Farm Household Consumption Patterns

Carriker, Gordon L.; Featherstone, Allen M.; Schroeder, Ted C.

doi:10.2307/1349712

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper we examine farm households' consumption pattern by farm size. There are a number of studies on food consumption pattern across income groups in rural and urban areas (Umanath et al 2016;Kumar et al 2011;Abdulai & Aubert 2004;Sheng et al 2010) but there are only a few that analyze food consumption pattern of farm households' differentiated by farm size (Carriker et al 1993;Lee & Phillips 1971). Farm households' differ in many aspects from nonfarm households' such as income level, its stability and distribution and production of food.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does farm size explain food consumption pattern? evidence from semi-arid regions of India

Khed¹,

Saravanakumar²,

Umesh³

2018

Agri. Econ. Rese. Revi.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines responsiveness of consumption of major food items to change in their prices and household per capita income across different farm size groups. The results show significant variation in the food consumption pattern and demand elasticities across farm size groups and also between farm and non-farm households'. The income and price elasticities are low for cereals, pulses, edible oils and vegetables than those of animal products and fruits. Further, we find a better response from non-farm households' to changes in their income and food prices. The results suggest that it is the income effect is more important in the case of non-farm households' and production effect in the case of farm households'. Further, among farm households' the smallholders are more vulnerable to changes in production/income and prices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does farm size explain food consumption pattern? evidence from semi-arid regions of India

Khed¹,

Saravanakumar²,

Umesh³

2018

Agri. Econ. Rese. Revi.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the 1990s, more scholars have included consideration of the family life cycle into their analyses of rural households' economic models [10]. The research topics have involved the relationship between the family life cycle and land-use pattern [32,33]; the relationship among the family life cycle, rural households' income, and consumption [34][35][36][37]; the relationship among the family life cycle, farm scale, and agricultural product output [38][39][40][41]; the relationship between the family life cycle and the ecological environment [42][43][44]; and the relationship between the family life cycle or land scale and non-agricultural employment [10,30]. The above studies have provided abundant theoretical and empirical information to understand the relationship between the family life cycle and the decision-making behaviors of rural households.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships between Land Management Scale and Livelihood Strategy Selection of Rural Households in China from the Perspective of Family Life Cycle

Deng

et al. 2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rural households are micro-organizational systems that are composed of different family members. Against a background of fragmented land patterns and massive labor migration in China, it is of great significance for the sustainable development of regional economies to explore the optimal selection of livelihood strategies by rural households. Using a survey containing data from 8031 rural households from 27 provinces in China, this study analyzed the characteristics and spatial distribution trends of the land management scale, family life cycle, and livelihood strategy selection of rural households, and constructed Tobit econometric models to explore the correlations among these factors. The results show: (1) Rural households’ land management scale was primarily small-scale and, as it expanded, the proportion of the total cash income coming from agricultural activities increased. A relative majority of rural households were in the middle period of the family life cycle, and relatively few rural households were in the starting and empty nest periods. The proportion of the total cash income of rural households coming from agricultural pursuits while in the stable and the empty nest periods was relatively large, reaching 40.51% and 38.92%, respectively. In most provinces sampled, rural households’ livelihood strategies were non-agriculturally based, and the land management scale was mainly less than 0.67 ha. (2) Rural households’ land management scale positively correlated with their livelihood strategy selection. When other conditions remained unchanged, with every 1 ha increase in land management scale, the proportion of agricultural cash income in total family cash income increased, on average, by 3.7%. In comparison with rural households in the empty nest period, the proportions of agricultural cash income in the total family cash income of rural households in other family life cycles were relatively small. Specifically, for rural households in the starting, rearing, burden, stable, and maintenance periods, the proportion of agricultural cash income in the total family cash income decreased, on average, by 6.8%, 6.7%, 9.2%, 3.5%, and 16.3%, respectively.

show abstract

Evaluating the Linearized Almost Ideal Demand System

Buse

1994

American J Agri Economics

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linearizing the Almost Ideal Demand System (LAIDS) by recourse to the Stone share weighted price index is common practice. Two issues are addressed here. First, scrutiny of the errors‐in‐variables implications of the linearization reveals that, not only is the SUR estimator inconsistent, but a consistent IV estimator cannot be constructed. Second, some alternatives to the Green‐Alston elasticities specifically designed for the LAIDS model are developed, but neither these nor the Green‐Alston elasticities are found to have any advantages over the conventional elasticity formulae. Some errors in the Green‐Alston (1990) paper are corrected. The inconsistency and elasticity issues are documented by a Monte Carlo investigation.

show abstract

Farm Household Consumption Patterns

Cited by 3 publications

References 14 publications

Does farm size explain food consumption pattern? evidence from semi-arid regions of India

Does farm size explain food consumption pattern? evidence from semi-arid regions of India

Relationships between Land Management Scale and Livelihood Strategy Selection of Rural Households in China from the Perspective of Family Life Cycle

Evaluating the Linearized Almost Ideal Demand System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About