Free Essay

Hotel Marketing Strategy

In: Business and Management

Submitted By mummyp
Words 7677
Pages 31
Shadow vs. Market Prices in Explaining Land Allocation: Subsistence Maize Cultivation in Rural Mexico
Aslıhan Arslan
No. 1469 | December 2008

Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Düsternbrooker Weg 120, 24105 Kiel, Germany

Kiel Working Paper No. 1469 | December 2008

Title*
Author Aslihan Arslan

Abstract: Economic models of land allocation may lead to expectations for farmer response that “surprisingly" do not materialize, if market prices fail to reflect the value of farmers' product. “Shadow prices" rather than market prices explain resource allocation better for farmers who attach significant non-market values to their own crops. I extend the theoretical model in Arslan and Taylor (2008) to explain why the land allocation of such farmers may not respond to market signals even if transaction costs are not binding. I estimate the proportion of land subsistence maize farmers allocate to traditional versus modern maize varieties using nationally representative rural household data from Mexico – the center of diversity of maize. I conclude that shadow prices explain land allocation better than market prices and discuss the importance of non-market values in understanding both farmers' supply response and on-farm conservation of traditional crops with non-market values. Keywords: Land allocation, shadow prices, non-market values, traditional crops, on-farm conservation, Mexico JEL classification: O12, O13, Q12, Q39

Aslıhan Arslan
Kiel Institute for the World Economy 24100 Kiel, Germany Telephone: (431) 881 4499 E-mail: aslihan.arslan@ifw-kiel.de

* I thank to the Center on Rural Economies of the Americas and Pacific Rim (REAP) and Program for the Study of Economic Change and Sustainability in Rural Mexico (PRECESAM) for letting me use this unique data set. I also thank to J. Edward Taylor, Steve Boucher and Lovell S. Jarvis at the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California - Davis, and Jann Lay at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy for valuable comments. All mistakes are mine.
____________________________________ The responsibility for the contents of the working papers rests with the author, not the Institute. Since working papers are of a preliminary nature, it may be useful to contact the author of a particular working paper about results or caveats before referring to, or quoting, a paper. Any comments on working papers should be sent directly to the author. Coverphoto: uni_com on photocase.com

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN EXPLAINING LAND ALLOCATION: SUBSISTENCE MAIZE CULTIVATION IN RURAL MEXICO
ASLIHAN ARSLAN† Abstract. Economic models of land allocation may lead to expectations for farmer response that “surprisingly” do not materialize, if market prices fail to reflect the value of farmers’ product. “Shadow prices” rather than market prices explain resource allocation better for farmers who attach significant non-market values to their own crops. I extend the theoretical model in Arslan and Taylor (2008) to explain why the land allocation of such farmers may not respond to market signals even if transaction costs are not binding. I estimate the proportion of land subsistence maize farmers allocate to traditional versus modern maize varieties using nationally representative rural household data from Mexico – the center of diversity of maize. I conclude that shadow prices explain land allocation better than market prices and discuss the importance of non-market values in understanding both farmers’ supply response and on-farm conservation of traditional crops with non-market values.

“The central place that maize occupies in the culture of Mexico makes it less likely that traditional production methods will be drastically altered by new market forces.” — CEC (1999) The question of how farmers respond to price signals is central for understanding the effects of changing economic conditions on food supply and farmer welfare. The answer to this question becomes more important if farmers’ land allocation decisions have implications for the on-farm conservation of crop genetic resources. Most research in economic literature on farmers’ land
Key words and phrases. Land allocation, shadow prices, non-market values, traditional crops, on-farm conservation, Mexico. JEL codes: O12, O13, Q12, Q39. Updated Draft: December 2, 2008. † Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Germany. I thank to the Center on Rural Economies of the Americas and Pacific Rim (REAP) and Program for the Study of Economic Change and Sustainability in Rural Mexico (PRECESAM) for letting me use this unique data set. I also thank to J. Edward Taylor, Steve Boucher and Lovell S. Jarvis at the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California - Davis, and Jann Lay at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy for valuable comments. All mistakes are mine.
1

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

2

allocation decisions focuses on determinants such as portfolio selection, safety-first behaviour or learning and uses market prices to value production (Feder, 1980; Just and Zilberman, 1983; Bellon and Taylor, 1993; Brush et al., 1992; Smale et al., 1994). If, however, market prices fail to reflect the value of farmers’ product, economic models may lead to wrong expectations and “surprising” farmer response to price signals. The inelastic supply response of maize farmers in rural Mexico in spite of decreasing maize prices after NAFTA is an example (Nadal, 2000). “Shadow prices” rather than market prices explain farmers’ resource allocation better if farmers attach significant non-market values to their own crops (Smale et al., 2001; Dyer Leal and Yunez Naude, 2003). This was suggested (though not explicitly accounted for) by many researchers as one of the underlying reasons for the inelastic supply response of subsistence farmers in Mexico (de Janvry et al., 1995; Dyer Leal and Yunez Naude, 2003; Berthaud and Gepts, 2004). Mexico is the center of maize domestication and diversity with 59 different races (Dowswell et al., 1996; Turrent and Serratos-Hernandez, 2004). These races represent the largest genetic diversity of maize in the world and are valuable inputs to crop breeding research for maize – the worlds’ most widely used food grain (Yunez Naude and Taylor, 2006; Berthaud and Gepts, 2004). Therefore, understanding maize farmers’ supply response has implications for the on-farm conservation of this diversity. I explain why some farmers’ land allocation decisions may not respond to market signals even if transaction costs (TCs) are not binding by extending the theoretical agricultural household model in Arslan and Taylor (2008). I estimate land allocation decisions between different maize types (traditional and modern) and compare the performance of market prices and shadow prices in explaining this decision using nationally representative household data from rural Mexico. I conclude that shadow prices explain the land allocation decisions of subsistence maize farmers better and discuss the importance of non-market values in understanding both supply response and on-farm conservation. The methods and the policy implications of this paper are applicable to other settings where farmers attach significant non-market values to their crops.

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

3

I provide some background on the non-market values modeled in Arslan and Taylor (2008) in the next section. I extend their theoretical model to emphasize the tradeoff between allocating land to the subsistence or the cash crop in section 2. In section 3, I estimate the proportion of maize area allocated to traditional maize varieties using different prices (shadow vs. market) and compare their performance in explaining this allocation. I conclude in section 4 and provide policy implications. 1. Non-market values and land allocation Farmers’ land allocation decisions have long been a subject of economics. Especially those related to high yielding crop varieties have been studied in detail by the technology adoption literature following the Green Revolution (Feder, 1980; Just and Zilberman, 1983; Bellon and Taylor, 1993; Brush et al., 1992; Smale et al., 1994). These studies use market prices to value farmers’ output as a determinant of land allocation decision, along with socio-economic and agroecological variables. Smale et al. (1994) show that farmers’ land allocation to high yielding and traditional crop varieties have multiple explanations such as input fixity, safety first behaviour, learning and portfolio selection. They also value farmers’ maize output at market prices in their empirical analysis of maize cultivation in Malawi. While using market prices may not be problematic for some cases, more attention should be paid to shadow prices where farmers attach non-market values to their crops. If some farmers make land allocation decisions based on shadow prices that are different from market prices, we may underestimate (overestimate) the land such farmers will allocate to the crop with high shadow prices (modern crops). While most research in the agricultural household literature uses market prices to value agricultural output, both de Janvry et al. (1991) and Taylor and Adelman (2003) analyze farmer decisions under missing product markets and represent the value of the “constrained” food crop with a shadow price. The constraint in their context is a transaction cost (TC) band that prevents farmers from participating in markets both as a buyer and a seller. One shortcoming of TC based

