scholarly journals Greek farm households: income inequality, poverty and distributional impact of farm income

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavlos Karanikolas ◽  
Stavros Zografakis
Keyword(s):  
Income Inequality ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Farm Households ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Micro Data ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Distributional Impact ◽  
The Impact

<p>This paper examines the incidence of income<br />inequality and poverty, and the impact of farm<br />income on inequality. A detailed typology of farm<br />households (FHs) is developed, based on Household<br />Budget Survey micro-data. Research findings<br />reveal enormous variations among households<br />with respect to income inequality and poverty.<br />While Marginal- and Pluriactive- FHs do not seem<br />to have an income problem, this is not the case<br />for Farm Households. Poverty is a widespread<br />phenomenon among Retired FHs. Farm income<br />and non-farm income generate a combined stabilization<br />effect, mitigating the overall inequality<br />within households. Policy implications of these<br />findings are discussed in the context of welfare<br />aspects of agricultural policy.</p>

scholarly journals Farm household income inequality in Slovenia

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. e0112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Štefan Bojnec ◽  
Imre Fertő
Keyword(s):  
Income Inequality ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
Household Income ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Farm Household ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Market Income ◽  
On Farm ◽  
The Impact

Aim of study: To investigate the structure and evolution of farm household income and examine the contribution of different sources of farm household income, particularly the impact of Common Agricultural Policy reform on farm household income inequality in Slovenia.Area of study: Slovenia, one of the European Union member states.Material and methods: A panel data set was compiled using Slovenian Farm Accountancy Data Network data at farm level for the period 2007-2013. Total farm household income was disaggregated into two different components: 1) income components, which can contain market income and off-farm income, and 2) subsidy components, which can contain subsidies from Pillars 1 and 2. Pillar 2 support included subsidies related to agri-environmental measures, less favoured areas and other rural development measures. The income distribution and decomposition were examined using the Gini decomposition method to determine the contribution of each income source and the policy shift from market to government support on farm household income and overall inequality.Main results: A shift in Common Agricultural Policy and related measures determined the structure and evolution of farm household incomes. Off-farm income had a lesser and rather stable impact on farm household income inequality, while the major change involved an increase in the importance of subsidies from Pillar 2 which is consistent with a policy of targeting farms in less favoured areas. Subsidies from Pillar 1 reduced, while market income increased farm household income inequality.Research highlights: Subsidies in farm incomes increased. They could reduce farm household income inequality.

Agricultural Policy Reform and Its Impact on Farm Households Income Inequality

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashok K Mishra ◽  
Hisham El-Osta ◽  
Saleem Shaik
Keyword(s):  
Income Inequality ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Policy Reform ◽  
The United States ◽  
Farm Households ◽  
Lump Sum ◽  
Agricultural Policy Reform ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Farm Program ◽  
Distribution Of Income

In the United States the 1996 agricultural policy reform ushered in market-oriented farm policies and also gave farmers a seven-year lump-sum payment that was not tied to production. Some scholars argue that farm program payments have changed the distribution of income among farm households. Our study uses a national farmlevel survey for 1996-2001 to investigate a) the distribution of income among farm households, b) the sources that contribute to income inequality, and c) the role of farm program payments in equalizing income. Results show a high but declining income inequality between 1996 and 2001. Among the income components that contributed the most to income inequality was an income component labeled Income from farming and all other sources. Findings further show that marginal increases in both off-farm labor income and farm program payments reduce income inequality. The impact of various income components on overall reduction in income inequality therefore depends on a household’s participation in off-farm work and government farm programs.

The impact of trust on social and financial capital acquisition: A resource integration perspective in minority-owned entrepreneurial organisations

2022 ◽  
pp. 026624262110553
Author(s):  
Ronald L Pegram ◽  
Camelia L Clarke ◽  
James W Peltier ◽  
K Praveen Parboteeah
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Firm Performance ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Financial Capital ◽  
Resource Integration ◽  
Entrepreneurial Success ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Minority Entrepreneurs

Although effective resource integration is a critical requisite for entrepreneurial success, the literature suggests there are crucial gaps for minority entrepreneurs. We examine how interracial distrust (ID), an indicator of the extent to which minority entrepreneurs distrust other races, is related to internal and social capital. We examine the relationships of such capitals on the willingness to borrow from banks and friends, and explore the link with firm performance. Using a sample of 276 primarily African American entrepreneurs, we find support for most of our hypotheses. We find that ID is negatively associated with external social capital and a willingness to borrow from banks. Surprisingly, we found that ID had a negative effect on internal social capital and a willingness to borrow from friends. We also found that internal and external social capital was positively related to firm performance. We discuss the implications of some of these surprising research findings as well as the policy implications.

