sartre, X.A.; Veiga, I., Jr.; Elverdin, J.; Albaladejo, C. Land tenancy, soybean, actors and transformations in the pampas: A district balance. J. Rural Stud. 2015, 39, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerdeira, A.L.; Gazziero, D.L.P.; Duke, S.O.; Matallo, M.B. Agricultural Impacts of Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivation in South America. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 5799–5807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Filomeno, F.A. State capacity and intellectual property regimes: Lessons from South American soybean agriculture. Technol. Soc. 2013, 35, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leguizamón, A. Modifying Argentina: GM soy and socio-environmental change. Geoforum 2014, 53, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choumert, J.; Phélinas, P. Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable? CERDI Études et Documents; Bonjean, A., Ed.; Centre d’Études et de Recherches sur le Developpement International: Clermont Ferrand, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- García-López, G.A.; Arizpe, N. Participatory processes in the soy conflicts in Paraguay and Argentina. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 70, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bert, F.E.; Podestá, G.P.; Rovere, S.L.; North, M.; Menéndez, A.; Laciana, C.E.; Macal, C.M.; Weber, E.U.; Sydelko, P. Agent-Based Modelling of a Rental Market for Agricultural Land in the Argentine Pampas. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software, “Modelling for Environment’s Sake”, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 5–8 July 2010; Swayne, D.A., Yang, W., Voinov, A.A., Rizzoli, A., Filatova, T., Eds.; International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs): Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gallacher, M. The Changing Structure of Production: Argentine Agriculture 1988–2002; Documento de Trabajo, Universidad del CEMA: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2009; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
- Reboratti, C.E. Un mar de soja: La nueva agricultura en Argentina y sus consecuencias. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande 2010, 45, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, P.; Bert, F.; Podestá, G.; Krantz, D.H. Ownership effect in the wild: Influence of land ownership on agribusiness goals and decisions in the Argentine Pampas. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2015, 58, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caviglia, O.P.; Andrade, F.H. Sustainable intensification of agriculture in the Argentine Pampas: Capture and use efficiency of environmental resources. Am. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2010, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Choumert, J.; Phélinas, P. Determinants of agricultural land values in Argentina. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 110, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choumert, J.; Phélinas, P. Farmland Rental Values in GM Soybean Areas of Argentina: Do Contractual Arrangements Matter? Études et Documents; CERDI—Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur le Developpement International: Clermont-Ferrand, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Senesi, S.I.; Palau, H.; Chaddad, F.R.; Daziano, M. The evolution of farming networks in a fragile institutional environment: The case of Argentina. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 2013, 13, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragón, R.; Jobbágy, E.G.; Viglizzo, E.F. Surface and groundwater dynamics in the sedimentary plains of the Western Pampas (Argentina). Ecohydrology 2010, 4, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, K. The social pillar of sustainable development: A literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2012, 8, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurley, T.M. A Review of Agricultural Production Risk in the Developing World; Harvest Choice: 2010. Available online: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/188476?ln=en (accessed on 26 July 2018).
- Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocquého, G.; Jacquet, F.; Reynaud, A. Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers’ risk behaviour from field-experiment data. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2013, 41, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardenas, J.C.; Carpenter, J. Behavioural Development Economics: Lessons from Field Labs in the Developing World. J. Dev. Stud. 2008, 44, 311–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tanaka, T.C.; Colin, F.; Nguyen, Q. Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 557–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Camerer, C.F. Prospect Theory in the Wild: Evidence from the Field. In Choices, Values and Frames; Kahneman, D.T.A., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 288–300. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, Q.L.; Leung, P. Do Fishermen Have Different Attitudes Toward Risk? An Application of Prospect Theory to the Study of Vietnamese Fishermen. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2009, 34, 518–538. [Google Scholar]
- Wik, M.K.; Tewodros, A.; Bergland, O.; Holden, S.T. On the measurments of risk aversion from experimental data. Appl. Econ. 2004, 36, 2443–2451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenzweig, M.R.B.; Hans, P. Wealth, Weather Risk and the Composition and Profitability of Agricultural Investments. Econ. J. 1993, 103, 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yesuf, M. Risk, Time, and Land Management under Market Imperfections: Applications to Ethiopia; Goteborg University: Goteborg, Sweden, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, E.M. Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2013, 95, 1386–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.L.; Erickson, D.L.; De Young, R. Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a midwestern watershed. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2003, 46, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, E. Land tenure and agricultural management: Soil conservation on rented and owned fields in southwest British Columbia. Agric. Hum. Values 2004, 21, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tosakana, N.S.P.; Van Tassell, L.W.; Wulfhorst, J.D.; Boll, J.; Mahler, R.; Brooks, E.S.; Kane, S. Determinants of the adoption of conservation practices by farmers in the Northwest Wheat and Range Region. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2010, 65, 404–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Varble, S.; Secchi, S.; Druschke, C.G. An Examination of Growing Trends in Land Tenure and Conservation Practice Adoption: Results from a Farmer Survey in Iowa. Environ. Manag. 2016, 57, 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boyles, J.; Hanges, P.; Arora, P. Towards an Understanding of the Impact of Role-Congruence in Advisor Choices in Social Dilemmas. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association for Conflict Management, Clearview, FL, USA, 28 June–1 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Choices, values, and frames. Am. Psychol. 1984, 39, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamagishi, T.; Li, Y.; Takagishi, H.; Matsumoto, Y.; Kiyonari, T. In Search of Homo Economicus. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 25, 1699–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chavas, J.P.; Chambers, R.G.; Pope, R.D. Production economics and farm management: A century of contributions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2010, 92, 356–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakker, P.P. Prospect Theory for Risk and Ambiguity; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Orlove, B.; Taddei, R.; Podestá, G.; Broad, K. Environmental Citizenship in Latin America: Climate, Intermediate Organizations, and Political Subjects. Latin Am. Res. Rev. 2011, 46, 115–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberman, V.; Samuels, S.M.; Ross, L. The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2004, 30, 1175–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arora, P.; Peterson, N.D.; Krantz, D.H.; Hardisty, D.J.; Reddy, K.S. To cooperate or not to cooperate: Using new methodologies and frameworks to understand how affiliation influences cooperation in the present and future. J. Econ. Psychol. 2012, 33, 842–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaye, J.P.; Quemada, M. Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. In Agronomy for Sustainable Development; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 37. [Google Scholar]
- Slovic, P. The construction of preference. Am. Psychol. 1995, 50, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bert, F.E.; Rovere, S.L.; Macal, C.M.; North, M.J.; Podestá, G.P. Lessons from a comprehensive validation of an agent based-model: The experience of the Pampas Model of Argentinean agricultural systems. Ecol. Model. 2014, 273, 284–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter | Min | Median | Mean | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.1 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.3 | |
0.1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.4 | |
0.2 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 7.1 |
Owner Only | Owner + Renter | Renter Only |
---|---|---|
117 | 160 | 40 |
Producers | Advisors |
---|---|
306 | 35 |
Hypothesis | Results |
---|---|
Expected Utility Theory versus Prospect Theory | Prospect theory better captures risk preferences among Argentine agribusiness decision makers, who are found to be loss averse and who overweigh (underweigh) small (large) probabilities. |
Heterogeneity in Risk Preferences based on land tenure and agribusiness role | Owners only and Owners + Renters (Producers) are more loss averse than renters only (advisors). Owners only and Owners + Renters overweigh (underweigh) more small (large) probabilities than renters only. |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gonzalez-Ramirez, J.; Arora, P.; Podesta, G. Using Insights from Prospect Theory to Enhance Sustainable Decision Making by Agribusinesses in Argentina. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082693
Gonzalez-Ramirez J, Arora P, Podesta G. Using Insights from Prospect Theory to Enhance Sustainable Decision Making by Agribusinesses in Argentina. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8):2693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082693
Chicago/Turabian StyleGonzalez-Ramirez, Jimena, Poonam Arora, and Guillermo Podesta. 2018. "Using Insights from Prospect Theory to Enhance Sustainable Decision Making by Agribusinesses in Argentina" Sustainability 10, no. 8: 2693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082693
APA StyleGonzalez-Ramirez, J., Arora, P., & Podesta, G. (2018). Using Insights from Prospect Theory to Enhance Sustainable Decision Making by Agribusinesses in Argentina. Sustainability, 10(8), 2693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082693