MORE ON WELFARE GAINS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FROM LIBERALIZING WORLD FOOD TRADE

The common presumption that food-importing developing countries would be harmed by a liberalization of world food trade is questioned in this paper. Both theory and new empirical modelling evidence suggest the possibility of the opposite conclusion. Even if just advanced industrial countries were to liberalize their food trade, the present empirical analysis (using a model of world food markets) suggests that economic welfare and net foreign exchange earnings from food trade could improve for the vast majority of developing countries. The extent to which that gain would be greater if developing countries also were to liberalize their policies affecting food markets is shown as well. The analysis helps to reconcile differences between previous results using partial-equilibrium models and those derived from computable general equilibrium models.     

A cross-country comparison of corporate governance and firm performance: Do financial structure and the legal system matter?

We blend the corporate governance and the financial structure/legal system literature streams to study whether firm performance is enhanced when its governance structure embodies the demands of the host country’s financial structure and legal system. Using a sample of 1736 unique firms representing 22 countries, we find that the joint effect of a country’s financial structure and legal system does matter when explaining the relationship between performance and the overall level of corporate governance in a given country. The results also suggest that firms operating in the market/common combination countries tend to command higher market valuations than firms with a comparable level of corporate governance that operate in the bank/civil combination countries.     

Policies on Managing Risk in Agricultural Markets

Over the past dozen years, policymakers have largely abandonedlong-standing popular approaches for addressing risk in agriculturewithout fully resolving the question of how best to manage thenegative consequences of volatile agricultural markets. Thearticle reviews the transition from past policies and describescurrent approaches that distinguish between the trade-relatedfiscal consequences of commodity market volatility and the consequencesof price and production risks for vulnerable rural householdsand communities. Current policies rely more heavily on markets,even though markets for risk are incomplete in numerous ways.The benefits and limitations of market-based instruments areexamined in the context of risk management strategies, and innovativeapproaches to extend the reach of risk markets are discussed.      

Cash Marketing Styles and Performance Persistence

Much agricultural economics research has been dedicated to determining the best time for producers to sell their commodities. Unlike this past research, we look at how producers actually sell commodities. The extent to which producers display an active or mechanical marketing style is measured using individual farmer sales. The activeness of a producer's marketing strategy is measured by how much the timing of their strategy varies from year to year. Results show no relationship between activeness and net prices received. Furthermore, the results show no evidence of performance persistence by individual producers.     

The Economics of Director Heterogeneity

We investigate the potential costs and benefits of firms constituting a heterogeneous pool of directors relative to more homogeneous boards. We measure director heterogeneity along six separate dimensions and divide board heterogeneity into occupational and social components. Our empirical analysis indicates that corporate complexity and managerial control exhibit significant influence on board heterogeneity. Using the heterogeneity of the county population of the firm's headquarters as an instrument, we also find that investors place valuation premiums on heterogeneous boards in complex firms but discount heterogeneity in less complex firms. Overall, our analysis indicates greater heterogeneity may not necessarily improve board efficacy.