Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to determine the extent of risk rationing among potential rural borrowers in Mexico and China. Design/methodology/approach -Using primary survey data from 730 farm households in the Shaanxi province of China and from 372 farmers in northeastern Mexico, the authors investigate factors associated with risk rationed, price rationed and quantity rationed farmers. The survey was instrumented to self-identify borrower typologies. In addition the authors created within the survey a discrete-choice credit demand build to determine borrower credit demand elasticities. The analysis applies a linear probability which the authors found to be consistent with multinomial and binary logit models. Findings -The authors find in China the incidence of risk rationing in farmers to be 6.5, 14 percent for quantity rationed and 80 percent for price rationed. In Mexico, 35 percent of the sample is risk rationed, 10 percent quantity rationed and 55 percent price rationed. The results from China support the hypothesis that the financially poor are more likely to be quantity rationed; in Mexico, however, the level of education is found to be important in determining quantity rationed. In both countries, asset wealthy farmers are less likely to be risk rationed; however, income does not appear to have an impact. The paper provides evidence that the elasticity of demand for credit is different among the three credit rationed groups: risk rationed, price rationed and quantity rationed. Risk aversion and prudence are significantly correlated with risk rationing in China, while only risk aversion is significant in Mexico. The results suggest that efforts to enhance credit access must also deal with risk and risk perceptions. Practical implications -Risk rationing is an important concept in the understanding of rural credit markets. The findings that only 6.5 and 35 percent of Chinese and Mexican farmers are in stark contrast to each other. For agricultural economies such as Mexico with a significant number of farmers being risk rationing, more effort should be put into financial education and financial practices, The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at AFR 74,2 including perhaps the use of risk-contingent credit to remove collateral risk. As property rights in China evolve, and new laws are promulgated to permit borrowing against land use rights, the collateralization issue will become much more important in rural credit markets. Originality/value -This paper is the first to investigate risk rationing in China and Mexico and one of the few research studies empirically investigating risk rationing. A comparative analysis of Mexico and China is enlightening because of the structural differences in the respective agricultural economies. The use of a credit demand build and the enumeration of individual credit demand elasticities is an original contribution to this literature.
The importance of risk preferences in agricultural production has long been identified as an important and preeminent issue of policy relevance. Recent developments in the study of production risk have called into question much of the core of risk production research. This article provides an overview of the prominent literature attempting to quantify the impact of risk preferences on production and a discussion of the recently discovered challenges. These challenges are typified by (a) an inability to discern risk preferences, (b) an inability to discern the factors that relate to risk preferences, (c) evidence that prior estimation has severe problems, and (d) a general failure of current models to address the important policy or behavioral issues. Although some of these challenges may appear at first blush to be insurmountable, we suggest a new agenda for risk research in production that directly addresses each of these issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.