Macedonia Dr Marjan Petreski UNCTAD Vi seminar on trade and poverty 810 September 2014 G eneva Switzerland Agenda Introduction of researcher and policymakers Background and motivation Objectives ID: 414753
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Increasing the welfare effect of the agr..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Increasing the welfare effect of the agricultural subsidy program for food crops in Macedonia
Dr. Marjan Petreski
UNCTAD Vi seminar on trade and poverty
8-10 September, 2014
G
eneva
, SwitzerlandSlide2
AgendaIntroduction of researcher and policymakers
Background and motivationObjectivesSurvey overviewReferent literature
Methodology
Findings
Policy recommendations Slide3
Introduction of researcher and policymakersMarjan Petreski
Asst. prof. in Macroeconomics and EconometricsResearch focused on macro phenomena, in the last period making a switch toward micro-phenomena (mainly due to micro-data becoming more available)
Nikica
Mojsoska-Blazevski
Prime advisor to the Minister of
Labour
and Social Policy
Biljana
Trajkovska
State advisor for strategic planning in the Ministry of
Labour
and Social Policy
Margarita
Deleva
State advisor for rural development in the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water ManagementSlide4
Background and motivationImportance of wheat, maize and rice for Macedonian households
24.5% of Macedonian households farm one or more of these cropsmore
than 50% of rural households spend more than 10% of the budget on
them
Poverty rate is estimated at 27.1% in 2011
Very
large part of poor household income is spent on crop food commodities and their products
.Slide5
Background and motivation (2)Prices and quantities
The aforementioned commodities experienced large price increases between 2006 and 2012:
maize
(165%); wheat (118%); and rice (76
%)
However
, the production of food commodities has been declining since
the shift away from the
planning system
in
1990s and is, on average, 60% of the production
levels in 1991.
Rising
prices were
not enough
to drag production upSlide6Slide7
Background and motivation (3)
Government subsidiesambitious agenda for subsidizing agriculture enacted in late 2006 - budget
funds reaching 4.5% of total
gov’t
expenditures in 2011 from virtual zero back in 2006.
An
overarching objective
to
improve the living conditions and incomes, by targeting those who are predominantly living or temporary migrating to the rural areas.
Linear subsidization with sums per ha without prior analysis of the needs and optimal amounts
150
EUR per cultivated hectare up to 10 ha of cultivated land, which then drops to 90 EUR/ha for 10-50 ha; 45 EUR/ha for 50-100 ha; and 15 EUR/ha for above 100
ha
No special eligibility conditions apply for the type of households producing these staple foods
Effects, however, to a large extent,
unsatisfactorySlide8
Policy questions
What are the likely effects of the observed change in the level of food crop prices on households’ welfare in Macedonia?
What
are the likely effects of the government subsidy program on welfare and could another pattern of subsidies’ disbursement
improve the
impact on welfare of households? Slide9
MethodologyThe change in welfare following a change in prices for a household is:
Δwi=Δp[(
prod
i
-cons
i
)+
ηL
i
]
A
simple methodology outlined by Singh et al. (1986) and Deaton (1989a, 1997)
subsequently
widely
applied:
Barret
and
Dorosh
, 1996; Budd, 1993;
Ivanic
and Martin, 2008;
Wodon
et al. 2008;
Klytchnikova
and Diop,
2010Slide10
Methodology (2)We identify
which households, in which part of the income distribution and for which specific crop food commodity may benefit most of agricultural subsidies
Based
on
findings
, we propose a
different scheme
for disbursement
for the same
amount of agricultural subsidies
in 2012
i.e
. we
target specific
groups
(households)
instead of
a linear disbursement
to
everyone
We use the 2011 Household Budget SurveySlide11
ResultsWe present welfare effects:
for rising prices of wheat, maize and rice;for the government subsidies for these crops;
and for a new proposed scheme for subsidies’ disbursementSlide12
Welfare effects of rising prices- wheat and maize -
Negative welfare effect of the rising prices for urban households
the effect being more pronounced for the female-headed urban households
On the other hand, the overall welfare effect for rural households is positive
the effect being only negative for the female-headed rural households in roughly the first quarter of the income distribution.Slide13
Welfare effects of rising prices (2) - rice -
Urban households are negatively affected by the price increase along the entire income distributiondo not produce rice, or produce only negligibly
The result for rural households is mixed:
only the poorest households are slightly negatively affected
nevertheless, the poorest female-headed households, approximately half of them, experience a negative welfare changeSlide14
Welfare effects of the introduction of government subsidies- wheat and maize -
Important effects of the agricultural subsidy program for wheat and maize