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

4

household models is that they cannot account for non-market benefits farmers may derive from producing their own crops, because they assume that market crops are perfect substitutes for the domestic crop in consumption.1 If the market crop and the domestic crop are perfect substitutes, farmers would not produce a crop at a higher opportunity cost than the market price (controlling for risk and transaction costs). However, if the domestic crop has non-market values that make the “same” crop purchased in the market an imperfect substitute, then some farmers will produce it at high cost even if there is a local market with small or no TCs.2 The non-market values of producing and consuming one’s own crop may be significant if the crop has cultural or religious connotations (Altieri, 2004). Traditional crops in their centers of domestication (such as maize in Mexico, potatoes in Peruvian highlands, rice in Philippines or wheat in Turkey) have long histories of evolution that are intertwined with the culture of the peoples who grow them.3 In some cases these crops are used in weddings, funerals and rituals in which purchased crop simply will not do, and are important in determining the farmer’s place in the community as a good farmer (Fussell, 1992). Akerlof and Kranton (2000) model “identity” (or the sense of self) as a way to incorporate non-pecuniary motivations into economic behaviour. If a farmer’s “identity” depends on the cultivation of such a crop, the market purchased crop cannot provide the same utility as the domestic crop. In this case, the market crop lacks the non-market values and is a poor substitute for the domestic crop in consumption. Consequently, market prices may not reflect the full value of these crops for the farmer. Although I do not model “identity” explicitly as do Akerlof and Kranton (2000), their study provides an intuitive way of thinking about

1 2

Throughout this paper I use “domestic crop” to refer to the crop produced by the household. Besides the prevalence of subsistence farming in spite of lively local markets in developing countries, the imperfect substitutability in consumption can also explain the rationale behind backyard gardening in developed countries. If the non-market value of growing and consuming one’s own crop was not important, we would not expect a rational person to grow tomatoes in her backyard for multiple times the cost of buying them in the market. 3 The term “traditional crop” refers to a landrace, which is a crop cultivar that evolved with and has been genetically improved by traditional agriculturalists, but not by modern breeding practices. All components of landraces are adopted to local climate conditions, cultural practices, diseases and pests (Hoisington et al., 1999; Jarvis et al., 2000).

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

5

why some subsistence farmers may produce crops at cash losses when they can buy them in the market. It is not rare to find that small-scale maize farmers in Mexico incur cash losses when their maize production is valued at the price of maize commercially available in local markets (and not necessarily the same variety) (Smale et al., 2001; Dyer Leal and Yunez Naude, 2003; Brush and Chauvet, 2004). This finding does not reflect the “irrationality” of farmers. On the contrary, it likely reflects the existence of non-market benefits that farmers get from cultivating and consuming their own maize (Dyer Leal et al., 2002). When one takes these non-market values into account, the cash losses may lose significance. It has been argued in the literature that farming in general is a way of life with non-pecuniary benefits (Vincent, 1976; Botterill, 2001). Even in developed countries farmers do not just switch in and out of farming based on monetary incentives because of the “psychic income” they get from farming. Moreover, when the cultural values mentioned above are attached to farming, we can expect that monetary incentives will not be enough to fully explain farmer behaviour. Dyer Leal (2006) emphasizes the importance of “shadow values” (rather than market prices) in understanding the responses of subsistence maize producers to economic changes in Mexico. Arslan and Taylor (2008) are the first ones to explicitly model and estimate shadow prices by conceptualizing the non-market values with an asymmetric market constraint for the subsistence crop. This constraint is such that the farmer can sell this crop but cannot buy an identical crop in the market. The resulting market is similar in spirit to the “partly absent market” in Strauss (1986), where the separability of the agricultural household model breaks down due commodity heterogeneity. Arslan and Taylor (2008) theoretically analyze how non-market values may lead to shadow prices that are higher than market prices and empirically show that estimated shadow prices of traditional maize are significantly higher than market prices for subsistence farmers. Their empirical analysis also shows that the same is not true for modern maize and the sellers of traditional

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

6

maize, supporting the non-market values as an underlying determinant of subsistence farmers’ decisions. The theoretical model in Arslan and Taylor (2008) models farmer’s resource allocation to the subsistence crop holding the land area constant. I extend their model in the next section by including the decision to allocate the land between a subsistence and a cash crop to discuss the effects of shadow prices on this decision.

2. Theoretical Model Suppose that a farmer produces a cash crop in addition to a subsistence crop using labor and a fixed amount of land (A). The markets for the cash crop and labor are perfect, hence the farmer can buy and sell these at market prices. The farmer divides his land between the subsistence crop and the cash crop. He also decides how to allocate labor across different crops and activities to maximize his utility. Let Qi denote the quantity produced of crop i, where i = s, c identifying the subsistence and the cash crop, respectively. Xm and Xl are, respectively, the amount of market goods and leisure h consumed. He also consumes part or all of his subsistence crop denoted by Xs , where the superscript

h indicates that the only source of consumption of Xs is home production. Under the assumption of a perfect labor market, the farmer can hire out his own labor and hire in as much labor as he likes at the market wage, w. Output is certain and the farmer’s decisions are: what proportion of land to cultivate with the subsistence crop (θ); how much labor to allocate to the production of s each crop and to off-farm work; how much of his subsistence crop to sell (Xs ); and how much to

consume of all goods. The farmer’s problem is given by:

h max U (Xs , Xm , Xl ; Z)

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

7

subject to full income, production, and nonnegativity constraints;

s pm Xm + wXl ≤ ps Xs + pc Qc − w(Ls + Lc ) + W

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Qs = g(Ls , Aθ) Qc = h(Lc , A(1 − θ)) h s Xs + Xs ≤ Qs s h Xs , Xs , Xm , Ls , Lc ≥ 0.

Where θ satisfies 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1; pj denotes the market prices of consumption goods and the cash crop identified with subscripts j = s, m, c; Li denotes the amount of labor used to produce the crop i, and W denotes exogenous transfers. U(.) is a continuously differentiable and strictly quasiconcave utility function and g(.) and h(.) are, respectively, quasi-convex production functions for the subsistence and cash crops. The Lagrangean of this problem is:

h s Xl ,Xm ,Xs ,Xs ,θ,Li ,λ,µn

max

h L = U (Xs , Xm , Xl ; Z)

s ¯ +λ[ps Xs + pc h(Lc , A(1 − θ)) + W + w(T − Ls − Lc − Xl ) − pm Xm ] s h s h +µ1 [g(Ls , Aθ) − Xs − Xs ] + µ2 Xs + µ3 Xs + µ4 Xm + µ5 θ + µ6 (1 − θ) + µ7 Ls + µ8 Lc

i = s, c n = 1, ..., 8 As shown in Arslan and Taylor (2008), the shadow price of the subsistence crop can be expressed as: ρ≡ µ1 w = , λ M P Ls (6)

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

8

and estimated using the marginal product of labor in subsistence crop production. The shadow price is higher than the market price for farmers constrained by the asymmetric market constraint (i.e., do not sell any subsistence crop) (Arslan and Taylor, 2008). The optimality condition for land allocation is different from the standard optimality conditions for these farmers. The first order condition for θ is: µ1 M P As , when θ > 0. λ

pc M P Ac =

(7)

