Paradox of Plenty, with Special Reference to Inelastic Demand for Apples

Monika Jain* Paradox of plenty in agriculture implies that a bumper crop reaped by the farmers brings a smaller total income to them. The fall in the income or revenue of the farmer as a result of the bumper crop is due to the fact that with greater supply the prices of the crop decline drastically and in the context of inelastic demand for them, bring about fall in the income of the farmers. Thus, bumper crop, instead of raising their incomes, reduces them. The reason for this lies in the elasticity of demand for food stuff. The demand for food stuff is fairly inelastic. An increase in their supply tends to lower their price. The lower price does not increase the demand for it as per the law of demand or a normal price-demand relationship. Thus large harvest tends to bring low revenue to the farmers.

Introduction
The agricultural sector is a very unique sector because it is characterized by demand for and supply of the goods. The principal characteristics of demand are that it is both income and price inelastic, and it is highly dependent on population and their tastes and preferences, which cause demand to be static in both the short and long run. On the other hand, supply is highly volatile in the short run due to extraneous factors because supply is a biological process, though in the long run due to technological advances we tend to observe an increasing trend. Also, because agricultural products are perishable and their production time is long, supply will be inelastic, and so producers will have to supply in the short run even at very low prices. Another characteristic of supply is its atomistic structure and asset fixity. These basically imply that there are a large number of insignificant producers and most agricultural assets are fixed. These have various implications for prices which are very unstable in the short run and in the long run show a declining trend. Similarly, farm incomes tend to be unstable in the short run and converge in the long run,
* Associate Professor, IILM College of Management Studies, 17 & 18 Knowledge Park, Greater Noida 201306, India. E-mail: monikaj14@yahoo.com 2011 IUP. All Rights Reserved. 44 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

though it must be noted that this is also due to extensive government subsidization of agriculture. In the short run, demand in the agricultural industry is affected by the fact that it is income inelastic because of Engels law that basically states that as income rises, the proportion of income spent on food falls. In other words, the income elasticity of demand for food lies between 0 and 1. At this point it must be noted that consumption is different from expenditure unless all goods have the same price. In other words, the money a consumer spends on food (i.e., expenditure) may increase, remain stable or even decrease, but his consumption will decrease. Apart from being income inelastic, demand is also relatively price inelastic. Price elasticity of demand is the change in quantity demanded as a result of a change in price which in the case of agricultural goods is relatively low. This is because after consumers have bought the amount of food they require, no matter how much producers lower the prices, they will not consume more because excess consumption would lead to lower or even negative marginal utility. Also, the lack of substitutes and the fact that food occupies a low budget share will mean that consumers are even less sensitive to price changes, causing agricultural prices to be very volatile in the short run without having a great effect on demand. As a result, demand for goods in the agriculture industry is fairly stable mainly because of low price and income elasticity. Even though income and price elasticity are essential stepping stones to determine the demand for agricultural products in the short run, there are other factors that play a significant role in the long run. One of these factors is population; the only way the demand for agricultural produce can increase is due to an increase in population, as shown in Figure 1, which shows the dependency between population and food.
Figure 1: Dependency Between Population and Food
Economic Growth

Food Production

Population

By combining what affects demand in the short run and in the long run, we can deduce that demand for agricultural products is relatively stable in the long run, as the consumers, regardless of changes in price and income, will not demand above a fixed amount. Also the fact that food products do not have any substitutes implies that consumers will not be able to consume below a certain amount as they need a certain amount of food to survive. Thus, demand for food will converge in the long run and be relatively stable, as the only
Paradox of Plenty, with Special Reference to Inelastic Demand for Apples 45

thing that can affect it in the long run is population increase or a change in their tastes and preferences, which in most developed economies does not occur. On the other hand, we have supply of agricultural goods which is subject to the vagaries of weather and crop diseases in the short run, which are factors that cannot be controlled by the producer when deciding upon whether to supply or not. The above two factors imply that supply will be highly unstable in the short run, leading to fluctuation in prices, and as a result, income in the agricultural sector will be very volatile, as illustrated by Figure 2.
Figure 2: Demand and Supply of Agricultural Goods
P Supply P3

