UNDERSTANDING LAND IDLING AS A STRATEGIC BEHAVIOUR: A BRIEF NOTE USING THE REAL OPTIONS APPROACH

Authors

  • Haniza Khalid Kulliyyah of Economics and Management Sciences INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v14i5.180

Keywords:

agricultural land prices, real options. asset pricing, opportunistic behaviour

Abstract

One possible explanation for land idling in a rapidly transforming economy can be found by looking at the value of the option to wait and hysteresis behaviour in the land market. If investors assume that the drop is temporary and that its long term prospects outweigh current holding losses, the market will observe some form of a zone of inactivity i.e., no selling and no additional buying. The fact that landowners elect to keep their valuable land underdeveloped for prolonged periods of time suggests that idled land is more flexible and valuable than what the current market price suggests. If the revenue from farming is insufficient to sustain the activity, land is left idle; although this operational decision is open to continuous revision. The numerical example shown in the paper shows that price of land can be substantially bolstered by the option to wait embedded in land. We argue that land market prices are based on more than the land’s total present value of its future income stream. In a transforming economy, the option to wait and change land-use are especially important to consider. Policy-wise, the government can discourage land idling by ensuring appropriate and suitable zoning of agricultural areas, strong adherence to the zoning conditions/plans as well as more far-sighted land conversion decisions. These efforts can go a long way to reduce the source and degree of uncertainty which is the most important cause of real option premium in land prices. Based on the nature and type of data available, future directions of research should emphasize on empirical testing of real options premium in sale prices of agricultural land.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Berry, D. (1978). Effects of urbanization on agricultural activities. Growth and Change, 9(3), 1-8.

Black, F. & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. The

Journal of Political Economy, 81, 637-654.

Bowman, E. H. & Moskowitz, G. T. (2001). Real options analysis and strategic decision making. Organization Science, 12(6), 772-777.

Buang, A. (2001). Privatizing the rehabilitation of idle agriculture land in malaysia feedback from the Malay folks. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 9(2), 103-112.

Cox, J. C., Ross, S. A., & Rubinstein, M. (1979). Option pricing: A simplified approach.

Journal of Financial Economics, 7(3). 229-263.

Dixit, A. (1991). Analytical approximations in models of hysteresis. Review of Economic Studies, 51(1), 141-51.

Dixit, A. K. & Pindyck, R. S. (1995). The options approach to capital investment.

Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 105-116.

Government of Malaysia (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department.

Government of Malaysia (2011). Tenth Malaysia Plan, 2011-2015. Kuala Lumpur: National Printing Department.

Maart-Noelck, S. C. & Musshoff, O. (2013). Investing today or tomorrow? An experimental approach to farmers’ decision behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(2), 295-318.

Mamat, S. (1986). Memperdagangkan tanah sawah terbiar dalam konteks beberapa polisi kerajaan. Paper presented at National Rice Conference, 20-22 January, 1986, Serdang.

Manaf, A. A. (2007). Keupayaan pendekatan institusi dalam menghurai punca-punca tanah pertanian terbiar di daerah Kuala Pilah, Negeri Sembilan. Jurnal Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan, 2(2), 25.

Manaf, A. A., Hussain, M. Y., Saad, S. & Mokhtarroji, N. K. (2012). Aplikasi pendekatan institusi ekonomi ke atas tanah pertanian terbiar di pulau-pulau sekitar Mersing, Johor Geografia: Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 8(5), 14-25.

Merton, R. C. (1973). Theory of rational option pricing. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4, 141-183.

Musshoff, O., Odening, M., Schade, C., Maart-Noelck, S. C. & Sandri, S. (2012). Inertia in disinvestment decisions: experimental evidence. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(3):463-485. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbs032.

Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of financial Economics, 5(2), 147-175.

National Land Code 1965 (Malaysia)

Omar, M., Radzi, M. M., Selamat, M. N., Manaf, A. A., Shamsudin, M. & Saim, N. J. (2011). Faktor penentu dan implikasi fenomena depopulasi komuniti Pulau Kecil di sekitar Mersing. Journal of Tropical Marine Ecosystem, 1, 22-34.

Pike, R. H. & Neale, B. (2003). Corporate Finance and Investment: Decisions and Strategies (Fourth Edition). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Ross, S. A. (1976). Options and efficiency. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(1), 75-89.

Trigeorgis, L. (1996). Real options: managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Turvey, C. (2002). Can hysteresis and real options explain the farmland valuation puzzle? Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph.

Williams, J. T. (1991). Real estate development as an option. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 4(2), 191-208.

Yamazaki, R. (2001). Empirical testing of real option pricing models using Land Price Index in Japan. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 19(1), 53-72.

Downloads

Published

2016-11-01

How to Cite

Khalid, H. (2016). UNDERSTANDING LAND IDLING AS A STRATEGIC BEHAVIOUR: A BRIEF NOTE USING THE REAL OPTIONS APPROACH. PLANNING MALAYSIA, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v14i5.180