Investigating the Effect of Product Demand Uncertainty Risk on Inputs Employment in Iranian Agriculture Sector

مجله اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 4, Volume 31, Issue 3 - Serial Number 37, October 2017, Pages 240-251   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead2.v31i3.63792

Author

H. Azizmohammadlou^*

Imam Khomeini International University

Abstract

Introduction: Risk and uncertainty are the main characteristics of agriculture sector and related activities. Risk and uncertainty can affect farmers decision making on output determination, input employment and technology selection. Analysis and understanding the behavior of farmers in risky environment leads to better prediction and evaluation of the result of policies in agriculture sector and therefore helps policymakers to select suitable policies for improving the status of inputs employment in this sector. The aim of this paper is to analyzethe reaction of farmers to the risk of demand uncertainty and its effect on inputs employment in Iran agriculture sector.
Materials and Methods: Data for variables included in the estimated econometric model in this paper- like interest rate, wage index, number of employees in the agricultural sector, output value, and capital stock weregathered from Iran central bank data center during the period 1974-2012. The augmented dickey fuller test is used to investigate the stationary of variables included in the econometric models of the study. In order to analysis the reaction of farmers to the risk of demand uncertainty and its effect on inputs employment in agriculture sector, two steps were taken as follows: at the first step, a demand prediction model is estimated using a first-order autoregressive process and demand uncertainty in agriculture sector is calculated by the residual of the estimated model. At the second step, the effect of demand uncertainty on capital and labor intensity is tested using Johnson cointegration approach. Schwarz and Quinn's criteria were used to determine the optimal lag numbersin vector autoregressive model. The number of co-integration vectors weredetermined using maximum eigenvalue and trace tests.
Results and Discussion: To analyzethe behavior of farmers in risky situations in terms of input employment, five possibilities or five scenarios were taken into account. First scenario: if the farmer is risk lover, labor is going to be a constant and capital increase. If, however, the farmer is risk-averse, labor is going to be constant and capital decreases. Second scenario: if farmer is risk lover, labor decreases and capital is going to be constant. Though in the case, that farmer is risk-averse, labor increases and capital is going to be constant. Third scenario: if the farmer is risk lover, labor decreases and capital increases. However, in the case, that farmer is risk-averse, labor increases and capital decreases. Fourth scenario: if the farmer is risk lover, the rate of increasein labor is less than the rate of increasein capital. In the case of risk adverse farmer, the rate of increasein labor is more than the rate of increasein capital. Fifth scenario: if farmer is risk lover, the rate of decreasing in labor is more than the rate of increasein capital. In the case of risk-averse farmer, the rate of decreasing in labor is less than the rate of increasein capital. Cointegrationtest based on eigenvalue and trace statistics in this paper confirm the presence of almost two cointegration vectors between the model variables. According to the estimated coefficients of the restricted vectors, there is a negative relationship between demand uncertainty and capital-labor ratioin long run. The coefficient of demand uncertainty in restricted vector is estimated around -0.33. This shows that as demand uncertainty increase 1%, capital- labor decrease 0.33%. These findings reveal that the firms in the agriculture sector are risk-averse and have a negative response todemand uncertainty. Separately estimation of labor and capital demand function indicates that the coefficient of demand uncertainty is respectively obtained around (-0. 14) and (-0.05). In the other words, the negative effect of demand uncertainty on capital formation is larger than the negative effect of demand uncertainty on labor employment. As demand uncertainty goes up in this sector, both labor force and capital decrease. The rate of decreasing in capital, however, is more than the rate of decreasing in labor force in the agricultural sector.
Conclusions: With increasing demand uncertainty in the agricultural sector, labor-intensity of production process goes up and farmers move toward using labor intensive process and technologies. It is inferred that higher level of demand uncertainty leads to debilitatinginvestment process and retard the trend of capital formation and technology development in the agricultural sector. The implication of such conclusion is that as demand uncertainty increases, capital intensity decreases in agriculture sector and production firms tend to use more labor-intensive technologies and process. This reveals the necessity of serious attention to investment and capital formation issue in this sector. Regarding the intensifying the risky environment in this sector, the government is recommended to use suitable promotion and motivation mechanisms to enhance farmers intensively for investment and output improvement.

Keywords

Uncertainty; Risk Aversion; Capital Intensity; Labor Intensity; Agriculture sector; Iran

References

1. Aizenman J., and Marion N. P.1993. Macroeconomic uncertainty and private investment. Economics Letters, 41: 207-210.

2. Anderson N.H., and Shanteau J.C. 1970. Information Integration in Risky Decision Making. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84:441-451.

3. Arrow K .1965. Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing. Yrjo Johnson Lectures. The Academic Book Store, Helsinki.

