Agricultural supports and farmers’ satisfaction: A latent variable application in Turkey / Apoyos agrícolas y satisfacción del agricultor: una aplicación de variable latente en Turquía / Apoios agrícolas e satisfação dos agricultores: uma aplicação variável latente na Turquia
Resumo
Abstract
Agricultural supports are given with different quantities and purposes around the world, such as exemption from tax, granting subsidies or agricultural insurances, among others. These supports have a great impact but its benefits to farmers are not generally known. The influence of these supports on farmers is pointed out by evaluating the farmers’ satisfaction. In this sense, it was obtained a data from 426 producers in order to analyze the agricultural supports regarding farmer´s satisfaction. The first and second-order latent variables are analyzed by applying the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to the survey data obtained for the evaluation of farmers’ satisfaction. The factor loadings and fit index were sufficient and the structure validity and reliability of the model were ensured. The most effective variables influencing the farmers’ satisfaction related to the agricultural supports are the supports maintaining the financial structure and livestock support. Results indicate that farmers need to be supported more in terms of input use and crop production.
Resumen
Los apoyos agrícolas se otorgan con diferentes cantidades y propósitos en todo el mundo tales como la exención de impuestos, el otorgamiento de subsidios o de seguros agrícolas, entre otros. Sin embargo, generalmente no se conoce cuál de los apoyos tiene un mayor impacto y es bien recibido por los agricultores. La influencia del soporte agrícola sobre los agricultores se refleja en la evaluación de la satisfacción del agricultor, la cual se analizó mediante un análisis factorial utilizando variables latentes de primer y segundo orden en una muestra de 426 agricultores. El índice de carga y ajuste del factor fue suficiente para garantizar la validez de la estructura y la confiabilidad del modelo. Las variables más efectivas que influyen en la satisfacción del agricultor en relación con el soporte agrícola son aquellos que ayudan a la estructura financiera y al apoyo ganadero. Los resultados indicaron que los agricultores necesitan soporte agrícola en términos de uso de insumos y de la producción de cultivos.
Resumo
Os apoios agrícolas são concedidos para diferentes valores e finalidades em todo o mundo, como isenção de impostos, concessão de subsídios ou seguro agrícola, entre outros. Contudo, geralmente não se sabe qual dos apoios tem maior impacto e é bem recebido pelos agricultores. A influência do apoio agrícola sobre os agricultores se reflete na avaliação da satisfação dos agricultores, que foi analisada por meio de uma análise fatorial usando variáveis latentes de primeira e segunda ordem em uma amostra de 426 agricultores. O índice de carga e ajuste do fator foi suficiente para garantir a validade da estrutura e a confiabilidade do modelo. As variáveis mais eficazes que influenciam a satisfação do agricultor em relação ao apoio agrícola são aquelas que ajudam a estrutura financeira e o apoio à pecuária. Os resultados indicaram que os agricultores precisam de apoio agrícola em termos de uso de insumos e produção agrícola.
Downloads
Referências
Bagozzi, R.P. and Y. Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16(1):74-94.
Blunch, N.J. 2008. Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS. First edition. Sage Pub. Ltd. London. 279 p.
Bojnec, S. and L. Latuffe. 2013. Farm size, agricultural subsidies and farm performance in Slovenia. Land Use Policy 32:207-217.
Bradley, J.R., O. Gergaud, S.T. Ho and F. Livat. 2018. Trade liberalization in the presence of domestic regulations: public policies applied to EU and U.S. wine markets. Appl. Econ. 50(18):2028-2047.
Brown, T.A. 2015. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Second edition. The Guilford Press, New York. 530 p.
Byrne, B.M. 2010. Structural equation modelling with Amos: basic concepts, applications and programming. Second edition. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. 418 p.
Chen, D., K. Kitang, L. Zhao and Y. Zhang. 2013. Will China’s cooperative medical system fail again? Insight from farmer satisfaction survey. Health Promot. Int. 30(2):251-261.
Chen, Y., X. Wen, B. Wang and P. Nie. 2017. Agricultural pollution and regulation: How to subsidize agriculture? J. Clean. Prod. 164:258-264.
