Conditional Income Disparity between Farm and Non‐farm Households in the European Union: A Longitudinal Analysis

Marino, Maria Luisa; Rocchi, Benedetto; Severini, Simone

doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12420

Cited by 13 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, unobservable preferences might determine the sorting of households into the farm sector while unobserved characteristics, such as skills, might affect incomes. Marino, Rocchi, and Severini (2021) revisit the EU-SILC dataset using a fixed effects regression methodology to control for these individual unobservable characteristics. Again, the raw data show that farm household incomes are much lower than for nonfarm households, particularly in the newer member states, but there are also significant differences in observable characteristics.…”

Section: Ensuring Food Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe

Matthews

2022

BAE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper surveys some of the key themes in European agricultural policy research in recent decades. It identifies three main drivers of this research: a gradual broadening of the scope of the discipline in response to changing political priorities and values; an enlarged toolbox of policy instruments that has raised new questions and required the development of new modes of analysis; and the availability of new data sources, increased computing power, as well as the introduction of new methodological advances from economics, statistics and psychology that have opened the way to new and more powerful analytical tools. Particular attention is paid to direct payments and agri-environment-climate measures as examples of new policy instruments that have driven the research agenda. The paper concludes by identifying requirements to ensure that agricultural policy research remains vibrant and relevant in the future.

show abstract

Section: Ensuring Food Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe

Matthews

2022

BAE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, in the United States, studies have conclusively shown the disappearance of the farm income problem under any available method of analysis (e.g., El-Osta et al 2007;Katchova 2008;Mishra et al 2002). A similar trend of convergence has been detected also in the EU (e.g., de Frahan et al 2017;Eurostat 2003;Marino et al 2021;OECD 2003;Rocchi et al 2020). de Frahan et al (2017) found that FH incomes are not particularly lower on average than NFH incomes in most OECD countries.…”

Section: The Farm Income Problem and The Role Of The Public Interventionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…de Frahan et al (2017) found that FH incomes are not particularly lower on average than NFH incomes in most OECD countries. Rocchi et al (2020) and Marino et al (2021) also find that, under certain circumstances, farm units are even richer than their counterparts. However, some have shown a greater income inequality and poverty in the farm community than in the nonfarm community (de Frahan et al 2017).…”

Section: The Farm Income Problem and The Role Of The Public Interventionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Assessing the Farm–Nonfarm Households' Income Gap along the Income Distribution in the European Union

Marino

Rocchi²,

Severini³

2023

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the presence of a farm–nonfarm income gap along the income distribution in the European Union. Our findings show that the income disparity between farm and nonfarm households varies at the opposite poles of the distribution within and between countries. On average, farm households in the lowest quartile are worse off than nonfarm households in the same quartile, whilst farm households in the highest quartile are better off than their nonfarm counterpart. We also provide some evidence on the time dynamics of the farm–nonfarm households' income gap by looking at its evolution after the Great Recession. Finally, the policy implications stemming from the results are presented. In particular, the importance of re‐directing the Common Agricultural Policy public support in two main directions: from the richest farm households to the poorest farm households, to reduce within countries' inequality, and from the richest countries to the poorest countries, to reduce between countries' inequality.

show abstract

“…As for income gap, many scholars have studied the income gap and its changes around the world [43][44][45][46]. These include absolute changes and relative changes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of China’s Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy on the Income Gap between Herder Households? A Case Study from a Typical Pilot Area

Liu

Rao

Liu

2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

China’s policy of subsidies and rewards for grassland ecological protection (PSRGEP) aims to maintain the ecological function of grasslands and increase the income of herder households. Since 2011, the Chinese government has invested more than 150 billion yuan in this policy, making it currently the largest grassland ecological compensation project in China. Based on a survey of 203 herder households in Xin Barag Left Banner, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, this study used the Lorenz curve and Gini index to describe the imbalance in the distribution of compensation funds. Then, the integrated livelihood capital scores before compensation were used as a baseline. The changes in ranking and standard deviation of the scores after receiving compensation funds were analysed to draw a conclusion about the impact on the income gap between herder households. Finally, we described the absolute income gap through a group comparison. The results show that the distribution of compensation funds is unbalanced (Gini index is 0.46). According to the order of compensation funds from high to low, the top 20% of sample herder households received 49% of the total funds. Given the unbalanced distribution, households with better family economic conditions received more compensation funds. After receiving the compensation funds, the change in the ranking of the household’s livelihood capital integrated score was small, but the standard deviation increased from 0.1697 to 0.1734, and the Gini index of the households’ capital integrated scores decreased from 0.35 to 0.34 (the coefficient of variation decreased from 0.66 to 0.63). The group with the highest integrated livelihood capital score received 3.6 times the compensation funds of the group with the lowest score. As a result, under the promotion of PSRGEP, the local absolute income gap has widened, but the relative income gap has reduced. This study evaluated the current distribution of compensation funds for PSRGEP, which could provide a scientific basis for managers to optimize the fund distribution in the future.

show abstract

Conditional Income Disparity between Farm and Non‐farm Households in the European Union: A Longitudinal Analysis

Cited by 13 publications

References 46 publications

The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe

The contribution of research to agricultural policy in Europe

Assessing the Farm–Nonfarm Households' Income Gap along the Income Distribution in the European Union

The Impact of China’s Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy on the Income Gap between Herder Households? A Case Study from a Typical Pilot Area

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About