The main differences between the full and OECD models lie in FeedstockP and PopInAgric. For both variables, the full model holds significant variables, while the OECD OLS model does not, while the probit estimation does. Likewise, for FeedstockP, there are significant differences in the coefficients (the full country model has larger coefficients). The elasticities for both coefficients are also larger in the full model. This suggests to us that feedstock prices and the economically active population in agriculture were of less importance than other components, such as GDP, the tariff rate, and arable land, when undertaking biofuel policy in OECD countries. The result of the feedstock prices goes against our intuition, but that of the economically active population in agriculture does not; creating a biofuel industry has been advo- cated as a method to help raise people out of poverty, creating agricultural employment. Perhaps this is a more pressing issue in developing countries, rather than OECD countries. Though devel- oped countries also often argue of the importance of increasing rural, agricultural incomes, the ability to financially support a biofuel industry may be deemed of greater importance. This may therefore go against the International Energy Agency (1994), and Meijerink et al.’s (2004) research; though this is a goal of many countries, as dictated by their policies, it may not be a driving factor for adopting ethanol policies, which is how this finding should be interpreted. The signs of both coefficients are not consistent, though inference cannot be drawn on these variables due to the lack of significance.