Degree of Absolute Risk Aversion of Farmers and Determining its Affecting Factors in Sari-Goharbaran

مجله اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 6, Volume 29, Issue 4, January 2016, Pages 401-410   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead2.v29i4.47543

Authors

T. Ranjbar¹; S.A. Hosseini Yekani^{* 2}; S.M. Mojaverian²

¹University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources, Sari

²University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources, Sari.

Abstract

Introduction: Farming has a significant role in the economy of developing countries. The farming activities face with various dangerous, non-certainties and lots of problems due to natural disasters, price fluctuations in market place and social and behavioral conditions of farmers. Farmers encounter lots of risks in their farming decisions. Generally, there are three kinds of farmers including 1) risk-averse 2) risk-neutral and 3) risk-taker. The majority of previous studies have shown that the most of farmers are risk-averse, but with different rates of risk aversion.
Materials and Methods: Estimating the utility function is one way to quantify the risk. But while there is no certainty and decision making condition is risky, concept of “expected utility” will be considered instead of general concept of utility. In the present study, Direct Elicitation Utility Function (DEU) is used in order to calculating the degree of absolute risk aversion of farmers. In this approach, it is assumed that individual farmers are concerned about the variability of return of production decisions.
The utility function will be shown with U(Y) in which Y is the monetary gross margin of a farmer in specific period of time. The expected utility of the farmer is . The expected monetary margin will be defined with and certainty equivalent (CE) is the monetary margin that comes from the relation of . In DEU method, several mathematical forms of utility functions can be considered as the utility function of producers. Since in the form of negative exponential utility function, the absolute risk aversion coefficient is constant, in this study, the utility function of producers is , where shows the degree of absolute risk aversion. After calculation of farmers’ absolute risk aversion coefficients, the relationship between calculated coefficients and socio-economic characteristics of farmers (such as their age, farm size, family size, education and agricultural experience) were analyzed.

Results and Discussion: In compliance with relation and considering the negative exponential utility function, can be proved:

Where to are four probable levels of farmers’ gross revenues and to are the probabilities of these revenues. Utilizing DEU method, the rates of absolute risk aversion of farmers (high risk aversion, weak risk aversion and medium risk aversion) were calculated for 169 farmers in Sari-Goharbaran. According to the results, 41 farmers (24.2 percent) were weak risk averse, 81 farmers (47.9 percent) were medium risk averse and 47 farmers (27.8 percent) were high risk averse. Findings of the study showed that most of the farmers are medium risk averse. The second part of the findings showed that there is a significant relationship between farmers’ age, farm size, family size and farming experience and the rate of absolute risk aversion. As it was shown in the table 3, the age of farmers has positive relation with the degree of absolute risk aversion of farmers and the family size, farming experiences as well as farm size have negative relation with that degree. Also, according to the t-statistic, estimated coefficients were statistically meaningful at 95% and 99% which means if the farmer’s age increases by one year, then the degree of risk aversion of farmers rises by 95% confidence level, ceteris paribus. In addition, it can be stated that if the farming experiences increase by one year, the absolute risk aversion coefficient declined by 0.34 unit, by 99% certainty. Similarly, by increasing the number of family members and size of farms by one unit, the degree of risk aversion of farmers reduced to 0.37 and 0.98 unit respectively as well.
Conclusion: As the results advocate, the majority of farmers are in the class of average risk averse. Therefore, some measures should be taken to decrease the degree of risk aversion of farmers. This can carried out by the farmers as well as the agricultural sector policy makers. Utilizing the risk reduction techniques, such as crop diversification, insurance, establishing commodity derivatives and futures markets, farmers can reduce their risks. According to one of the results of this study, stating that whenever the farm sizes have risen, the degree of risk aversion has dropped, it is suggested that policy makers try to integrate lands in the agricultural sector. Also, as it is revealed that, by enhancing the experience of the farmers, their degree of risk aversion declines, so, through the educational and prompter classes, the farmers experience can be enhanced, despite the fact that education directly has no significant effect on the degree of risk aversion.

