آثار رفاهی افزایش قیمت برنج داخلی در میان خانوارهای استان مازندران

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری

2 باشگاه پژوهشگران جوان و نخبگان، واحد زابل، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، زابل، ایران

چکیده

اندازه‌گیری تغییرات رفاه اقتصادی همواره به عنوان یکی از کاربردی‌ترین مباحث اقتصادی مطرح بوده است. مطالعه حاضر با هدف محاسبه تغییرات رفاهی ناشی از افزایش قیمت برنج در استان مازندران انجام شد. بدین منظور معیار تغییرات جبرانی (CV) و اطلاعات درآمد و هزینه خانوار استان مازندران در سال 1393 مورد استفاده قرار گرفته است. بر اساس نتایج به دست آمده، با افزایش قیمت برنج، رفاه خانوارهای استان مازندران کاهش یافته است. خانوارهای روستایی بیشتر از خانوارهای شهری با کاهش رفاه مواجه شده‌اند. همچنین مقایسه کاهش رفاه خانوارها در گروه‌های مختلف درآمدی نشان می‌دهد که با افزایش سطح درآمد، رفاه خانوارها کمتر کاهش یافته است. لذا لازم است جهت حفظ رفاه خانوارهای استان به دنبال افزایش قیمت برنج، سیاست‌های حمایتی مناسب اتخاذ گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Welfare Effects of Rising of Domestic Rice Price on Mazandaranian Households

نویسندگان [English]