The farmer sets the value of marginal product of land (VMPA) cultivated with the cash crop equal to the “shadow value of marginal product” of land cultivated with the subsistence crop. Figure 1 shows the land allocation conditions between the cash crop and the subsistence crop.4 Under perfect markets – in which the market prices reflect the true value of crops to farmers – the farmer sets the value of marginal product of land equal to each other for all crops, which corresponds to the point θ∗ in Figure 1. However, if the farmer’s decision price, i.e. shadow price (ρ), is different from the market price, the observed land allocation will be different from what would be observed under the perfect markets scenario. He will allocate more land to the subsistence crop (point θ0 in Figure 1), which satisfies the equation 7. These farmers will not respond to changes in the market price of subsistence crop as expected, unless the price change is big enough to offset the difference between the two value measures. Farmers who are trapped in a TC band as defined in de Janvry et al. (1991) will exhibit a similar sluggish response to price signals. However, in their model, farmers would be indifferent between producing the cash crop and the subsistence crop as long as the TC are not binding. The current model and the empirical application in the next section provide an explanation for why land allocation may not respond to price signals even in the absence of TCs by accounting for non-market values. In the next section, I econometrically analyze subsistence maize farmers’
4Total land cultivated is set to unity for simplification.

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

9

VMPA s VMPA s = *MPA s

VMPA c

VMPA s = p s *MPA s

0

*

Figure 1. Optimal land allocation using market prices vs. shadow prices. θ∗ is the proportion of land that would be allocated to the subsistence crop using the market prices (ps and pc ) and θ0 is the proportion of land that is allocated to the subsistence crop using the shadow price (ρ) of the subsistence crop. The distance between the value of marginal product line and the shadow value of marginal product line is decreasing with θ to reflect the decreasing marginal utility from the consumption of subsistence crop valued at ρ.

land allocation decisions using both market and shadow prices to test the empirical validity of the hypothesis that shadow prices explain these decisions better than market prices.

3. Do shadow prices explain land allocation better? I use agricultural household data from the Mexican National Rural Household Survey (ENHRUM) that was collected in January-February 2003. The sample covers 1782 households in 16 villages of each of the 5 geographic regions in Mexico and was designed by the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI) to be nationally representative of rural Mexico. The survey data include household demographics; plot level information on inputs and output of all crops; marketing and consumption of agricultural and livestock products; and maize seed varieties and their origins. They also include information about migration and work histories, off-farm income sources, credit market participation and household assets.5
See http://precesam.colmex.mx for detailed information about the ENHRUM data, and Arslan (2007) for more descriptive statistics.
5

¡

¡

VMPA c = p c *MPA c

0

A=1

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

10

Arslan and Taylor (2008) show that the shadow prices of traditional maize varieties (TVs) are significantly higher than market prices for subsistence maize farmers in the ENHRUM data. The same is not true for modern maize varieties (MV) and the sellers of traditional maize, therefore market prices can be used to reflect the value of maize for these farmers. Understanding the land allocation decisions of subsistence farmers of TVs, however, calls for an understanding of farmers’ shadow prices as well as other variables that affect land allocation. Based on these results the TVs and MVs correspond, respectively, to the subsistence and the cash crop modeled in the theoretical model above. The classification of maize into different groups is based on farmers’ response to the question of whether the seed they used was “criollo” (TV) or “h´ ıbrido” (MV) as in Arslan and Taylor (2008). Given their conclusion that shadow prices are significantly different from market prices only for subsistence farmers of TVs, I use the subsample of ENHRUM data that only includes these farmers. Out of 280 farmers in this subsample around 75% are in the South-Southeast and Central Regions. Table 1 shows the proportion of land allocated to TVs, the shadow prices estimated by Arslan and Taylor (2008) and market prices. The proportion of land farmers allocate to TVs is largest in the South-Southeast and the Central regions. These two regions and the Western Central Region are also the ones where the estimated shadow prices are the highest. Given these shadow prices, market prices can not explain subsistence farmers’ land allocation to TVs, because they underestimate the subjective value of TVs for these farmers. I test this hypothesis by econometrically estimating the proportion of land subsistence farmers allocate to TVs using both market prices and shadow prices.6 Two econometric issues arise when doing this analysis: First, shadow prices are not observed, but estimated with error. This introduces an additional source of variance to the standard errors of the area share regressions, which will bias the results if not taken into account (Dumont et al.,
6

The analysis of area share is done at the household level. Given the plot-level data, I use the area weighted averages for shadow prices, soil quality and slope variables for this analysis.

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

11

Table 1. Regional averages for area share of TVs, shadow prices and market prices Regions South-Southeast Central Western Cent. Northwest Northeast TVshare Shadow p. Market p. 0.70 87.75 2.34 0.76 31.60 1.72 0.61 57.35 1.51 0.29 0.18 2.28 0.73 24.69 1.30

2005). I use bootstrapping to address this issue following Cameron and Trivedi (2005). Second, the dependent variable is bounded from below and above (i.e., between 0-100%), which makes it likely that an OLS specification will result in predicted values that lie outside of this interval. I use tobit and fractional logit specifications to address the problems caused by the bounded(fractional) nature of the dependent variable in the area share regressions (Tobin, 1958; Papke and Wooldridge, 1996). The theoretical model discussed here does not include risk. Technology adoption literature shows that risk is an important determinant of farmers’ crop choices (Feder, 1980; Feder et al., 1985; Just and Zilberman, 1983). The ENHRUM data do not include a variable that represents the production or price risks farmers may face, however, they include detailed migration histories for all household members for each year since 1980. Munshi (2003) uses rainfall as an instrument for the size of the migrant networks in the destination cities. He shows that there is a strong correlation between the past rainfall in the community and migration. The intuition is that communities where most farmers rely on rain-fed agriculture will have more migrants as the variation in rainfall increases. Big variations in rainfall translate into variations in income, and migrant remittances can provide a steady source of income and hedge against risk. I use the standard error of the migration prevalence in each community over the period of 1980-2002 as a proxy for risk reversing the argument in Munshi (2003).7 As in Munshi’s sample, rain-fed agriculture is dominant in the ENHRUM sample to support the use of the variation in historical migration prevalence as a proxy
7When analyzed at the community level, this variable (along with the availability of irrigation) is significantly

correlated with the percentage of plots cultivated with TVs.

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

12

for risk.8 To control for risk attitudes, I use a wealth index that captures risk attitudes to the extent that farmers’ risk aversion decreases with wealth.9 Farmers’ yield expectations also play a role in land allocation (Smale et al., 1994). The ENHRUM questionnaire asked farmers the average yield they would expect to get from maize production on each plot in a normal year. I use the ratio of the village level average expected yield for TVs and MVs to control for the effect of yield expectations on land allocation. In addition to these variables, I use the following explanatory variables in the econometric analysis: the market price of maize in the village, household size to account for consumption requirements, total number of adults (ages 15-60) in the household representing household labor availability, age, education, a dummy variable indicating farmers that use saved seed, area weighted soil quality and slope, a dummy variable indicating farmers with access to irrigation, proportion of farmers that have off-farm income and credit in the same village (both excluding the farmer himself), total area owned by the farmer, and regional dummy variables.10 Table 2 demonstrates the sample means and standard deviations of these variables. Subsistence farmers, on average, allocate 71% of their maize area to TVs and belong to households with 5.11 members with 2.6 working age adults. Forty-six percent of subsistence farmers use their own seed saved from previous harvests and only 13% have access to irrigation. The average expected yield of TVs is 84% of that of MVs, and farmers own 7 hectares of land on average. The average farmer lives in a community where around 40% of households have off-farm income and some kind of credit. I use three different specifications to estimate the area share of TVs using tobit and fractional logit models (Table 3). The first specification (Columns 1 and 4) uses only market prices to test
8Rain-fed plots account for around 85% of the plots both in the whole sample and the subsample used here. 9The wealth index is created using Principal Components Analysis based on the characteristics of households’ primary

residence, access to utilities, and ownership of a television and refrigerator. 10I do not include indigenous identity as an explanatory variable. The effect of this variable is captured by the shadow prices given that indigenous identity is one of the most important determinants of shadow prices (Arslan and Taylor, 2008). Inclusion of this variable does not change the results presented here.