Financial performance of small farm business households: the role of internet

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditya R. Khanal ◽  
Ashok K. Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Household Income ◽  
Internet Usage ◽  
Farm Households ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Small Farm ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Total Household Income ◽  
Farm Business ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of internet usage on financial performance of small farm business households in the USA. In particular, the authors want to assess the impact of internet usage on small farm businesses, where the owner’s main occupation is farming. Using a nationwide farm-level data in the USA and a non-parametric matching estimator, the study finds a significant positive impact of internet usage on gross cash income, total household income, off-farm income. The study further suggests that small farm businesses receive benefits from internet usage as it facilitates reduction in income risk through off-farm income sources, as well as a reduction in marketing and storage costs; households’ non-farm transportation and vehicle leasing expenses. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the authors use the “nearest neighbors” matching method in treatment evaluation, developed by Abadie and Imbens (2002). In this method, a weighting index is applied to all observations and “nearest neighbors” are identified (Abadie et al., 2004). Although matching estimation through the nearest neighbor method does not require probit or logit model estimation per se, the authors have estimated a probit model because it allows the authors to check the balancing property and to analyze the association of included variables with the likelihood of internet use. Findings The study suggests that small farm business households using the internet are better off in terms of total household income and off-farm income. As compared to the control group (which is counterfactual, representation of small farm businesses not using the internet), small farm businesses using the internet earn about $24,000-$26,000 more in total household income and about $27,000-$28,000 more in off-farm income. Also, small farm businesses using the internet earn about $4,100-$4,900 more in gross cash farm income compared to their counterpart. The estimate of ATT for NFI is not different from zero. However, gross cash farm revenue increased significantly. Practical implications To this end internet can provide an important role in information gathering. Internet is one of the convenient means to access and exchange information. Information and communication facilitation through internet have opened up new areas of commerce, social networking, information gathering, and recreational activities beyond a geographical bound. Producers and consumers can take advantages of internet in both collaborative and competitive aspects in economic activities as it can reduce the information asymmetries among economic agents. Social implications Farmers will seek assistance in interpreting data and applying information to their farming operations, via the internet. Therefore, it is essential that land grant universities continue to improve the delivery of electronic extension and provide information in a clear and concise manner. Originality/value Studies in farm households have mainly investigated factors influencing internet adoption, purchasing patterns through internet, internet use, and applications. In most cases, impact analyses of communication and information technologies such as internet in agricultural businesses are discussed with references to large scale farm businesses. Thus, the authors know very little about access to the internet when it comes to small farm businesses and small farm households and about how it impacts well-being of small farm households.

scholarly journals Impact of Farm Households’ Adaptations to Climate Change on Food Security: Evidence from Different Agro-ecologies of Pakistan

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (4I-II) ◽  
pp. 561-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Munir Ahmad Gattoo ◽  
Ghulam Mustafa ◽  
Muhammad Iqbal
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Food Security ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Farm Households ◽  
Household Food Security ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Household Food ◽  
The Impact

The study used data from 3298 food crop growers in Pakistan. Potential outcome treatment effects model was applied to evaluate the impact of adaptations on household food security. A household Food Security Index (FSI) was constructed applying Principle Component Analysis (PCA). Adaptation strategies employed by the farmers in response to climate change were categorised into four groups namely: changes in sowing time (C1); input intensification (C2); water and soil conservation (C3); and changes in varieties (C4). Out of 15 mutually exclusive combinations constructed for evaluation, only 7 combinations were considered for estimating the treatment effects models because of limited number of observations in other cases. Results of only two of the 7 are discussed in the paper, as the other 5 had very small number of adapters and the impact measures shown either insignificant results or had opposite signs. The first (C1234) combined all the four, while the second (C234) combined the last three strategies. The results suggest that the households which adapted to climate changes were statistically significantly more food secure as compared to those who did not adapt. The results further show that education of the male and female heads, livestock ownership, the structure of house—both bricked and having electricity facility, crops diversification, and non-farm income are among the factors, which raise the food security of farm households and their impacts are statistically significant. The variables which are significantly negatively associated with the food security levels include age of the head of household, food expenditure management, households having less than 12.5 acres of land— defined as marginal (cultivate 6.25 to 12.5 acres). Farmers of cotton-wheat, rice-wheat, and rain-fed cropping systems are found to be more food secure as compared to the farmers working in the mixed cropping systems where farm holdings are relatively small and high use of tube-well water adding to salinity of soils. It is crucial to invest in the development of agricultural technological packages, addressing issues of climate change relevant to different ecologies and farming systems; improve research-extension-farmer linkages; enhance farmers‘ access to new technologies; improve rural infrastructure; development of weather information system linking meteorological department, extension and farmers; and establishment of targeted food safety nets as well as farm subsidy programs for marginal farm households.

scholarly journals What Common Agricultural Policy after Brexit?