Femenia, F., A. Gohin and A. Carpentier. 2010. The decoupling of farm programs: Revisiting the wealth effect. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 92(3):836-848.
Ghazanfar, S., Z.Q. Wen, M. Abdullah, I. Khan and J. Ahmed. 2015. Structural modeling for determinants of farmer satisfaction with crop loan insurance in Pakistan. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Env. Sci. 15(5):932-943.
Hair J.K., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin and R.E. Anderson. 2014. Multivariate data analysis. Seventh edition. Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow, UK. 739 p.
Huergo, E. and L. Moreno. 2017. Subsidies or loans? Evaluating the impact of R&D support programmes. Res. Policy 46:1198-1214.
Kamaruddin, R., J. Ali and N.M. Saad. 2013. Happiness and its influencing factors among paddy farmers in Granary Area of Mada. World Applied Sci. J. 28:91-99.
Kline, R.B. 2011. Principle and practice of structural equation modeling. Third edition. The Guilford Press, New York. 554 p.
Lang, K.B. 2005. Expanding our understanding of community supported agriculture (CSA): An examination of member satisfaction. J. of Sustain. Agric., 26(2): 61-79.
Lopez, R.A., X. He and E.D. Falcis. 2017. What drives China’s new agricultural subsidies? World Development 93:279-292.
Milczarek-Andrzejewska, D., K. Zawalińska and A. Czarnecki. 2018. Land-use conflicts and the Common Agricultural Policy: Evidence from Poland. Land Use Policy 73:423-433.
Minviel, J.J. and K.D. Witte. 2017. The influence of public subsidies on farm technical efficiency: A robust conditional nonparametric approach. Eur. J. Op. Res. 259:1112-1120.
MOD. 2015. The tenth development plan (2014-2018), Turkey Ministry of Development, Ankara, Turkey. 212 p. Available on: http://www.mod.gov.tr/Pages/DevelopmentPlans.aspx. Date of consultation: June 2017.
Moon, W. and G. Pino. 2018. Do U.S. citizens support government intervention in agriculture? Implications for the political economy of agricultural protection. Agric. Econ. 49:119-129.
Moro, M., F. Brereton, S. Ferreira and J.P. Clinch. 2008. Ranking quality of life using subjective well-being data. Ecol. Econ. 65(3):448-460.
Norton, R.D. 2004. Agricultural development policy, concept and experiences. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, England. 540 p.
OECD. 2017. Agricultural policy monitoring and evaluation 2017. OECD publishing. Available on: http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/monitoring-and-evaluation.htm. Date of consultation: May 2017.
Reidsma, P., J. Sander, J. Jacques and K.M. van Ittersum. 2018. On the development and use of farm models for policy impact assessment in the European Union – A review. Agric. Sys. 159:111-125.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., H. Moosbrugger and H. Müller. 2003. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive Goodness-of-Fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research 8(2):23-74.
Severini, S. and A. Tantari. 2015. Which factors affect the distribution of direct payments among farmers in the EU Member States? Emprica 42:25-48.
Sibande, L., A. Bailey and S. Davidova. 2017. The impact of farm input subsidies on maize marketing in Malawi. Food Policy 69:190-206.
Tang, X., J. Wang, B. Zhang and L. Zhang. 2017. Application of the DEA on the performance evaluation of the agricultural support policy in China. Agric. Econ. 63(11):510-523.
Tian, Q., J.H. Holland and D.G. Brown. 2016. Social and economic impacts of subsidy policies on rural development in the Poyang Lake Region, China: Insights from an agent-based model. Agric. Sys. 148:12-27.
Ullman, J.B. 2012. Structural equation modeling. In: Tabachnick B.G. and L.S. Fidell (Eds.). Using multivariate statistics. Sixth edition. Pearson Education Inc. New Jersey. P: 681-785.
Weber, J.G. and N. Key. 2011. How much do decouple payments affect production? An instrumental variable approach with panel data. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94(1):52-66.
Zhu, X. and A.O. Lansink. 2010. Impact of CAP subsidies on technical efficiency of crop farms in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. J. Agric. Econ. 61(3):545-564.