4. Arrow K. 1970. Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing, Amsterdam: North Holland.

5. Bakhshi P., Raheli H., and Ghahramanzade M. 2016. The effect of oil revenues shocks and exchange rate uncertainty on agricultural sector growth in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 8 (31): 101-122. (In Persian).

6. Diaz-Serrano L. and Donal O. 2004. The Relationship between Unemployment and Risk-Aversion. Discussion Paper No.1214.

7. Ebadi J., and Shahiaki T. M. 2004. Investigating the concentration trend for world market of selected agricultural products and its effect on non-oil revenue in Iran. Journal of Economic Research, 39 (4): 61-90. (In Persian).

8. Edgeworth F. Y. 1908. On the Probable Errors of Frequency Constants. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 71(4): 651-678

9. Feinberg R.1977. Risk-aversion, Risk and the Duration of Unemployment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 59(3): 264-271.

10. Fisher I. 1907.The Rate of Interest. Yale University, Published by MacMillan Company.

11. Ghosal V .1991. Demand uncertainty and the capital-labor ratio: evidence from the U.S. manufacturing sector. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73: 157-160.

12. Ghosal V .1995. Input choices under price uncertainty. Economic Inquiry, 33: 142-158.

13. Ghosal V. and Loungani P.1996. Product market competition and the impact of price uncertainty on investment: some evidence from US manufacturing industries. Journal of Industrial Economics, 44: 217 - 228.

14. Guiso L., Jappelli T. and Pistaferri L. 2002. An Empirical Analysis of Earnings and Employment Risk. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(2): 241-253

15. Halter A. N., and Dean G. W. 1971. Decisions under Uncertainty. Cincinnati: South Western Publishing Co.

16. Holthausen D. M. 1976. Input choices and uncertain demand. American Economic Review, 66: 94-103.

17. Just R.E., and Zillberman D. 1986. Does the law of supply hold under uncertainty? The Economic Journal, 96: 514-524.

18. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. 1979. Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263-292.

19. Karbasi A. and Piri M. 2008. The relationship between the price level of agricultural products and inflation uncertainty in Iran. Journal of Trade Studies, 12 (47): 111-140. (In Persian).

20. Keshavarz H. GH. 2003. Expectation, uncertainty and unequilibrium in Iranian agricultural products market (the case of potato and onion). Journal of Trade Studies, 7 (27): 29-57. (In Persian).

21. Khodadad K.F., and Shahiaki T. M. 2005. Measuring the competition degree in world market of selected traditional and agricultural products market. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 13 (51): 135-165. (in Persian).

22. Knight F.H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Boston. MA: Hart, Schaffner & Marx; Houghton Mifflin Co.

23. Macglothlin W. H. 1956. Stability of Choices among Uncertain Alternatives. American Journal of Psychology, 69: 604-615.

24. Mahmudgardi R., Zamanim O., Mortazavi S.A., and Heiman, N. 2011. The effect of real exchange rate uncertainty on private investment in agricultural sector. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 3 (12): 133-151. (in Persian).

25. Mehrabi B. H., and Javedan E. 2011. The effect of exchange rate uncertainty on agricultural sector growth in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 3(1): 27-46. (in Persian).

26. Menger C. 1871. Principles of Economics. New York University Press

27. Ramsey F. P. 1926. Truth and Probability. In Ramsey, 1931, the Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

28. Randhir O.T. 1991. Influence of risk on input use in south Indian tankfed farms. Indian journal of Agricultural Economics, 46: 57-63

29. Robison L. J., and Barry P.J. 1987. The Competitive firm’s response to risk. New York, Macmillan.

30. Serven L.1998. Macroeconomic Uncertainty and Private Investment in Developing Countries: An Empirical Investigation. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2035

31. Torkamani J. 1996. Intervening risk in agricultural economics planning, the application of risky planning. Journal of Agriculture Economics and Development, 4 (15): 113-130. (in Persian).

32. Torkamani J. 2000. Comparing and evaluating the major methods of determining the farmers' attitude to risk: the case of cattle farmers. Journal of agriculture economics and development, 8 (31): 31-55. (in Persian).

33. Torkamani J. 2009. Investigating the effect of agricultural products insurance on risk and income inequity: the case of Fars province farmers. Journal of Agriculture Economics, 1 (1): 17-34. (In Persian).

34. Torkamani J. and Musavi S.N. 2011. Investigating the effect of agricultural products insurance on production efficiency and risk management in agriculture. Journal of Agriculture Economics, 3 (1): 1-26. (in Persian).

35. Von Neumann J., and Morgenstern O.1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

36. White H. 1980. A heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48: 817-838.

37. Yazdani S., and Kiani R. A. 2004. Income insurance; a new model for managing the agricultural products risk. Journal of Agriculture Economics and Development, 12 (47): 47-79. (in Persian).