Ag Economists Study How Crop Insurance May Affect Input Decisions

New research by agricultural economists at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln challenges traditional thinking on federal crop insurance.

Since the inception of the federal crop insurance program, researchers have questioned whether the program causes moral hazard in input usage, meaning that if producers are shielded from yield risk via crop insurance, they respond by increasing low-yield risk exposure by applying fewer inputs. Opponents of the federal crop insurance program claim moral hazard leads farmers to use crop insurance to transfer costs from themselves to taxpayers, who help fund the program.

Previous research found evidence of moral hazard in input usage, suggesting crop insurance gives producers an incentive to reduce the economic-maximizing input amount, particularly nitrogen, to reduce yields and receive crop insurance payments.

Unlike previous research, the new project includes Actual Production History when examining producer input use behavior related to crop insurance. The addition of APH is important as it is used to calculate liability when producers file crop insurance claims and directly influences indemnity payments. For example, when APH decreases, the size of indemnity amounts decreases as does the likelihood of a payment.

When the role of APH is considered, the amount of moral hazard declines to miniscule amounts. When producers are thinking ahead to future growing seasons, their current year input use is not heavily influenced by the presence of crop insurance.

“Our research is based on the assumption that farmers want to farm next year with a strong crop insurance policy,” said Cory Walters, assistant professor of agricultural economics and study co-author. “Results from the study indicate that the presence of APH in the liability calculation can do a lot in limiting the amount of moral hazard in input usage in crop insurance.”

Walters is active in his family’s farming operation. His experience with production agriculture inspired the new research.

“It did not make sense to me that crop insurance research would not take into account the role of APH and the fact that farmers are forward-thinking,” he said.

Other study co-authors are Lilyan Fulginiti, professor of agricultural economics, and Taro Mieno, assistant professor of agricultural economics.

The results were recently published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Source: University of Nebraska CropWatch

ProAg Quick Links

Agent Toolbox Grower Toolbox Careers

ProAg News

2018 Farm Bill Strengthens Crop Insurance

As policymakers, commodity leaders, and insurers gathered this week for the crop insurance industry’s annual convention, recent legislative changes to the federal crop insurance program was one of the top discussion topics....

Supplemental Coverage Option Crop Insurance Considerations for 2019

Many corn and soybean producers have an additional crop insurance decision to make by March 15, which is the deadline to purchase federal crop insurance coverage for 2019. The supplemental crop option (SCO) crop insurance alternative was included in the 2014 Farm Bill and will be continued in the new Farm Bill....

When Does It Pay to Use Seed Treatments?

Even if we had more definitive yes-no answers for some seed treatments, we’d still get into deep water fairly fast based on the sheer number of options available for beans these days....
Get ProAg updates via email
Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now