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

13

Table 2. Summary of variables used in econometric analysis Variable TVshare mktprice rho hhsize adults age educ oldseedD wtsoilq Definition Mean Std. Dev. Proportion of land in TVs 0.71 0.37 Market price of maize 1.90 0.75 Shadow price of TVs 46.94 43.07 Household size 5.11 2.47 Number of adults (ages 15-60) 2.64 1.55 Farmer’s age 50.26 14.65 Farmer’s education (yrs.) 3.69 3.12 Dummy variable (=1 if farmer uses own seed) 0.46 0.50 Weighted soil quality (1: Bad, 2: Regular, 3: 2.29 0.58 Good) wtslope Weighted slope (1: Plain, 2: Sloped, 3: Very 1.59 0.60 steep) irrigD Irrigation dummy 0.13 0.33 Standard deviation of community migration 3.82 2.58 sdmig prevalence between 1980-2002 expyield Ratio of expected yields (TV/MV) 0.84 1.14 totown Total area owned (ha.) 7.04 30.75 wealth Wealth index 1.62 0.65 othersoffD Proportion of farmers with off-farm income in 0.45 0.23 the village otherscredit Proportion of farmers with credit in the vil- 0.39 0.31 lage N Number of observations 280

how well we can explain land allocation for subsistence farmers if we ignore shadow prices. The second specification (Columns 2 and 5) uses only shadow prices, and the third (Columns 3 and 6) uses both. The regression standard errors are clustered at the Rural Development District (DDR) level to correct for potential error correlation due to unobserved agro-ecological conditions that are common to all households within a DDR.11 The Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria (AIC and BIC) are also reported to compare the fit of different specifications.All regressions with shadow prices as an explanatory variable are bootstrapped to account for the fact that this variable is estimated with error. A Box-Cox regression shows that a logarithmic transformation for the shadow prices improves the fit of the model. Market prices, on the other hand, provide better fit without any transformation.
11Rural Development Districts are districts defined by SAGARPA (Secretary of Agriculture, Ranching, Rural Devel-

opment, Fisheries, and Food Supply) as having similar agro-ecological conditions and production potential.

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

14

Table 3. Tobit and GLM (Fractional Logit) models for area share of TVs for subsistence farmers (marginal effects reported)
Tobit mkt.pr. ln(rho) TVshare (1) (2) sellprice 0.16 ln(rho) 0.24∗∗∗ ∗ hhsize -0.04 -0.03 adults 0.00 -0.01 age -0.01∗ -0.01∗∗ ∗∗ educ -0.04 -0.03∗ ∗ oldseedD 0.13 0.15 wtsoilq 0.02 0.00 wtslope -0.13 -0.17∗∗ irrigD 0.11 0.31 sdmig -0.02 -0.01 expyield -0.06 -0.02 totown -0.00 -0.00 wealth -0.30∗∗∗ -0.23∗∗ othersoffD 0.27 0.42∗ otherscredit -0.42 -0.21 R1 -0.35 -0.60∗∗ R2 -0.07 -0.29 R3 -0.12 -0.51∗∗ R4 -0.76∗∗∗ -0.63 Intercept 2.57∗∗∗ 1.96∗∗∗ AIC 533.59 497.99 BIC 609.92 574.32
Significance levels : ∗ : 10%

both (3) 0.17∗ 0.25∗∗∗ -0.04 -0.00 -0.01∗∗∗ -0.04∗∗ 0.13 0.02 -0.20∗∗ 0.36 -0.00 -0.03 -0.00 -0.20∗ 0.35 -0.27 -0.73∗∗∗ -0.33 -0.53∗∗ -0.78 1.81∗∗∗ 495.56 575.52

GLM (Frac. Logit) mkt.pr. ln(rho) both (4) (5) (6) 0.06 0.08 0.11∗∗∗ 0.11∗∗∗ ∗ -0.02 -0.01 -0.02 -0.00 -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00∗ -0.00∗ -0.01∗∗ -0.01 -0.01∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 0.07 0.08 0.07∗ -0.00 -0.02 -0.01 -0.05 -0.07∗ -0.09 0.05 0.12 0.14 -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.13∗∗ -0.10∗ -0.09∗ 0.12 0.20 0.15 -0.16 -0.08 -0.11 -0.14 -0.27∗ -0.34∗∗ -0.03 -0.12 -0.15 -0.06 -0.28 -0.30∗∗ -0.39∗∗ -0.34 -0.48 3.80∗∗∗ 3.05∗∗∗ 2.78∗∗ 320.61 298.91 298.24 393.30 371.61 374.57

∗∗ : 5%

∗ ∗ ∗ : 1%

Therefore, I use the log of the shadow prices and non-transformed market prices in the regressions reported in Table 3. The coefficients reported in Table 3 are marginal effects for all models. Columns 1-3 in Table 3 show the results of area share regressions using a tobit model, and columns 4-6 show the results using the fractional logit model. When used alone, market prices are not significant in explaining the area share of TVs (columns 1 and 4). Shadow prices are highly significant in predicting the land area allocated to TVs (columns 2 and 5), even after controlling for market prices (columns 3 and 6). The specifications only with shadow prices provide the best fit according to the Information Criteria. The area allocated to TVs is found to be positively correlated with the availability of family labor and negatively correlated with family consumption requirements in other settings (Bellon and Taylor, 1993; Smale et al., 1994). I find that both the household size and the number of

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

15

adults have negative coefficients, though these are not significant. Older farmers allocate smaller proportions of their maize land to TVs contradicting the finding in Bellon and Taylor (1993), however this coefficient is very small. Farmers with more education allocate smaller shares of land to TVs as found by Bellon and Taylor (1993). Farmers who save their own seed are more likely to allocate larger shares of their maize area to TVs, reflecting the fact that they carefully manage their seed stocks to ensure the availability of preferred traits embedded in TVs. Farmers in rural Mexico are found to cultivate TVs on poorer soils and shift to MVs as soil quality improves (Bellon and Taylor, 1993). Controlling for other variables, I do not find a significant effect of soil quality in the ENHRUM sample. Surprisingly, slope has a significant and negative coefficient. The steeper the slope of farmers’ plots, the smaller the area share of the TVs. Larger-scale farmers tend to allocate bigger shares of their land to cash crops in general (Fafchamps, 1992). Controlling for farmers’ wealth, total area owned by the farmer does not have a significant effect in this sample. I find that more wealthy farmers cultivate a larger share of their maize land with TVs, confirming previous findings (Bellon and Taylor, 1993; Bellon et al., 2006). Variables that control for farmers’ yield expectations and risk exposure are not significantly correlated with land allocation. This is surprising because risk usually affects land allocation in the absence of perfect credit and insurance markets (Fafchamps, 1992; Smale et al., 1994). Traditional crop varieties are perceived to be less vulnerable to risk in many different settings (Smale et al., 2001; Edmeades et al., 2006; Bellon et al., 2006). To the extent that shadow prices reflect the value of the risk reducing characteristics of TVs, my findings may capture the effect of risk on land allocation indirectly through shadow prices. Two variables represent market access: the percentage of other farmers in the village that have off-farm income and the percentage of other farmers in the village that have some kind of credit. Neither of these variables is significantly correlated with area share of TVs. This is similar to the