P2

Demand Q Q Bad Year Q Good Year

In Figure 2, we see that in a bad year when producers can get high prices for their produce, very few of them are able to produce. Thus, even though the desired price is achieved in the market, crop disease and weather hinder their ability to make profits from higher price, as shown by the shaded area in Figure 2. On the other hand, in a good year when most of them can supply more, the price they get for their goods in the market is too low and thus most make very low profits. From the above, we deduce that short-run supply is relatively inelastic mainly because the goods are perishable and the production period is too long. Also we see that farm incomes are usually very unstable, especially considering the atomistic structure of the market, which means that a single producer cannot affect the market in any way. In other words, once a farmer has produced a certain amount of food he has to sell it, otherwise it would perish and he would have to incur higher cost per unit produced. At the same time, because agricultural goods take a relatively long time to produce, once a farmer has decided to produce, he cannot withhold production if at the end the food prices are too low. Thus, he is unable to respond to changes in price either by increasing or decreasing supply. This leads to the paradox of income in the agricultural
46 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

sector where profits in a bad year are greater than profits in a good year. However, this would not occur if the agricultural industry faced a relatively more elastic demand curve. Paradox of plenty in agriculture implies that a bumper crop reaped by the farmers brings a smaller total income to them. The fall in the income or revenue of the farmer as a result of the bumper crop is due to the fact that with greater supply, the prices of the crop decline drastically and, in the context of inelastic demand for them, brings about fall in the income of the farmers. Thus, bumper crop instead of raising their incomes reduces them. The reason for this lies in the elasticity of demand for food. The demand for food is fairly inelastic. An increase in their supply tends to lower their price. The lower price does not increase its demand as per the law of demand or a normal price-demand relationship. Thus, large harvest tends to bring low revenue to the farmers. In the case of the farmers, the key to their problem is that the demand curve for their products is quite inelastic. This means that if the harvest is unusually good, a large drop in price is necessary to encourage the consumers to use the additional grain. If the elasticity coefficient is 0.5, for example, and the harvest is 10% larger than that of the preceding year, then a 20% drop in prices will occur (assuming that the many things that we keep constant in drawing the demand curve have remained constant) (see Figure 3). As this price reduction more than offsets the effect of the larger harvest, the average income of the farmer drops.
Figure 3: Inelastic Demand Curve of Agricultural Goods
Price Demand Supply 1 Supply 2

20%

A larger harvest can cut farm income

10%

Quantity

Review of Literature
DeCola and Sanchez (2000) examined the factors which contributed to the decline in the prices of soybean at the Chicago Board of Trade in Illinois on December 12, 2001. Lauren (2009) reported on the state of the tart cherry industry in the US as on August 2009, when tons of unharvested fruit got rotten under a government program aimed at keeping the
Paradox of Plenty, with Special Reference to Inelastic Demand for Apples 47

prices stable. Tart cherry farmers were told by the processors to leave up to 40% of their crop unharvested. Connor and Peterson (1992) discussed reports on tests of aggregation over consumer food products and estimates of aggregate food demand elasticities. Their work presented a simple model framework for quantitative multi-market agricultural sector policy analysis. Robinson (2006) focused on cost squeeze and its subsequent consequences faced by the rice growers of the US. Although the initial yield of rice was respectable in the year 2005, the last half of the year saw farmers hit by the hurricane Rita. Farmers demand a higher price as they think government programs will not be able to keep up if commodity prices do not improve. The overhead cost of rice producers in the mid-south was not being met. The young farmers were the worst hit, as they hardly had enough equity to fall back on. On the other hand, there was uncertainty as to how high the fertilizer and fuel prices would go. Farmers had to spend on weed control as well. It was becoming more and more challenging for farmers to work out the economic numbers for rice. Andreyeva et al. (2010) reviewed 160 studies on price elasticity of demand for major food categories to assess the mean elasticities by food categoryand variations in estimates due to study design. Price elasticities for foods and nonalcoholic beverages ranged from 0.27 to 0.81(absolute values), with food away from home, soft drinks, juice and meat being most responsive to price changes (0.7-0.8).For example, a 10% increase in soft drink prices reduces consumption by 8-10%.

