Pesticide Productivity: Of Bugs and Biases

By Norwood, F. Bailey; Marra, Michele C. | Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, December 2003 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Pesticide Productivity: Of Bugs and Biases

Norwood, F. Bailey, Marra, Michele C., Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Pesticide productivity is both important and difficult to measure. Typically, pesticide marginal products are estimated without information on the pest pressure. Three theoretical models are developed which suggest absence of such information may cause an underestimation of pesticide productivity. Using application frequency variables as a proxy for pest populations, we show that pesticide marginal products are higher when pest pressure is accounted for.

Key words: damage abatement, marginal product, pesticide economics, productivity, unobserved variables


To protect public health, the government has aggressively pursued pesticide regulation through a series of laws beginning with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act in 1947. Pesticide regulations have evolved such that today the only pesticides permitted are those which ensure "reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues." This criterion makes the development and approval of new pesticides expensive, and has led to a 7% to 9% decrease in pesticide registration (Fernandez-Cornejo, Jones, and Smith).

A total ban on pesticide use in the United States has been estimated to cost $41 billion per year in higher food costs and lower quality crops and livestock (Knutson et al.). Thus, good pesticide policy clearly must consider the costs as well as the benefits of pesticide regulation. Economists often assess pesticide benefits by measuring pesticide marginal products. The higher the value of the pesticide marginal product relative to marginal cost, the greater the additional benefit from increasing pesticide use, and thus the greater the cost from more stringent regulation. If the value of the pesticide marginal product is low relative to marginal cost, it is more likely that farmers can profitably decrease pesticide use while simultaneously reducing environmental and health risks. It is clear, then, that regulatory mistakes can be made if pesticide marginal products are mis-measured. One source, among several, of mis-measurement is an inherent bias in the estimation of the marginal product due to choice of measurement procedure or data. This study examines analytically and empirically the bias due to omission of pest pressure in the estimation of pesticide marginal products.

Early attempts to measure the value of pesticide productivity found it to be quite high relative to pesticide marginal costs. Of the estimates conducted prior to 1986, 18 out of 20 suggest an extra dollar spent on pesticides generates more than a dollar in return (Headley; Campbell; Fischer; Carlson), implying pesticides are systematically underused from a profit maximization point of view. In response, two possible sources of an upward bias in estimated marginal products have been put forth in the literature. First, almost all studies to date use cross-sectional data from private farms where data reflecting differences in land quality, managerial ability, and other fixed effects are not available (Campbell). If any of these fixed effects are correlated with pesticide use, then the corresponding marginal products may be biased. Carpentier and Weaver found, when fixed-firm effects are accounted for, marginal products are indeed lower.1

Second, all marginal product estimates before 1986 use the Cobb-Douglas production function. In a 1986 analysis, Lichtenberg and Zilbennan argued that the single-equation, Cobb-Douglas model may be inappropriate, and offered a different model of the pesticide-yield relationship which might result in lower marginal products. This approach proposes a damage abatement model. Essentially, the approach considers the effect of pests on yield separately from the effect of pesticides on pests.

While some subsequent studies have found, under some circumstances, damage abatement models yield lower marginal products (e.g., Babcock, Lichtenberg, and Zilberman), others have reported higher estimates (e.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Pesticide Productivity: Of Bugs and Biases


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?