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 40-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christilla Roederer-Rynning ◽  
Alan Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Urban Rural ◽  
The Common ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Suppose we were in 2028: what would the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) look like then? Would it be significantly different from the policy we know today? How, and why? And to what extent would Brexit have catalyzed these changes? The CAP is one of the founding policies of the EU and a strategic lever to address critical 21st century challenges such as climate change and the rising demand for food at the global level. It also has an important role in Europe to address the growing urban-rural divide and its potentially destabilizing impact on European politics. In this article, we examine the impact of Brexit from a political-economic perspective emphasizing the multi-level context within which the CAP is embedded. As an EU member state, the UK found a way to partly accommodate the CAP to its needs even though this policy was a source of intense UK dissatisfaction with the EU. Post-Brexit, the budgetary and market implications of the UK’s departure may favour positions that support a return to a more traditional policy of farm income support. On the other hand, more radical farm policies in England and Wales could partly offset these effects by setting the agenda for continued CAP reform, if they are seen to be successful.

Do government expenditure reduce income inequality: evidence from developing and developed countries

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noor Zahirah Mohd Sidek
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Income Inequality ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
Government Expenditure ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Developing And Developed Countries

Purpose This paper aims to re-examine the impact of government expenditure on income inequality. Existing studies provide mixed results on whether government expenditure reduces or increases income inequality. In this paper, government expenditure is viewed as a tool for redistribution, hence, its impact on inequality is examined. Design/methodology/approach A sample of 122 countries with 91 and 31 countries categorized as developing and developed countries is used. The dynamic panel threshold regression is used to examine the impact of government expenditure on income inequality and to estimate the turning point of the negative or positive effects. Findings The major findings suggest that, in general, government expenditure does reduce income inequality. Results from developed countries support the inversed U-shaped Kuznet curve where higher government expenditure initially led to more inequality but would eventually bring about a positive effect after a certain threshold level. For developing countries, education and development expenditure were the driving forces towards lower income inequality. Practical implications Several policy implications can be derived from this paper. First, government expenditure is a useful tool to alleviate the problem of income inequality. More integration with the global economy via trading activities is also an important channel to help reduce income inequality. Finally, better institutional quality provides an effective ecosystem in promoting better redistribution of income via government expenditure. Originality/value This paper presents a maiden attempt to estimate a threshold value or when government expenditure starts to reduce or increase income inequality. The sample is segregated into developed and developing countries to further control the effect of government size and the level of development of a country.

scholarly journals Are Farms Located in Less-Favoured Areas Financially Sustainable? Empirical Evidence from Polish Farm Households

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 1092
Author(s):  
Radosław Pastusiak ◽  
Michał Soliwoda ◽  
Magdalena Jasiniak ◽  
Joanna Stawska ◽  
Joanna Pawłowska-Tyszko
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Precision Agriculture ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Policy Issue ◽  
Sociodemographic Factors ◽  
Sustainable Growth ◽  
Farm Households ◽  
Agricultural Policies ◽  
Adverse Environmental Conditions ◽  
The Impact

The topic of farms that deal with environmental constraints is an ongoing agricultural policy issue, including within the Common Agricultural Policy. We propose empirical evidence based on a sample of Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) farm households, evaluate the influence of chosen factors on financially sustainable farm development and verify less-favoured area (LFA) farms’ growth compared with non-LFA households. To specify farm households, we use the Sustainable Growth Challenge (SGC) model and DuPont decomposition based on financial measures and indicators that were adopted from corporate finance. It is concluded that the differences in SGC and revenue growth values between LFA and non-LFA farms mainly results from the system of subsidising LFA farms that receive compensation for farming in areas with adverse environmental conditions. Generally, the impact of agricultural policies on LFA and non-LFA farms is significant and may weaken the effect on LFA. With the exception of education, other sociodemographic factors do not highly influence farm efficiency. Along with improvements in the quality of human capital (e.g., higher education level), awareness of subsidies, and debt and innovative solutions increases. The interest in precision agriculture and agriculture 4.0 is also growing, which directly translates into better technological and financial efficiency of farms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document