Demand for Apples in India

Although production and consumption are small in per capita terms, India is the sixth largest producer and consumer of apples in the world. Growth in both production and consumption has been sluggish despite rising incomes. Apple demand is responsive to changes in both income and price, but the demand for domestic, and particularly, imported apples is low due to their high price relative to other fruits. The juicy fruit became 40% cheaper in both wholesale and retail markets in major cities due to its bumper crop in 2010. The wholesale price of apple grown in Himachal Pradesh also known as the apple bowl of the countrydeclined to 1,000-1,100 a box of 20 kg in 2010, against 1,600-1,700 a box in 2009. At times higher food grain prices lead farmers to increase acreage and even use fallow land, better support services, and certified seeds and fertilizers, and as a result there is bumper crop. Favorable weather also helps improve production. This time, good and timely rainfall in Himachal Pradesh led to record production of apple crop. The prices crashed within weeks of their arrival early in the month of July. According to the traders a bumper crop in 2010 has turned out to be the pits for farmers, as the fruit failed to fetch remunerative prices like in the preceding year. On the one hand, bumper crop means the fruit is more affordable to most consumers, on the other hand, it implies lower returns to the apple growers. The production in 2010 was about 30-40% higher than the preceding years yield. As per the Himachal Pradeshs Directorate of Horticulture, production in Himachal Pradesh was estimated to go up by more than
48 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

two-and-a-half times to 6.35 lakh tons in the current season (July-October) from 2.8 lakh tons in the preceding season. Surplus production of apple in the bulk producing states of Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir in 2010 on account of good rainfall and snowfall lowered the price of the fruit. Besides the apple from Himachal Pradesh, apples from Nawgaon, Purola Belt of Uttarkashi and Chakrata area of Dehradun District have been pouring into the local markets. The prices dipped further when apples from Harshil started coming after September. As per trade estimates, the production in Jammu and Kashmir increased to 11.2 lakh tons in 2010 from 7 lakh tons in the preceding year. The regular spells of rain in Uttarakhand helped apple production and reports indicated that production touched a record high in 2010. Apple-growers in Himachal Pradesh witnessed a sharp fall in their earnings, despite record production of the popular fruit in 2010. Lekhraj Chauhan, President of Himachal Apple Growers Association said, Notwithstanding the bumper apple production in the state in 2010, tragically, applegrowers income has dropped by almost half due to sale of the fruit at a lower price in the markets in Delhi and other places. Metharam Kriplani, President of the Delhi-based Chamber of Azadpur Fruit and Vegetable Traders, opined, A box of apples (of 22 kg) is presently selling at 400-900 in Azadpur, the biggest fruit and vegetable market in Asia, compared to 900-1,600 a box last year.

Reasons for Fall in the Price of Apples and Inelastic Demand for Apples
The same excessive rain which led to the bumper production of apples led to the frequent blockage of roads, crippled the transportation of the crop from the state to national markets, leading to a drop in the apple prices in local market. According to the traders, the price had been pushed 40-50% lower than that of last year. The frequent landslides triggered by excessive rain too forced the growers to sell the produce in local markets. The growers prefer to sell fresh fruit at reasonable price rather than waiting for the weather to improve and roads to open to take the fruit to other markets. Another reason for the relatively inelastic demand for apples is slow consumption growth. Indias apple consumption has shown little growth in recent years. Consumption growth has been negligible since the late 1980s, a period that corresponded to rapid gains in income (see Figure 4). Despite rising incomes, Indias per capita apple consumption of about 1.35 kg per year is low relative to that of other major apple producing countries (see Figure 5). As apples are a relatively high-priced fruit in India, consumption is largely confined to the higher-income segments of the population. Per capita apple consumption of about 3.5 kg in this segment of the population is still low in comparison to that of other major apple producing countries. Growth in per capita apple consumption remains sluggish despite high rates of economic growth that create conditions strengthening the demand for apple and other non-staple and higher-valued foods. Moreover, with continuous high income growth,
Paradox of Plenty, with Special Reference to Inelastic Demand for Apples 49