Keywords

Absolute Risk Aversion; Direct Elicitation Utility Function; Socio-Economic Characteristics

References

1- Akbari A., Shahikitash M.N., and Yazdani, F. 2014. Identify risk factors affecting the production of pistachio in Sirjan, Journal of Agricultural Economics Researches, 23: 175-190. (in Persian)

2- Anderson J.R., and Dillon J.L. 1992. Risk analysis in dry land farming systems, FAO, Farm System Management, Series2, Rome.

3- Arrow K.J. 1965. Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Academic Publishers, Helsinki.

4- Baradarannasiri M., Samadi M., and Mirbagheri V. 2010. Scenarios to achieve the objectives of the agricultural sector in the Fifth Development Plan, Infrastructure Studies (Department of Agriculture), Majlis Research Center. (in Persian)

5- Barry P.J. 1984. Risk management in agriculture, Iowa State University Press.

6- Berbel J. 1993. Risk programming in agricultural systems: A multicriteria analysis, Agricultural System, 41: 275-288.

7- Bond G. and Wonder B. 1980. Risk attitudes amongst Australian farmers, Australian Journal Agricultural Economic, 24:16-34

8- Carriker G.L. 1991. Yield and income risk reduction under alternative crop insurance and disaster assistance design, Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 16: 238-250.

9- Cohon J.L. 1979. Generating multiobjective trade-offs: An algorithm for bicriteria problems, Water Reseach, 15:1001-1010.

10- Dillon J.L., and Scandizzo P.L. 1978. Risk attitudes of subsistence farmers in northeast Brazil: A sampling approach, American Journal Agricultural Economics, 60: 425-35.

11- Dillin Y.L. and Hardaker J.B. 1986. Farm management research for small farms development, FAO Rome.

12- Ehsan A.A.R., Tehrani R., and Islami Bigdeli GH.R. 2008. The investigation of risk aversion coefficient and the variance production in risk management, case study: tomato producers in Dezfool, Agricultural Economics and Development, 61: 17-35. (in Persian)

13- Faraji Y. 1999. Microeconomic theory, Commercial publishing companies affiliated with the Institute of Human Studies and Research. (in Persian)

14- Ferdowsi R., and Kopahi M. 2005. Measuring attitude of wheat farmers toward risk, a case study: Golestan Province, Agricultural Economics and Development, 52:27-43. (in Persian)

15- Ferguson CH. 1975. Microeconomic theory, Publishing Center of Tehran University.

16- Fleisher B. 1990. Agricultural Risk Management, Pergamon Press. Oxford.

17- Golkaranmoghadam S. 2014. Production risk and risk trends saffron workers of Torbat Heidarie with an emphasis on poverty, Journal of Agriculture Economics and Development, 87: 1-21. (in Persian)

18- Gorbani M., and Jafari F. 2009. Investigating the factors affecting crop risk frequency of farmers in in North Khorasan Province, Journal of Economics and Agricultural Development, 23: 41-48. (in Persian with English abstract)

19- Hardaker J.B., Pandey S., and Patten L.H. 1991. Farm planning under uncertainty, Revolution of Market and Aricultural Eonomic, 59: 9-22.

20- Hardaker J.B., Hurine R.B.M., Anderson J.R., and Lien G. 2004. Coping with risk in agriculture, Second Edition. Washington, CABI Publishing.

21- Hassanpour B., and Torkamani J. 2000. Determining the technical efficiency of fig producers in Fars province, Application of transcendental stochastic frontier production functions, Quarterly Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 30: 171-198. (in Persian)

22- Jafarzade A. 1999. The importance of agricultural insurance in the normal compensation, Journal of the insurance industry, 55: 142-160. (in Persian)

23- Just R.E., and Pope R.D. 1978. Stochastic specification of production function and economic implications, Journal of Econometrics, 1:67-86.

24- Just R.E. and Pope R.D. 1979. Production function estimation and related risk considerations, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61: 276-284.

25- Karbasi A., and Salarpour M. 2003. Modeling and measuring the economic efficiency under risk: a case study of maiz producers in Fars, Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 10: 47-66. (in Persian)

26- Kehkha A., Soltani GH.R. 2001. Determining the degree of farmers risk aversion in Fars province, The first conference Agricultural Economics Iran, Zabol. (in Persian)

27- Kumar J.B. 1995. Trade-off between return and risk in farm planning: MOTAD and target MOTAD approach, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50:193-199.