  • S. A. Hosseini Yekani 1
  • Z. Nematollahi 1
  • M. Hosseinzadeh 2
1 Sari University of agricultural sciences & natural resources
2 Young Researchers and Elite Club, Zabol Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zabol, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Measuring changes in economic welfare have been known as one of the practical economic issues. So that, this study aimed to calculate the welfare changes resulting from the change in the price of rice in Mazandaran province and is the first study that done using the food groups’ details and household’s data for estimates demand functionin the country. For this purpose, welfare microeconomic theory and compensating variation (CV) criteria and household income and expenditure data of Mazandaran province in 2014 wereused.
Materials and Methods: Compensating variation represents the net income that the household must be given to restore themto the utility level they were at before the price change. It is negative after a price increasebecause it is expressed as a central authority expenditure to restore the household to thepre-price change utility level. Estimation of compensating variation needtheestimation of households demand system. In this paper, the parameters of the demand system are estimated by applying nonlinear regression to the system of eight share equations. Parameter estimates provided a clearer understanding of household food consumption behavior in 2014, summarized through income and price elasticity. Parameterestimates provide a theoretically consistent model of household food demand that can be usedto evaluate the welfare implications of food price increases.
Results and Discussion: Estimates of income elasticity of demand for urban and rural households are presented in Table 4. The income elasticity revealsthat none of the goods are inferior, while the rice and meat are a luxury for urban households. Other groups such as cereals, dairy, oils and fats, fruits and vegetables, other foods and beverages are also essential commodities for urban households. Rice, meat and fruit and vegetable are the luxury goods for rural households, too. The income elasticity of fruits and vegetables, and other foods are close toone for urban households, demonstrating that welfare analysis of price changes need to account for shifts in demandcaused by the income effect of the changes. The elasticityindicate that the income effectcould be large for these commodity groups. Further evidence about these effects will be provided by the compensatedprice elasticity.Compensated own price elasticity, which measure pure substitution effects, are reportedinTable 5 for urban households and Table 6 for rural households. The elasticity of demand for a beverage is large for all householdsand the elasticity of demand forrice is small for all households. These results indicate that households reduce beverage consumption significantly more than rice consumption in response to price increases. Next, consider a 25, 50 and 198 percent increase in the rice price. This price change causes an increase in household expenditure for both urban and rural households by compensating variation. Increasing in households expenditure for rural households has been greater than urban households. According to the results, urban households have seen 0.38 percent increase in their expenditure by 25 percent increase in rice price. 50 and 198 percent Rice price increasing, increase 1.13 and 19.98 percent of urban expenditure accordingly. Rural expenditure increased 1.31, 3.63 and 52.57 percent by increasing 25, 50 and 198 percent in rice price accordingly. Moreover, the comparison between reductions in household welfare in different income groups has shown that household welfare has declined less when levels of income increased.
Conclusion: This study aimed to calculate the welfare changes resulting from the change in the price of rice in Mazandaran province. For this purpose, welfare microeconomic theory and compensating variation (CV) criteria and household income and expenditure data of Mazandaran province in 2014 wereused. Based on the results, with rising rice prices, household welfare of Mazandaran province has fallen. The welfare of rural households has fallen more than the welfare of urban households. The comparison between reductions in household welfare in different income groups has shown that household welfare has declined less when levels of income increased. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain the household welfare of provinces when the rice price rises and support policies must be adopted.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Welfare Changes
  • Compensating Equivalent
  • Quadratic Almost Ideal Demand System (QAIDS)
1. Alen Y. 2011. The Impact of food price inflation on consumer welfare in urban Ethiopia: A quadratic almost ideal demand system approach, department of economics. University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
2. Appleton S. and Charles Ah. 2007. Food price changes and consumer welfare in Ghana in the 1990s credit research paper 07/03, school economic, University of Nottingham.
3. Attanasio O., Di Maro V., Lechene V., Phillips D. 2013. Welfare consequences of food prices increases: Evidence from rural Mexico, Journal of Development Economics, 104:136–151.
4. Deaton A. 2000. analysis of Household Surveys: A Micro econometric Approach to Development Policy, John Hopkins University Press. Tech. rep, World Bank policy research working paper.
5. Deaton A., Muellbauer J. 1980. An almost ideal demand system. American Economic Review, 70: 312–326.
6. Ebrahimi M. And Dehghani Ahmadabad h. 2012. Evaluation of welfare changes resulting from electricity prices increasing in urban and rural households, Journal of Social Welfare, 12 (46): 373- 397.
7. Fallahi F., Mohammad Zadeh P., Hekmati S. and Piraei F. 2014. The Welfare effect of increase in goods prices in urban areas of the country, Journal of Economic Research, 48 (2): 2-15.
8. Frend L. C., and Walich I. C. 1995. Raising Household Energy Prices in Poland Who Gains? Who Loses, Policy Research Working Paper.
9. Ghahramanzadeh M., Ansari F., Phalsaphian A., and Ferdowsi R. 2014. Measurement of the welfare effects of rising meat prices on urban households in Iran, Iranian Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 44(2): 201- 209.
10. Ghahramanzadeh M., Ziaei M.B., Pishbahar A., and Dashti Gh. 2016. Measurement of the impact of rising food prices on welfare of Iranian urban households, agricultural economics, 9 (4): 97- 119l.
11. Gorman W. M. 1953. Community preference fields. Econometrica, 21: 63–80.
12. Governmental Trading Corporation of Iran, 2016.
13. Hosseinzad J., Sohrabi Athar F., Dashti Gh., and Ghahramanzadeh M. 2014. Application of system models in the analysis of demand for food commodities in Iran, Iranian Economic Research and Development, 45 (3): 545- 554.
14. Layani gh. And Ismaeili A. A. 2016. Determine the vulnerability of urban households by rising prices of imported food in Iran, Agricultural Economics Research, 7 (3): 109- 127.
15. Loughrey J., and Odonoghue C. 2012. The Welfare Impact of Price Changes on Household Welfare and Inequality 1999-2011, the Economic and Social Review, 43(1): 31–66.
16. Minot N., Dewina R. 2013. Impact of food price changes on household welfare in Ghana, if pre-discussion paper 01245, 1- 32.
17. Muellbauer J. 1976. Community preferences and the representative consumer, Econometrica, 44, 979–999.
18. Nematollahi Z., and Shahnoushi N. 2013. Assessment of the effects of energy subsidies targeted on the prices of agricultural products, food industry and household welfare (using input-output table), Eighth Biennial Conference on Iranian Agricultural Economics, 2623- 2634.
19. Nouri k. 2007. Effect of disruption of rice market on supply, demand and imports in Iran, research and development in agriculture and horticulture, 73: 17- 25.
20. Osei-Asare Y.B. and Eghan M. 2013. Food Price Inflation and Consumer Welfare in Ghana. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics, 1(1): 27-39.
21. Piraei Kh. and Akbari Moghaddam B. 2006. The effect of reducing subsidies to agricultural sector (cultivation) and changes in work tax rates on, sectorial production and rural and urban households welfare in Iran (simulation by computational general equilibrium model and social accounting matrix), Journal of Iranian economy researches, 7(22): 1- 30.
22. Shimeles A., and Delelegn A. 2013. Rising Food Prices and Household Welfare in Ethiopia: Evidence from Micro Data, Working Paper Series, 182.
23. Valero-Gil J., Valero M. 2008. The effects of rising food prices on poverty in Mexico. Agricultural Economics, 39: 486–496.
24. Vincent L. 2009. Commodity price changes and consumer welfare in Tanzania in the 1990s and 2000s. School of Economics, University of Nottingham, UK.
25. Vu L., and Glewwe P. 2011. Impacts of rising food prices on poverty and welfare in Vietnam, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 14-27.
26. Wood B., Nelson, C., and Nogueira L. 2010. Measuring the welfare impact of food price increases on Mexican households, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
27. Ziegelhofer Z. 2014. Food prices and household welfare: A pseudo panel approach, PhD thesis of International Economics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.
28. Zoghipour A., and Zibaei M. 2011. CGE analysis of the welfare effects of tariff liberalization in Iran: index of Hicks equivalent variations (EV), Quarterly Journal of Commerce research, 57: 1- 27.