Figure 4: Per Capita Apple Consumption in India

Per Capita Consumption (kg) 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1970-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 Years
Source: FAOSTAT

1990-94

1995-99

2002

Figure 5: Selected Countries Per Capita Apple Consumption

Per Capita Consumption (kg) 40 30 20 10 0 Turkey France China US Russia Japan Mexico Brazil S. Africa India Countries
Source: FAOSTAT

1991-93 Average 2001-03 Average

there is also a maturing high-income segment of the population with the economic means and desire to purchase high-value and processed foods. High prices of both domestic and imported apples, compared to that of other domestically available fruits, is a key reason for low per capita apple consumption. Although incomes are rising and poverty is declining, the bulk of the population still consists of low- and middle-income consumers who are highly sensitive to prices when purchasing consumer goods, including food. The average Indian household spends about 55% of its income on food, and consumer expenditure studies indicate that consumers readily substitute within and between food groups based on relative prices (Murty and Radhakrishna, 1981). For most Indian consumers, including much of the emerging middle class, price remains an important factor in determining the contents of the food basket.
50 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

Apples are generally the most expensive of Indias major domestically produced fruits in most regions and seasons. Other major fruits, including banana, mango and orange, are produced and consumed in larger quantities than apple, and their wholesale prices are significantly lower than that of apple in all seasons (Table 1). Even in Indias peak appleharvest month of October, the apple price is higher than that of the other competing fruits. Banana, with the highest per capita consumption, has by far the lowest price. Mango and orange also have both lower prices and substantially higher per capita consumption than apple. Grapes, with about the same low level of per capita consumption as apple, are also expensive relative to the other fruits. Even after a fall in the price of apples by 40-50% from that in 2009, the apple price at 50 per kilogram (in the retail market) remains higher than most of the other fruits like banana, papaya, etc.
Table 1: Wholesale Price Comparison of Indias Major Domestic Fruit, 2010
( /kg) Month January Fruit Bananas Mangoes Grapes Oranges Apples April Bananas Mangoes Grapes Oranges Apples July Bananas Mangoes Grapes Oranges Apples October Bananas Mangoes Grapes Oranges Apples
Note: No price quoted. Source: National Horticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India Paradox of Plenty, with Special Reference to Inelastic Demand for Apples 51

Bengaluru 5.22 22.54 20.92 31.73 5.26 23.55 20.77 39.26 5.36 22.02 5.28 34.78

Mumbai 5.87 21.43 25.06 35.87 5.50 16.41 27.53 27.16 6.01 15.78 5.87 18.11 32.15

Kolkata 3.57 25.59 13.94 25.66 3.80 10.52 24.04 13.67 36.84 3.44 15.32 3.26 23.81

Delhi 5.14 27.99 21.13 27.83 8.53 19.34 24.21 20.88 28.42 5.08 12.65 4.10 15.02 25.68

Chennai 4.65 18.92 18.71 59.49 4.73 23.44 21.57 16.64 64.75 5.22 13.87 4.74 11.25 36.40

Apple Processing
Almost all apples produced in India are used for fresh consumption, with only small quantities being used for processing into products, such as apple juice, jelly or jam. The paradox would not have been there, if there was a proper processing channel for bumper crops. In that case the increase in the supply could have been controlled. The price comes down when there is an increase in supply without a simultaneous increase in demand. So, if we can control the supply, we will be able to control the fall in price.

