High-Quality Input Choice under Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Exploratory Study of Costa Rica's Coffee Sector
The purpose of the present study was to analyze the effect of multiple variables on the decision to invest in high versus regular-quality coffee production inputs. Thereby, a laboratory experiment was conducted with one hundred twenty-three undergraduate students, and posterior logistic regressions with random intercept were executed to analyze the collected data. The results showed that when there is a difference in the investment cost between a coffee of higher quality and a coffee of lower quality (regular), there is a slight increase in the odds ratio of investment in quality coffee, when going from an uncertainty condition of income to one with certainty in income of a higher quality coffee. On the other hand, when the cost is equal for both types of coffee, there is a strong increase in the odds ratio when going from an uncertainty condition to one with certainty. In addition, it was found that both the possibility of loss if there is an investment in a higher quality coffee and the ambiguity in the probability of facing a favorable business climate, reduce the odds ratio of investing in higher-quality coffee.
Dimmock, S. G., Kouwenberg, R., Mitchell, O. S. & Peijnenburg, K. (2013). Ambiguity attitudes and economic behavior. National Bureau of Economic Research. Eichberger, J., Oechssler, J. & Schnedler, W. (2015). How do subjects view multiple sources of ambiguity? Theory and Decision, 78(3), 339-356. Eidelman, S. & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Bias in Favor of the Status Quo. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(3), 270-281. Eliaz, K. & Ortoleva, P. (2015). Multidimensional Ellsberg. Management Science, 62(8), 2179-2197. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The quarterly journal of economics, 75(4), 643669. Engle-Warnick, J., Escobal, J. & Laszlo, S. (2007). Ambiguity aversion as a predictor of technology choice: Experimental evidence from Peru. CIRANO - Scientific Publications 2007s-01. Fox, C. R. & Weber, M. (2002). Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision context. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 88(1), 476-498. Fréchette, G. R. (2011). Laboratory Experiments: Professionals Versus Students. In G. R. Fréchette, & A. Schotter, Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (pp. 360-389). Güth, W. & Kirchkamp, O. (2012). Will you accept without knowing what? The Yes-No game in the newspaper and in the lab. Experimental Economics, 15(4), 656-666. Güth, W., Schmidt, C. & Sutter, M. (2007). Bargaining outside the lab–a newspaper experiment of a three‐person ultimatum game. The Economic Journal, 117(518), 449-469. Hayden, B., Heilbronner, S. & Platt, M. (2010). Ambiguity aversion in rhesus macaques. Frontiers in neuroscience, 4, 166. Hueth, B., Ligon, E., Wolf, S. & Wu, S. (1999). Incentive instruments in fruit and vegetable contracts: input control, monitoring, measuring, and price risk. Review of agricultural economics, 21(2), 374-389. Huettel, S., Narayana, R. & Odening, M. (2011). Measuring dynamic efficiency under uncertainty. Sieg-Working paper 10. International Coffee Organization. (2018). Trades Statistics Tables. Retrieved from International Coffee Organization: http://www.ico.org/trade_statistics.asp Jaffee, D. (2014). Brewing Justice: Fair trade coffee, sustainability, and survival. Oakland, California: University of California Press. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status-quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 193-206. Lewin, B., Giovannucci, D. & Varangis, P. (2004). Coffee markets: new paradigms in global supply and demand. World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 3. Mulebeke, R., Kironchi, G. & Tenywa, M. M. (2015). Exploiting Cropping Management to Improve Agricultural Water Use Efficiency in the Drylands of Eastern Uganda. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 4(2), 5769. Pompian, M. M. (2006). Behavioral Finance and Wealth Management: How to Build Optimal Portfolios That Account for Investor Biases. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Saenger, C., Qaim, M., Torero, M. & Viceisza, A. (2013). Contract farming and smallholder incentives to produce high quality: experimental evidence from the Vietnamese dairy sector. Agricultural Economics, 44(3), 297-308. Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59. Snider, A., Gutiérrez, I., Sibelet, N. & Faure, G. (2017). Small farmer cooperatives and voluntary coffee certifications: Rewarding progressive farmers of engendering widespread change in Costa Rica? Food Policy, 69, 231-242. Snijders, T. & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel Analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling. London: SAGE Publications. Sutter, M., Kocher, M. G., Glätzle-Rützler, D. & Trautmann, S. T. (2013). Impatience and uncertainty: Experimental decisions predict adolescents' field behavior. American Economic Review, 103(1), 51031. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The quarterly journal of economics, 106(4), 1039-1061. Van Raaij, W. F. (2016). Understanding Consumer Financial Behavior: Money Management in an Age of Financial Illiteracy. England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Welbaum, G. E., Sturz, A. V., Dong, Z. & Nowak, J. (2004). Managing Soil Microorganisms to Improve Productivity of Agro-Ecosystems. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 23(2), 175-193. Whelan, T. & Newsom, D. (2014). Sustainable coffee farming: Improving income and social conditions protecting water, soil and forests. New York: Rainforest Alliance. Retrieved from https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/sites/default/files/2016-08/sustainable-coffee-farmingreport.pdf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers editorial team at IFRD edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.
This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.