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

16

result in Bellon and Taylor (1993) and indicates that there is not necessarily a tradeoff between market access and cultivation of TVs. If the TVs have significant non-market values, farmers allocate higher proportions of their land to these varieties regardless of the off-farm income and credit market activities in their villages. Perales et al. (2003) has a similar conclusion after observing that farmers in villages that are closer to Mexico city and have better market access did not produce less TVs. On the contrary, TV cultivation was higher in these villages, leading to the conclusion that farmers’ variety selection depends on multiple criteria and minor varieties are cultivated for traits other than expected income or yield. This finding is also confirmed by Bellon et al. (2006) in Southeastern Mexico. The traits that affect the cultivation of TVs – mainly non-market values – are captured by shadow prices in the current analysis and help explain resource allocation decisions of subsistence farmers in the national sample. 4. Conclusions This paper shows that by using shadow prices rather than market prices, we can better understand land allocation decisions of subsistence farmers. In the case of maize in Mexico, shadow prices capture various non-market values subsistence farmers attach to traditional maize varieties, hence farmers’ real incentives to cultivate them (Arslan and Taylor, 2008). Accounting for these incentives takes part of the “surprise” out of farmers’ non-response to decreasing market prices following NAFTA. The non-market values of maize are one of the oft-mentioned underlying reasons for why farmers did not respond to price signals as expected (de Janvry et al., 1995; Dyer Leal and Yunez Naude, 2003; Berthaud and Gepts, 2004). This paper tests the role of non-market values in explaining land allocation by explicitly using shadow prices and comparing their performance to market prices. Research results suggest that market prices fail to explain land allocation decisions for farmers who attach significant non-market values to their crops. In addition to providing an insight into sluggish supply response of subsistence farmers, these results also have implications for the on-farm conservation of traditional crops. Shadow prices of

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

17

traditional crops give farmers de facto incentives for conservation. Although preferences may change over time, shadow prices create a buffer for sudden losses of genetic diversity on farmers’ fields. The regions where subsistence farmers exhibit sluggish supply response can contribute to on-farm conservation of TVs and should be prioritized in targeting of such programs. These results can be applied to other regions and crops where non-market benefits of subsistence crops are significant. An interesting extension to this paper would be to analyze the effects of the current food price crisis on resource allocation and poverty in rural Mexico. The international prices of basic food commodities have increased significantly in the last couple of years. Dyer Leal (2006) finds that land allocation decisions of maize farmers in rural Mexico are more responsive to price increases than price decreases. Whether the current price increases will be high enough to offset the difference between shadow and market prices and how this will translate into supply response with implications for on-farm conservation is a question left for future research. References Akerlof, G. A. and Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and Identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3):715–753. Altieri, Miguel, A. (2004). Socio-Cultural Aspects of Native Maize Diversity. In Maize and Biodiversity: The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America. Arslan, A. (2007). Farmers’ Subjective Valuation of Subsistence Crops: The Case of Traditional Maize in Mexico. PhD thesis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis. Available at http://ssrn.com/author=354360. Arslan, A. and Taylor, J. E. (2008). Farmer’s Subjective Valuation of Subsistence Crops: The Case of Traditional Maize in Mexico. Kiel Working Papers 1457, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Bellon, M. R., Adato, M., Becerril, J., and Mindek, D. (2006). Poor farmers’ perceived benefits from different types of maize germplasm: The case of creolization in lowland tropical Mexico. World Development, 34(1):113–129. Bellon, M. R. and Taylor, J. E. (1993). Folk Soil Taxonomy and the Partial Adoption of New Seed Varieties. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 41(4):763–786.

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

18

Berthaud, J. and Gepts, P. (2004). Assessment of Effects on Genetic Diversity. In Maize and Biodiversity: The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America. Botterill, L. C. (2001). Rural Policy Assumptions and Policy Failure: The Case of the Re-

establishment Grant. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60(4):9–16. Brush, Stephen, B. and Chauvet, M. (2004). Assessment of Social and Cultural Effects Associated with Transgenic Maize Poduction. In Maize and Biodiversity: The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America. Brush, Stephen, B., Taylor, J. E., and Bellon, Mauricio, R. (1992). Technology Adoption and Biological Diversity in Andean Potato Agriculture. Journal of Development Economics, 39:365– 387. Cameron, A., C. and Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications, pages 357–382. Cambridge University Press, New York. CEC (1999). Assessing environmental effects of the north american free trade agreement (nafta): An analytic framework (phase ii). Technical report, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal: Communications Commission for Economic Cooperation Secretariat. de Janvry, A., Fafchamps, M., and Sadoulet, E. (1991). Peasant Household Behaviour with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explained. The Economic Journal, 101:1400–1417. de Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E., and Gordillo de Anda, G. (1995). NAFTA and Mexico’s Maize Producers. World Development, 23:1349–1362. Dowswell, Christopher, R., Paliwall, R., L., and Cantrell, Ronald, P. (1996). Maize in the Third World. Westview Press. Dumont, M., Rayp, G., Thass, O., and Willeme, P. (2005). Correcting Standard Errors in Twostage Estimation Procedures with Generated Regressands. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(3):421–433. Dyer Leal, G. (2006). Crop Valuation and Farmer Response to Change: Implications for In-situ Conservation of Maize in Mexico. In Smale, M., editor, Valuing Crop Biodiversity: On-Farm Genetic Resources and Economic Change, pages 17–32. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA. Dyer Leal, G., Taylor, J. E., and Boucher, S. (2002). Rethinking the Supply Response to Market Reforms in Agriculture: Household Heterogeneity in Village General Equilibrium Analysis from Mexico. UCD ARE Working Paper. Dyer Leal, G. and Yunez Naude, A. (2003). NAFTA and Conservation of Maize Diversity in Mexico. Paper for the Program for Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

19

Edmeades, S., Smale, M., and Karamura, D. (2006). Demand for Cultivar Attributes and the Biodiversity of Bananas on Farms in Uganda. In Smale, M., editor, Valuing Crop Biodiversity: On-Farm Genetic Resources and Economic Change, pages 1–16. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA. Fafchamps, M. (1992). Cash Crop Production, Food Price Volatility, and Rural Market Integration in the Third World. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(1):90–99. Feder, G. (1980). Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology Under Uncertainty. Oxford Economic Papers, 32(2):263–283. Feder, G., Just, R., and Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2):255–298. Fussell, B. (1992). The language of ceremony. In The Story of Corn, pages 281–300. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Hoisington, D., Khairallah, M., Reeves, T., Ribaut, J., Skovmand, B., Taba, S., and Warburton, M. (1999). Plant Genetic Resources: What can they contribute toward increased crop productivity? Proceedings of National Academy of Science, 96:5937–5943. U.S.A., Colloquium Paper. Jarvis, D., Meyer, L., Klemick, H., Guarino, L., Smale, M., Brown, A., Sadiki, M., B., S., and Hodgkin, T. (2000). A Training Guide for In Situ Conservation On-farm. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Just, R. and Zilberman, D. (1983). Stochastic Structure, Farm Size and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture. Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 35(2):307–328. Munshi, K. (2003). Labor Market. Networks in the Modern Economy: Mexican Migrants in the U.S. available at