the subsidy effect may range up to 60% of the total income for the poorest rural male-headed households
this share then reduces to 20-30% for male-headed households around the second quintile of the income distribution and
reduces to zero afterwards
As female-headed rural households were found not to be largely engaged in wheat-maize production
the effect of the subsidy is small (about 10%) for the lowest two quintiles
somehow rises to 15-18% for the third quintile and
then reduces to zeroSlide15
Welfare effects of the introduction of government subsidies (2)- wheat and maize -
Given limited production of rice, the effect of the government subsidy is also small or negligible
mainly because both poorest male- and female-headed rural households were found to be larger consumers than producers of riceSlide16
Estimated subsidiesSlide17
Combined effectSlide18
New scheme for subsidies’ disbursement
Three lines of thought given above findings:The poorest female-headed rural households should be targeted in priority to get them into the production of wheat and maize;
All rice producers should be targeted with possibly larger subsidy per cultivated hectare for male-headed rural households in the first decile and female-headed counterparts in the first two quintiles of the income distribution;
Poorest urban households should be considered by the program for wheat and maize (the rice production being rather specific), with more intense targeting of the female-headed ones
assuming the possibility for the agricultural program to be accompanied by a program for a usufruct of a state-owned land and one of subsidies for purchase of the minimum equipment for agricultural productionSlide19Slide20
Welfare impact of the new scheme- wheat and maize -
The new scheme produces a sizeable effect for the targeted urban households the (small) ‘intervention’ by the government turns the welfare effect from significantly negative to significantly positive
e
ffects are particularly large because these households are usually inhabited in smaller towns and can relatively easily be engaged in agricultural production
Targeted female-headed rural households may also reap large benefits if larger production is adopted
households would need to increase their wheat-maize production from presently very low amounts to at least the average of about 1.15 cultivated hectaresSlide21
Welfare impact of the new scheme- rice -
Two important caveats with regard to the cultivation of rice and subsequently to the proposed schemeUrban households are unlikely to be steered to produce rice even with offering free-of-charge state-owned land or additional subsidies for initial investment in machinery – specific process
The proposed scheme targets all rural households (producers or not) – ambitious: specific regions
Hence, overestimated results
Though, results suggest that the effects of a well-targeted subsidy program for rice may be sizeable
For the female-headed poor rural households, the overall welfare effect turns into significantly positive and increases considerably the household income.Slide22
Estimated subsidies – new schemeSlide23
Conclusions
Results suggest that rising prices for all wheat, maize and rice exerted positive welfare effects for the male-headed rural households onlyWhile the effect for the female-headed rural and all urban households has been generally negative
On the other hand, the welfare effect of the government subsidy program for wheat and maize has been positive for all rural households, but fairly larger for male-headed ones.
The one for rice has rather limited effects, largely due to the small offered subsidy amount versus the large effort needed for the cultivation of rice.
Overall, both price and subsidy effects were found positive only for the rural male-headed households.Slide24
Conclusions (2)
New subsidies scheme:targeting female-headed rural households for both cropsmale-headed rural households for rice
aiming to steer non-producers into production where possible through larger subsidy per cultivated hectare
all poor urban households for wheat
for the poor urban households, we also propose a possibility for a usufruct of state-owned land and initial subsidy for investment in machinery/seed
Results
:
significant welfare effect for poor urban households for wheat-maize ranging up to 30-40% of the initial income
targeting poor female-headed rural households may elevate the impact up to half that of males
the effect for poor rural rice producers may be also large – up to 20% of the household income - assuming the effort needed for starting off a rice production.Slide25
Policy recommendationsPut particular emphasis on poor female-headed rural households for both wheat and rice production;
Increase the subsidy for rice production due to its specific conditions for cultivation and large effort needed; andOffer the usufruct of state-owned land and start-off grants for poor urban households to get them into the production of wheat and maizeSlide26
Thank you for your attention!marjan.petreski@uacs.edu.mk