Lack of Integrated Supply Chains

Although there are a few government agencies and cooperatives, such as the Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation (HPMC), involved in apple marketing, most apples are sold through private marketing channels comprising of a large number of small-scale brokers and merchants. Information collected during field research suggests that Indias apple marketing system entails significant marketing costs, and particularly, significant marketing margins for both domestic and imported apples. Most Indian apple production takes place in the hilly northwestern states, and about 70% of the crop are transported to and sold in Indias largest wholesale fruit and vegetable market at Azadpur in Delhi. The major marketing channels for apples are for growers to harvest and pack their crop and ship it in 1-2 days by unrefrigerated truck to the Azadpur market, where the consignment is then handled and sold by a commission agent. Growers have an option of selling at the prevailing market price or paying for storage in the hope of getting a higher price at a later time. When the produce is sold, all marketing costs, including transport, handling, and storage costs and the agents commission, are deducted and a net price is paid to the grower. The difference between prices received by growers and those paid by consumers consists of marketing costs and marketing margins. Costs include packing, handling, transport, storage, losses, establishment costs, fees and taxes and other charges involved in moving the produce from farm to retail market. Marketing margins are the portion of the difference between grower and consumer prices not accounted for by marketing costs and include returns (or profits) of wholesalers, retailers, and other intermediaries in the supply chain, as well as unaccounted costs. Investments in supply chain infrastructure and competition among firms tend to reduce marketing costs and margins. But in emerging markets, such as India, factors, such as lack of investment and lack of competition may result in relatively high costs and margins. The high relative prices for domestic apples in the Indian market reflect limited domestic supplies and the prevailing costs of domestic production. Significant marketing costs and trader margins also inflate apple prices, although it is not clear if these costs and margins are higher than those of other domestic fruits.

Income- and Price-Responsiveness of Apple Demand

To project and analyze the trends in the Indian apple market, it is important to understand the strength of the relationships between apple demand, income growth and apple prices. Available estimates confirm that apple demand is sensitive to changes in both income and
52 The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

prices. Sikka and Azad (1991) estimated income elasticities of demand for Indian fruit and found that they range between 0.11 and 1.31. Mango consumption was most responsive to changes in income, followed by apple consumption. Devadoss and Wahl (2004) reported an income elasticity of demand for domestic apples in India of 1.05. Regression analysis based on 26 years data on per capita apple consumption and real per capita income results in an income elasticity of demand estimate of 1.06, consistent with the other findings. A few government cooperatives, most notably the Safal fruit and vegetable marketing project operated by the National Dairy Development Board in the Delhi region, have sought to develop a more modern and integrated marketing chain for fruits and vegetables. But these account for only small shares of the market. While Indias apples and other fruits are marketed almost entirely by the private sector, so far, there has been little private investment in improving the quality of domestic apples to compete with the imported ones. There are currently no large-scale or integrated private firms that market apples or other fruits at either regional or national level. Supermarkets and chain retailers, as well as the supply chain integration and efficiency they foster, remain nascent in India, accounting for less than 5% of total consumer food purchases.

Poor Post-Harvest Handling Practices

Storage
Apples are ordinarily not held in cold storage in the producing areas. Apples not sold immediately by growers and those held for later sale by wholesale merchants may be stored in cold storage in Delhi or other major markets. Although high-quality cold storage exists in most major markets, apples are generally stored in cold storages with cheaper facilities with less control over temperature and atmosphere.

Handling and Transport

With very few exceptions, domestic apples are transported throughout India in unrefrigerated trucks over poor roads, whether it is a 1-2 day trip from Jammu and Kashmir or Himachal Pradesh to Delhi or a 4-5 day trip to Chennai. Growers generally face shortages of trucks during the peak harvest period, leading to periods of unrefrigerated storage in producing areas. Trucks are often loaded beyond the stipulated legal and safe norms. In combination with poor-quality packing materials, overloading leads to heavy pressure on the fruit and causes damage during transport. Lack of refrigeration, long journey times, and poor packaging reduce the quality of domestic apples available in more distant markets, including Mumbai, Chennai and Bangalore.

Limited Cold Storage Infrastructure

Producers claim that limited availability of high-quality cold storages and refrigerated containers restricts storage volumes. High investment requirements for such infrastructure could pose a barrier to entry and contribute to the lack of competition. The significance of these factors is, however, unclear since repeated visits to the Azadpur market in Delhi indicated substantial unused capacity.
Paradox of Plenty, with Special Reference to Inelastic Demand for Apples 53