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(2):549–599.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/v118y2003i2p549-599.html. Nadal, A. (2000). The Environmental and Social Impacts of Economic Liberalization on Corn Production in Mexico. Report to Oxfam and World Wildlife Fund International. Papke, L. E. and Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6):619 – 632. Perales, Hugo, R., Brush, S. B., and Qualset, C. (2003). Landraces of Maize in Central Mexico: An Altitudinal Transect. Economic Botany, 51(1):7–20. Smale, M., Bellon, M. R., and Aguirre Gomez, J. A. (2001). Maize Diversity, Variety Attributes, and Farmers’ Choices in Southeastern Guanajuato, Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 50:201–225.

SHADOW VS. MARKET PRICES IN LAND ALLOCATION

20

Smale, M., Just, R., and Leathers, H. (1994). Land Allocation in HYV Adoption Models: An Investigation of Alternative Explanations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76:535– 546. Strauss, J. (1986). The Theory and Comparative Statics of Agricultural Household Models: A General Approach (Appendix to Part 1). In Singh, I. J., Squire, L., and Strauss, J., editors, Agricultural Household Models: Extensions, Applications, and Policy, pages 71–91. The Johns Hopkins University Press, World Bank Research Publication, Baltimore. Taylor, J. E. and Adelman, I. (2003). Agricultural Household Models: Genesis, Evolution and Extensions. Review of Economics of the Household, 1(1):33–58. Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26(1):24–36. Turrent, A. I. and Serratos-Hernandez, J. A. (2004). Context and Background on Wild and Cultivated Maize in Mexico. In Maize and Biodiversity: The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America. Vincent, D. (1976). Economic Aspects of Farm Poverty. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 20:103–118. Yunez Naude, A. and Taylor, Edward, J. (2006). La biodiversidad genetica del maiz en Mexico. Programa de Estudios del Cambio Economico y la Sustentabilidad del Agro Mexicano, Folletin Informativo No. 3.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Startup Hotel Marketing Strategy

...Marketing strategy PPPP 1) Bit of space explaining scenario, trends, etc 2) Target Market 3) Small paragraph about mainstream vs niche 4) Hotel Marketing mix 5) Recommendations 6) Contingency plan Put X instead of info you don’t have, make situation clear for Rach to edit. Target atleast 3 pages and max 5, although getting info in crucial (excl. references) Page1: Scenario, Trends, customer profile, mainstream vs niche Page 2+3: Marketing Mix Page 4: Estimated Budgetary recommendations and Contingency Plan Marketing Plan Introduction For a startup company, an effective marketing plan is essential in order to ensure that it stands out from other, larger and more established brands. Established brands not only have tremendous brand recognition and a developed customer base but also the financial wherewithal to influence or manipulate the market conditions to make them more favorable to them. Nowhere is this more evident than in the hotel industy where large family firms have dominated the industry for decades. in addition the large initial investments, large overheads and fierce competiton often deter new entrants. However, the advent of the internet and consequently E-busness and IT business solutions has significantly leveled said playing field. With tourism increasing rapidly, especially from inxcreasingly affluent middle classes from the Newly Industrialized Economies (NICs), the hotel industry faces new challenges and opportunities, somthing...

Words: 840 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

W Hotel Marketing Strategy

...------------------------------------------------- 中国大陆首家W酒店入驻广州 W 酒店是喜达屋酒店与度假村国际集团旗下的全球现代奢华时尚生活品牌,它有着独立酒店的个性化时尚风格,也具备了主流商务酒店值得信赖、始终如一的卓越品质和体贴周到的服务。W酒店的官方定位是“Lifestyle”品牌,业内普遍将其归类为大型的Boutique hotel路线。激发灵感、创造潮流、大胆创新的W酒店在业界影响深远,为宾客重新诠释了以当代设计为主导,打造奢华现代生活方式的住宿体验。 喜达屋集团是世界酒店与休闲服务业中的领袖企业之一,在全球100个国家和地区拥有1,134家酒店,其自有与管理的酒店雇佣员工超过171,000名。作为世界知名的品牌,喜达屋是一个集酒店业主、经营与销售等功能于一身的综合集团,旗下拥有瑞吉、豪华精选、W酒店、威斯汀、艾美、喜来登、福朋酒店以及近期登场的雅乐轩,还有源宿。喜达屋拥有一项行业领先且备受赞誉的忠诚计划——SPG俱乐部,会员可获得积分并将其兑换成客房住宿、客房升级和航班,且无日期限制。喜达屋还拥有喜达屋度假住房所有权股份有限公司,旗下的别墅式度假酒店和喜达屋旗下品牌的贵宾特权缔造出世界级的度假体验。 ------------------------------------------------- 广州旅游业与接待服务业 广州地处广东中南部,是国家的经济、金融、贸易、航运和会展中心。自1975年以来,每年春秋两季都会在广州举办中国进出口商品交易会,即广交会,迄今已有五十余年历史,是中国目前历史最长、层次最高、规模最大、商品种类最全、到会客商最多、成交效果最好的综合性国际贸易盛会。日益成熟和发展的广交会给广州酒店业带来了无限商机,酒店在每年两届广交会期间的收入就占到了全年总营业额的近30%,例如花园酒店在广交会期间的营业额约占全年1/3,而海珠区一家四星级酒店约占1/4。除了广交会外,大大小小的各种展览多达800多个。游客抽样调查显示,在非会展高峰期,广州会展游客占所有游客的8%。 2010年后,随着亚运会、亚残运会在广州的成功举办,广州城市形象和城市地位得到了极大的提升,同时也带动了广州旅游业的快速发展,城市接待游客数量持续增长。2010年我市接待游客总人数1.27亿人次,比09年增长7.13%。据不完全统计,2010年广州亚运会期间,预计需安排运动员、随行官员、媒体人员等饭店住宿宾客约2万人, 2万名宾客,按照每人5000元的消费标准,就是1亿元的商机。 ------------------------------------------------- 广州W酒店 2013年03月,广州W酒店作为中国内地首家W酒店在繁华的珠江新城炫丽亮相。酒店拥有前卫的建筑外观配以充满时尚活力的室内设计,进门处19米高的LED水幕瀑布,让客人从走进酒店开始便可感受到W酒店的时尚无处不在。在此,不难找到适合每位客人尽情享受的地方,充满设计元素的酒吧与餐厅呈献各国料理,美酒佳肴,充分演绎了广州多元化的城市魅力,体验中国内地首家AWAY水疗中心,在城市中心享受舒适静谧,设计新颖的客房,全城首个客房内运动传感器与各种高科技配套设备为客人带来的全新入住感受。逾2000平方米的会议空间包括一个拥有户外场地的开放式会议室,配备先进高科技设施的宴会厅,设有便携式会议系统及同声传译系统,让客户的会议与活动打破传统,充满创意。无论什么时候,无论客人需要什么,广州W酒店的24小时随时/随需服务都尽可能让客人如愿以偿。  ...