28- Misra K.S, Spurlock S.R. 1991. Incorporating the impacts of uncertain fieldwork time on whole, Farm risk – return Levels: A TARGET-MOTAD Approach Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 23:9-18.

29- Moazeni S., Tahamipour M., and Karbasi A.R. 2007. Studying economic-social factors effects on farmers risk aversions in usage of pesticides: A case study, Varamin region farmers. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 1: 3-10. (in Persian with English abstract)

30- Mortazavi S.A., Ghorbani M., Borujeni P., and Alipour A. 2012. Factors affecting the pomegranate's production risk with emphasizing on poverty: As a case study, Villages of Shahreza Central Region, Journal of Agricultural Economics Researches, 3: 21-37. (in Persian with English abstract)

31- Moscardi E., and Dejanvry A. 1977. Attitudes toward risk among peasants: An econometric approach, American Journal Agricultural Economics, 59: 16-710.

32- Nikouei A.R., and Torkamani J. 2001. Policy with take on the tendency of farmers to risk and inputs, Agricultural Knowledge, 11: 23-39.

33- Nourisaeid M. 1999. Insurance and its role in economic development, The second Conference officials and experts in agricultural insurance, Tehran, Publications Agricultural Insurance Fund. (in Persian)

34- Oglethorpe O.R. 1995. Sensitivity of farm plans under risk averse behaviour: A note on the environment implications, Journal Agricultural Economic, 2: 167-178.

35- Parikh A., and Bernard A. 1988. Impact of risk on HYV adoption in Bangladesh, Agricultural Economics, 2: 167-178.

36- Paris Q. 1979. Revenue and cost uncertainty, generalized mean-variance, and linear complementarity problem, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2: 268-275.

37- Praat J.W. 1964. Risk aversion in the small and in the large, Econometrics, 32:122-136.

38- Randhir O.T. 1991. Influence of risk on input use in south Indian tanked farms, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46:57-63.

39- Roslan N.A., Abdullah A.M., Ismail M. M., and Radam A. 2012. Influence of socio-economic factors on farmers behaviours toward risks, UMT 11th International Annual Symposium on Sustainability Science and Management, Terengganu, Malaysia.

40- Sulewski O., and Kloczko-Gajewska A. 2014. Farmers' risk perception, risk aversion and strategies to cope with production risk: An empirical study from Poland. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 116: 140-147.

41- Torkamani J. 1996. Using mathematical programming with risk in determining the efficiency of farmers, Journal of Agricultural Sciences Iran, 27: 95-103. (in Persian)

42- Torkamani J. 2000. Measuring and assessing main method determining toward risk's farmer, A case study of Units dairy farmers, Scientific and Research Quartery Journal of Agriculture Economics and Development, 31: 31-55. (in Persian)

43- Torkamani J. 2005. Using a whole-farm modelling approach to assess prospective technologies under uncertainty, Agricultural System, 85: 138-154.

44- Voget S. and Kolonko M. 2002. Multidimensional optimization with a multi-objective algorithm, Journal Heuristics, 14: 221-244.

45- Willis J. 1990. Explorationsin microeconomics, CAT publishing.

46- Yaghoubi A.H., Chizari M., and Feli S. 2007. Agricultural crop insurance: a proper technigu for risk management, 6th Conference of Agricultural Economics Iran, 1-14. (in Persian with English abstract)

47- Yazdani S., and Feizabadi Y. 2004. Determining the degree of risk aversion in poultry industry and the factors affecting on risk aversion: a case study of Sabzevar in Khorasan, Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 15-24. (in Persian with English abstract)

48- Yazdani S., and Sasooli M. 2008. Studying the effects of inputs on production risk of rice in shaft city in Gillan province, Journal of Economic and Agriculture, 1: 35-46. (in Persian)

49- Yeh C.H. and Labadie J.W. 2003. Multi-objective planning for agricultural decision: An application, Journal of Agricultural Planning and Management, 23: 336-343.

50- Zimet D.J, and Spreen T.A. 1986. A target MOTAD analysis of a crop and livestock farm in Jefferson County, Florida. Journal of Agricultural Economics, (18): 86-175.