Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:01:32.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Income Stabilization Through Government Payments: How is Farm Household Consumption Affected?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

James B. Whitaker  and
Anne Effland
James B. Whitaker
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in Washington, D.C.
Anne Effland
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in Washington, D.C.
Get access

Abstract

We estimate the impacts of various types of government payments to U.S. agriculture on different components of farm household consumption. Using 2003 to 2005 data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS), we show that marginal rates of consumption differ by consumption category and income source, including different types of farm program payments. The results suggest that farm households treat income from different sources as imperfect substitutes and may reserve income from specific sources for specific types of consumption. Implications for the effects of different types of government payments on the farm household are considered.

Keywords

agricultural policyconsumptionfarm householdsgovernment payments
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , April 2009 , pp. 36 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ando, A., and Modigliani, F. 1963. “The ‘Life Cycle’ Hypothesis of Saving: Aggregate Implications and Tests.” American Economic Review 53(1): 55–84.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Nagel, S., and Wurgler, J. 2007. “The Effect of Dividends on Consumption.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2007(1): 231–276.Google Scholar
Burfisher, M.E., and Hopkins, J. (eds.). 2003. “Decoupled Payments: Household Income Transfers in Contemporary U.S. Agriculture.” Agricultural Economic Report No. 822, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carriker, G.L., Langemeier, M.R., Schroeder, T.C., and Featherstone, A.M. 1993. “Propensity to Consume Farm Family Disposable Income from Separate Sources.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(3): 739–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, H.H., Lambert, D.M., and Mishra, A.K. 2008. “Does Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program Impact the Economic Well-Being of Farm Households?” Agricultural Economics 38(2): 201–212.Google Scholar
Boca, D. Del, and Flinn, C.J. 1994. “Expenditure Decisions of Divorced Mothers and Income Composition.” Journal of Human Resources 29(3): 742–761.Google Scholar
Edmonds, E. 2002. “Reconsidering the Labeling Effect for Child Benefits: Evidence from a Transition Economy.” Economics Letters 76(3): 303–309.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1957. A Theory of the Consumption Function. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Holbrook, R., and Stafford, F. 1971. “The Propensity to Consume Separate Types of Income: A Generalized Permanent Income Hypothesis.” Econometrica 39(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, R.A., and Banker, D.E. 2006. “Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm Report.” Economic Information Bulletin No. 12, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, C. 2003. “Do Consumers React to Anticipated Income Changes? Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund.” American Economic Review 93(1): 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooreman, P. 2000. “The Labeling Effect of a Child Benefit System.” American Economic Review 90(3): 571–583.Google Scholar
McKenzie, D.J. 2004. “Asymptotic Theory for Heterogeneous Dynamic Pseudo-Panels.” Journal of Econometrics 120(2): 235–262.Google Scholar
Mishra, A.K., EI-Osta, H.S., Morehart, M.J., Johnson, J.D., and Hopkins, J.W. 2002. “Income, Wealth, and the Economic Well-Being of Farm Households.” Agricultural Economic Report No. 12, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Sheffrin, H.M., and Thaler, R.H. 1988. “The Behavioral Life-Cycle Hypothesis.” Economic Inquiry 26(4): 609–643.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. 1985. “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice.” Marketing Science 4(3): 199–214.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. 1990. “Anomalies: Saving, Fungibility, and Mental Accounts.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 4(1): 193–205.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. 1999. “Mental Accounting Matters.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12(3): 183–206.Google Scholar
Westcott, P.C. 2005. “Counter-Cyclical Payments under the 2002 Farm Act: Production Effects Likely to Be Limited.” Choices 20(3): 201–205.Google Scholar
Westcott, P.C., and Young, C.E. 2004. “Farm Program Effects on Agricultural Production: Coupled and Decoupled Programs.” In Burfisher, M.E. and Hopkins, J., eds., Decoupled Payments in a Changing Policy Setting. Agricultural Economic Report No. 838, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Westcott, P.C., Young, C.E., and Price, J.M. 2002. The 2002 Farm Act: Provisions and Implications for Commodity Markets. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 778, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Whitaker, J.B. 2009. “The Varying Impacts of Agricultural Support Programs on U.S. Farm Household Consumption.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Young, C.E., and Westcott, P.C. 2000. “How Decoupled Is U.S. Agricultural Support for Major Crops?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(3): 762–767.Google Scholar