Words: 471 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Marketing In The Hospitality Industry Essay

...concepts of marketing for a relevant services industry This research is about the concepts of marketing. I will therefore start by introducing the key terms marketing and marketing management. (Allen, 2007) stated that "Marketing pertains to the interactive process that requires developing, pricing, placing and promoting goods, ideas or services in order to facilitate exchanges between customers and sellers to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers". (Kotler et al, 1996) suggested that "Marketing is the process used to determine what products or services may be of interest to customers and the strategy to use in sales, communications and business development'. The American Association of marketing (Gronroos, 1989) define marketing management...

Words: 826 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Pop Culture

...“Pop” Culture “If there are 12 million people with our stuff, let’s have them be 12 million 18 year olds.” Says Dave Burwick vice president of marketing for Pepsi-Cola(Hey Kids Buy This pg. 98), and why not, child spending has risen from $122 billion to $172 billion in the past 5 years(familyed.org). In a time when advertising agencies are trying to get the most for their buck, and who isn’t, the smartest thing to do is target the ever growing population of children. In today’s society children’s average weekly allowance is just $5(Children and Money pg. 1), amounting over $260 a year, if you multiply this number by the number of children in the US today, it is outrageous, close to $5 billion. Seeing as children only save about half a billion dollars a year(Children and Money pg. 1), that’s a lot of money being spent on clothes, video games, toys, soda and candy. The funny thing is, marketers that had long ignored children, now systematically pursue them. Today, as well as clothing and toys, it’s also computers, airlines, hotels and banks(Hey Kids Buy This pg. 97). Pepsi, being one of the major soft drink companies in the United States today, has the right idea. By using a different pop icon, such as Brittany Spears, Christina Agulara Johansson 2 and Beyonce Knowles in each new advertisement, they are guaranteed to have the attention of the younger...

Words: 739 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Sample Resume

...Anderson 1234, West 67 Street, Carlisle, MA 01741, (123)-456 7890. OBJECTIVE Give more than 9 years of experience in Training, Marketing, and Consultancy as well as MBA degree and extra highly applicable experience to your business in a managerial ability. TECHNICAL SKILLS In Software Java, Visual Basic, MS Office, Oracle Other Skills Team Management, Channel Sales Management, Franchisee Training, Sales and Customer Care Training, Business Development, Sales and Product Development. EXPERIENCE Consultant (1998 - Present) Aptech Inst., New Delhi, India Responsibilities includes: * Training employees, franchisees, distributors & conducting training requirement analysis. Senior Manager - Marketing & Sales (1996 - 1998) Adobe, Noida, India Responsibilities includes: * Directing the sales team, business development and identification of latest business channels. Asst. Manager Sales (1995 - 1996) Hotel Le Meridien, New Delhi Responsibilities includes: * Examined market competition & its costs to stay ahead of the main players in the market place. * Supervised staff of 5 members who given support to sales as well as marketing. * Assisted in establishing baseline process and report formats to be used in subsequent years. EDUCATION B.A (Eco) from Aligarh University, 1991 MBA/PGDM (Marketing) from Aligarh University, 1995 Other Certification(s) Attended * PENTASOFT * ------------------------------------------------- ...

Words: 434 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Best Idea Ever

...Partyline.com (Marketing plan) Today I would like to introduce a new service to you called “Partyline.com”. Partyline.com will be website available to all that register a valid email and are 21 and older. What will be offered on this website is a new technology and idea I came up with. The main offering on this website will be a live feed of bar’s and the bar’s line to get in. In addition, you will be able to create your own group chats, and instant message other users. Other services provided will be bar specials, bar themes, local taxi number, late night food, and live updates by promoters. The overall marketing plan place, promotion, price, and product will make or break this service especially place. I would like to set this website up in three different area’s consisting of West Virginia, Morgan Town, George Town, and New Haven, Connecticut. Promotion will be another key factor, and I am hoping to sell Facebook or YouTube that this next big idea so they will help with advertising. Otherwise, it will be up to me and the investors I obtain. Price to use the website will be free and Product is the service were providing. The industry size and target market are two key components to making this business succeed. The reason I picked those three areas is because they are highly populated and they are highly populated with bars and college students. College students will be the primary target of this company. The more people this website can engage, the more...

Words: 1401 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Ford Case Study Analysis

...Assignment 2.1 Ford Analysis PSPR 6208 Strategic Marketing and Communications Fall 1 2013 1. Where would you put Ford in terms of competitive position? Why? By shifting their focus, developing a new marketing strategy and focusing on the Ford brand, Ford has dramatically enhanced their competitive position and turned things around for the company. In doing so, they strategically placed themselves back at the top in terms of competitive position. This was no small feat, especially considering the fact that they were in far worse shape than most car companies as recent as 2008 (Kotler & Armstrong pg 547). Ford with the assistance of new CEO Alan Mulally fought hard against bankruptcy and even harder to gain consumer trust in the company and the brand. This strategy has helped Ford to gain a competitive advantage, especially in terms of customer satisfaction. 2. Is Ford a market-centered company? How can it improve in this area? Considering the fact that Ford currently pays attention to both customers and competitors in designing the company’s marketing strategies, I would say they are definitely a market-centered company. This may not have always been the case, as is evident from reading the case study. At some point, Ford took its eye off the market, loosing focus, especially in regards to customer needs. I think that they were driven to shift their focus by several factors, top of mind being the dire economy. Moving forward, they will need to play...

Words: 534 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Social Media Marketing

...Social Media Marketing BUS508: Contemporary Business November 30, 2013 What is Social Media Marketing? Why has Social Media Marketing become so popular? Is it now the most effective way to advertise and market? I have chosen to first define both marketing and social media. In my analysis it will allow you to fully grasp the importance and meaning of marketing and social media. My analysis will also allow you to easily determine why Social Media Marketing has become so popular among businesses. I’m a big believer in social media so I will display that throughout my paper. With technology in this day and age people always have the Internet in the palms of their hand and social media is always a button away. What is marketing? Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large (Boone & Kurtz, 2012). Without proper marketing strategies businesses would not be able to sell their goods and services. The most effective rule to consumers is to ensure that they always get what they want and always meet their needs before they ever surface. Marketing has always been part of business, from the earliest village traders to large 21st-century organizations producing and selling complex goods and services (Boone & Kurtz, 2012). How people market has now evolved and is now more on social media than ever. Social media is one of the...

Words: 2574 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

Mc Donals

...CASE STUDY: MCDONALD’S Executive summary This case study looks to evaluate marketing within McDonald’s and will look into how it has affected McDonald’s in terms of its position within the market. Through research, a positive correlation has been revealed between how successful a company operates and how committed they are in terms of customer focus and its marketing strategy (Kloter and Armstrong, 2010). This study will demonstrate how McDonald’s marketing strategy has helped render the company a global success. This is shown through the SWOT analysis. This study has found that the pivotal ingredient in this company is the unique and effective marketing strategy. Also to be credited was that the strategy showed that there were areas which could potentially disrupt the current rate of success (in terms of monetary results) If they are not rectified. A recommendation could be to increase the amount of ‘Healthy foods’ McDonald’s currently offer, to do so McDonalds would need to invest more in their product segment of the marketing mix. Introduction In many cases a company does not become successful overnight. There are a number of key ingredients which need to be focused on, in order to achieve its potential. An important part of this is the ‘marketing strategy’. The majority of successful firms invest large sums of capital and time into tailoring their strategy focusing on the potential changes in customer levels, rivals and the environment (Bradley, 2005). McDonald’s currently...

