1 / 17

Consumption Preferences, Risk and Production Choices – the Case of Ethiopian Farm Households

Consumption Preferences, Risk and Production Choices – the Case of Ethiopian Farm Households. Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse. Objectives. Explore the impact of yield and price risk on Ethiopian farm household’s welfare in the context of incomplete markets;

domani
Télécharger la présentation

Consumption Preferences, Risk and Production Choices – the Case of Ethiopian Farm Households

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Consumption Preferences, Risk and Production Choices – the Case of Ethiopian Farm Households Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse

  2. Objectives • Explore the impact of yield and price risk on Ethiopian farm household’s welfare in the context of incomplete markets; • Assess the effect of the consumption preferences of Ethiopian farm households on their crop portfolio.

  3. Key Observations • Yield risks facing Ethiopian farm households are considerable;

  4. Key Observations • Price risks are also considerable;

  5. Key Observations • Output, Input, Credit, and insurance markets are either non-existent or highly incomplete and fragmented (even grain markets are not well integrated); • Consequently, the impact of yield and price risks on current and future welfare is huge;

  6. Key Observations • Households largely rely on a variety of household-level and collective ways of their own to cope with risk. including: • diversification of the portfolio of income generating activities, • preference for self-sufficiency (primarily food), • flexibility in resource use, • precautionary saving, • intergenerational co-residence, and • mutual insurance arrangements

  7. Key Observations • The literature on yield risk in Ethiopia and its impacts is substantial; • Little work on consumption price risk (volatility of prices of consumer goods including those they can themselves produce); • This presentation focuses on two issues: • The impact of preferences and endowments on production choices (non-separability) • the impact of consumption price risk on farmers’ crop choice.

  8. Methodology • A non-separable agricultural household model under yield and price risk is adopted (an inter-temporal asset portfolio choice model) • Land allocation and consumption levels are the choice variable • Household survey data (Economics at AAU/CSAE/IFPRI) and time series data (CSA) are used for estimating relevant parameters.

  9. Preferences, Endowments, and Production • Complete markets assumption implies that preferences and endowments do not affect production choices (separability); • A test: reduced-form model • Regress acreage shares on determinants of crop yield, consumption preferences, and endowments (risk bearing capacity); • Test the joint significance of preference and endowment variables – rejection means incomplete markets.

  10. Preferences, Endowments, and Production • Dependent variables: acreage shares of barley, maize, pulses, sorghum, teff, and wheat • Explanatory variables: • Productivity – no. of adults per hectare, years of schooling of household head, number of oxen, fertilizer application, fertility and slope of plots, round and village dummies; • Preferences – dependency ratio; • Endowments – non-crop income, no. of shoats, total acreage.

  11. Preferences, Endowments, and Production Data: • Five rounds of the Ethiopian Rural Household Survey of the Economics Department of AAU/CSAE/IFPRI; • Sample restricted to predominantly cereal producing villages Estimation: • Restricted least squares for individual acreage equations; and • SURE for the six equations jointly.

  12. Preferences, Endowments, and Production Wald test – SURE equations: Chi-squared[ 6] = 22.5736 *** Wald Test – individual acreage equations: F [1, 2950]

  13. Impact of Consumption Preferences on Crop Portfolio

  14. Estimates

  15. Results– Impact of Consumption Shares

  16. Implications • Poverty traps – risk can perpetuate poverty • Lack of specialization  low productivity  low income; • Low-return staple production  low income • Agricultural transformation • Preference for self sufficiency can induce slower adoption and innovation;

  17. Implications • Policy • Exclusive focus on on production-side factors such as yield risk may not be effective; • Consumption-side interventions can have considerable impact; • appropriate price stabilization interventions; • crop sales directly to farm households through outlets run by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or government agencies; • provision of consumption credit to farm households by governmental and non-governmental agencies; • Research and development – innovations in storage

More Related