Conclusion
The free market price of primary products tends to fluctuate much more than that of the manufactured goods or services. This is mainly due to supply-side influences. A bumper crop will depress the prices, whilst crop failure will lead to higher prices. Bumper crops can be disastrous for the farmers if the demand for the product is price inelastic; a large fall in price is needed to sell a little extra produce. One solution to this is buffer stock scheme, but buffer stock schemes have a mixed record of success. A buffer stock scheme (commonly implemented as intervention storage, the ever-normal granary) is an attempt to use commodity storage for the purpose of stabilizing prices in an economy or, more commonly, in an individual (commodity) market. Specifically, commodities are bought when there is a surplus in the economy, stored, and are then sold from these stores when there is a shortage. Their usefulness is debated by economists. Also, a huge amount of money is required to buy the produce when the price is low. Administration and storage costs are also involved. Diversification leading to food processing will eventually help. The government should take necessary steps in this direction. The continuing problem of international food price instability needs to be carefully monitored in the future and the role of private versus public stockholding needs to be assessed. Reducing weather and price uncertainties is an important task for food policy intervention. Dams and drainage ditches can reduce the impact of rainfall variations; crop insurance can provide a guaranteed income floor even if heavy investments are wiped out; and research on more adaptable but still high-yielding plant varieties can reduce the risks of new technology. Similarly, the government can reduce price uncertainty by providing better price forecasting information, by using import and export policy to provide a band of prices within which domestic price formation can take place, or by implementing a more aggressive floor and ceiling price policy with a government-operated buffer stock program. But these efforts to stabilize prices must be visible in market operations, not just in press releases and legislative actions. Most farmers have learned through painful experiences that simple statements of government intentions to stabilize prices or even to require them by law are ineffective. The government should take care of this situation in order to stabilize farmers incomes and to encourage them to continue farming whether there are bumper crops or droughts.

Bibliography
1. Andreyeva Tatiana, Michael W Long and Kelly D Brownell (2010), The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research on the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 216-222. Belrose Inc. (2003), World Apple Review, Pullman W A Comptroller and Auditor General of India (2004), Audit Report (Civil), Himachal Pradesh for the Year 2003/04, available at http://cag.nic.in/ Connor John M and Peterson Everett B (1992), Market Structure Determinants of National Brand-Private Label Price Differences of Manufactured Food Prices, The Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 40, pp. 157-171.
The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 2, 2011

2.

3.

54

4. 5.

DeCola Dyanna and Sanchez Marie (2000), Soybean Prices Drop as Bumper Crop is Predicted, Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition, Vol. 236, No. 52, September 14. Deodhar Satish Y (2005a), Trade Cost, Trade Policy and Trade Volume: A Study of Indian Apple Market, Working Paper No. 2005-08-01, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, August, available at http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/ publications/data/2005-08-01satish

6.

Deodhar Satish Y (2005b), Whats Keeping the Apples Away? Addressing the Market Integration Issue, Working Paper No. 2005-08-03, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, August 2005.

7. 8.

Devadoss S and Wahl T (2004), Welfare Impacts of Indian Apple Trade Policies, Applied Economics, Vol. 36, No. 12. Dubey A K, Rai N and Yadav D S (2001), Harnessing of Fruit Potential for Prosperity in Arunachal Pradesh, ENVIS Bulletin: Himalayan Ecology & Development, Vol. 9, No. 20, ESRI, Redlands, CA.

9. 10.

Lauren Petter (2009), Bumper Cherry Crop Turns Sour, Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition, Vol. 254, No. 45, August 22, p. A5. Manser E Marliyn (1976), Elasticities of Demand for Food: An Analysis Using Non Additive Utility Functions Allowing for Habit Formation, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1. Murty K N and Radhakrishna R (1981), Agricultural Prices, Income Distribution and Demand Patterns in a Low-Income Country, in Robert E Kalman and J Martinez (Eds.), Computer Applications in Food Production and Agricultural Engineering, NorthHolland Publ. Co. Robinson Elton (2006), Cost Squeeze Takes Shine Off Bumper Crops, Vol. 33, No. 2, Southwest Farm Press. Sikka B K and Azad K C (1991), Consumption Pattern and Demand Projections for Fresh Fruit in India, Acta Horticulturae, Vol. 270, pp. 231-236, available at http:// www.actahort.org/books/270/270_27.htm Reference # 21J-2011-05-04-01

11.

12. 13.

Paradox of Plenty, with Special Reference to Inelastic Demand for Apples

55

Copyright of IUP Journal of Managerial Economics is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.