Words: 1950 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

What Was Howard Schultz’s Original Strategic Vision for Starbucks? Is His 2010 Strategic Vision for Starbucks Different from the One He Had in the 1980s? How Many Times Has His Strategic Vision Changed? Is His Present

...Problem Statement Jeff Johnson, who saw that an informal Pacific style restaurant and bar on the site of a barrier island had potential for development. He then used his savings and some financial assistance from his family to build Jumpin’ Jeff’s Beach Bar on the barrier island. After Jumpin’ Jeff’s opening, Mr. Johnson soon realized that there are lots of challenges waiting for him, such as price setting, menu development, staffing issues, and cultural issues. Situation Analysis Since Jeff Johnson owns the land, Jumpin’ Jeff’s Beach Bar is the only one on this particular island. Mr. Johnson had chosen a good restaurant location, as he has a monopoly of business on the island. He can do whenever businesses he wants on the island. Mr. Johnson spent a lot of money on design elements, as every supplies and equipment is shipped from Florida. The restaurant was designed in a South Seas beach-hut style with shutters, which should be pretty eyes catching. The island itself is a barrier island, open on the eastern side to the Atlantic Ocean and the western side to the Haven. The other side of the Haven is a very small town, Kingsville, with two grocery stores, three churches, two resorts, two gift shops, and a small open-air market open on Tuesday and Saturday mornings. The Haven is popular in winter with cruising small boat sailors looking for a good anchorage in a sheltered harbor, amenities provided by the grocery stores and a place where they could order parts for their boats...

Words: 1055 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Marketing Plan

...the effectiveness of their marketing strategies for TWO elements of the marketing mix. Microsoft Corporation Table of contents Microsoft corporation overview 3 Introduction 3 Marketing strategies and their effectiveness 4 Conclusion 5 Reference list 6 Appendix Financial Statements For Microsoft Corporation: annual data 7 Microsoft corporation overview Microsoft is a public multinational corporation founded in Albuquerque, New Mexico on April 4th, 1975 by Bill Gates and Paul Allen. Where know the head quarters are in Redmond, Washington, USA with Steve Ballmer (CEO), Brian Kevin Turner (COO), Bill Gates (Chairman), Ray Ozzie (CSA), Craig Mundie (CRSO) and approximately 89,000 employees. Introduction Microsoft became one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world. Its founder, Bill Gates, became one of the wealthiest people in the world. Microsoft products enjoy a market share of more than 90 percent of the operating systems business worldwide. Microsoft has continued to expand and to update its product offerings and in doing so, it continues to spur demand among software buyers for Microsoft's newest and best products. The company has successfully navigated through changes in technology, the rise and fall of competitors, the growth of the Internet, and the globalization of business. In order for this success, Microsoft implemented marketing strategies in the marketing mix of product and promotion...

Words: 1847 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Defining Marketing

...Defining Marketing April 7, 2014 University of Phoenix Defining Marketing Marketing, in essence, is a company differentiating itself from its competitors. Organizations use marketing strategies to promote their product. Perreault, Cannon, and McCarthy define marketing as “the performance of activities that seek to accomplish an organization’s objectives by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a flow of need satisfying goods and services from producer to customer or client” (2011, p. 6). Companies must focus their resources on these products to increase sales and competitive advantage. According to Kotler and Keller, “Marketing is about identifying and meeting human and social needs” (2012, p. 5). Companies use marketing strategies to spark interest, promote, and educate the consumer. A dental company must continuously reinvent itself from a marketing standpoint. In a town with a population of over 117,000 people and over 40 dentists the demand for dentistry is always present, but so is the competition. It is important for a dental office to keep their name at the forefront of dentistry. It is vital that an organization not only creates an exceptional product or service, but also delivers what they promised. An organization is only as good as their consumers perceive them to be, so it is greatly important that their marketing begins in-house with their current patients. There is no more cost-effective way to market than word-of-mouth...

Words: 859 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

A Critical Perspective on Strategic Csr as a Tool for Marketing and Brand Differentiation

...| A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE ON STRATEGIC CSR AS A TOOL FOR MARKETING AND BRAND DIFFERENTIATION | | | Mattias Norén, Niklas Nygård | 2014-01-16 | | “What are the underlying reasons for abusive Strategic CSR in marketing and brand differentiation, what are the consequences and are there any solutions?” Introduction to CSR For Corporate social responsibility(CSR) a lot of different definitions exists but the one we chose to use in this report was defined by (McWilliams, Siegel och Wright)) as “actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law”. This definition defines a wide concept that contains everything from corporate environmental strategies, employee empowerment, health and benefit plans for employees and corporate philanthropy. The linking factor between these different implementations is that corporations and businesses should expand their responsibility beyond absolute necessity and their core stakeholders group. While CSR is very modern as a defined concept it is still based on a lot of old ideas. For example many companies in the late 1800s based its business on scientific betterment which often meant that employee benefits was taken a lot further than the requirements of the law (Barley och Kunda). Today CSR has evolved to something more than the initial idea of expanded responsibility and it’s used as a tool for companies to reach goals outside of areas normally connected to CSR...

Words: 3204 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

Marketing in Law

...The importance of marketing in Law Firms Introduction The importance of good and accurate marketing in the legal industry is growing as a response to the high competition among the industry and because of the innovations in technology. In the past, the common marketing practice among law firms to publicize their business and services depended exclusively on word of mouth. Over the years and due to the wide offering and competition among law firms, the above has radically changed and lawyers and law firms are now taking a more aggressive and proactive approach to market their firms and shopping their services within the market. Why should a law firm focus on efficient marketing strategies? Due to the fact that today lawyers live in a very competitive market place and clients are sophisticated, demanding and price sensitive, lawyers and law firms need to spend a great portion of their budget and time to think and determine the best way to provide upscale offering and services in order to get a competitive advantage and a wider market share. Creating value and offer a differentiated service and product are key factors for the law firms in order to get hired by clients. Every person that is part of the law firm should strive to offer a premium service sometimes in detriment of quantity. Since clients are price sensitive, having a better product than competitors create value and a competitive advantage for the law firm. Law firms should be selective when choosing work and clients...

Words: 1381 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Strategic Marketing Management

...gary a. sanchez * Blog * How I Can Help * Corporate * Small Business * About Me * subscribe via RSS Understand the Difference Between Strategy and Tactics to Unlock the Power of Your Social Media Marketing by garyasanchez “Strategy is doing the right things. Tactics is doing things right.” ~various attributions, including Peter Drucker and paraphrased from Sun Tzu I recently posted a series of slides from prominent social media thought-leaders as to why social media is not a retail marketing strategy. The point was not to diminish the potential value of social media or inbound marketing, for there are considerable benefits to be realized. Rather, my point was to assert that the use of social media and inbound marketing tactics can benefit tremendously by being used to support general marketing strategies and online content strategies. Starting your marketing efforts with well thought out strategies will help you manage limited resources, help you understand what’s driving success and failure, and accelerate success by unlocking the creativity that exists within your organization. Goals, strategies and tactics Before you can speak intelligently about the differences between strategies and tactics, you first need to start with the purpose of having strategies and tactics.  The biggest reason is to help you achieve a goal. A goal is a specific result that your business needs to achieve in order to sustain itself, usually through revenue growth or expense...

Words: 1521 - Pages: 7