اثرپذیری سیاست های حمایتی کشاورزی بر تولید برنج در ایران

فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی

مقاله 9، دوره 4، شماره 15، مهر و آبان 1391، صفحه 207-220   

نویسندگان

سیدحامد سادات باریکانی^{* 1}؛ آرش آذری²

¹کارشناس ارشد اقتصاد کشاورزی و پژوهشگر موسسه پژوهش های برنامه ریزی،اقتصاد کشاورزی و توسعه روستایی

²کارشناس ارشد اقتصاد کشاورزی

تاریخ دریافت: 25 آذر 1394،  تاریخ پذیرش: 25 آذر 1394 

چکیده

با توجه به اهمیت بخش کشاورزی در تولید و ایجاد امنیت غذایی، اکثر کشورهای جهان و از جمله ایران از راه‌های مختلف این بخش را مورد حمایت قرار می‌دهند. نگاهی به روند تولید، مصرف و واردات در کشور نشان می‌دهد که به‌رغم رشد تولیدات، ایران همچنان یکی از بزرگترین واردکنندگان برخی از محصولات زراعی در جهان است. لذا این پرسش وجود دارد که سیاست‌های حمایتی تا چه حد توانسته است موجب افزایش تولید و عملکرد محصولات زراعی در کشور گردد. ازاین‌رو در این مطالعه، میزان کل حمایت داخلی(AMS) برنج طی دوره‌ی 1388-1368 محاسبه شده و با استفاده از روش علیت گرنجری هسیائو، وجود رابطه‌ی علیت بین میزان حمایت‌ها و میزان رشد تولید مورد آزمون قرار گرفته است. همچنین با بهره‌گیری از الگوی تصحیح خطا، روابط بلندمدت بین متغیرها بررسی گردید. نتایج تحقیق حاکی از آن‌ است که رشد حمایت‌ها بر رشد تولید برنج و رشد عملکرد تولید تأثیری نداشته است. این در حالی است که رشد حمایت‌ها موجب رشد سطح زیر کشت این محصول در دوره‌ی مطالعه شده است. بنابراین تجدید نظر در سیاست‌های حمایتی به‌منظور انتقال یارانه‌ها از مرحله‌ی تولید به سایر مراحل نظیر بازاریابی و توزیع پیشنهاد می‌گردد. برای اثرپذیری بیشتر، سیاست‌های حمایتی پیشنهاد می-گردد و این سیاست‌های حمایتی معطوف به افزایش عملکرد گردد. وضع قیمت تضمینی بالاتر برای ارقام پرمحصول نسبت به قیمت بازاری ارقام سنتی و همچنین نسبت به قیمت بازاری ارقام پرمصرف، از جمله‌ی این اقدامات است. از طرفی پیشنهاد می‌شود تا سیاست‌های حمایتی نهاده‌ای با هدف بهبود تکنولوژی تولید وضع و به مرحله‌ی اجرا درآید.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

سیاست‌های حمایتی؛ شاخص AMS؛ رابطه علیت؛ روش هسیائو؛ الگوی تصحیح خطا

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effectiveness of Support Policies on the Production of Rice in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

S. H. Sadatbarikani¹؛ A. Azari²

چکیده [English]

Considering the importance of agricultural sector in food production and safety, countries, including Iran, support this sector in different ways .Looking at the trend of production, consumption and imports in Iran, show that the despite of production to be growing, Iran still stands as one of the largest importers of agricultural products in the world. The basic discussable question is “how the great costs of applying supports by government policies could be effective on crop production and yield?” Accordingly, in this study, AMS for rice is calculated during 1989-2009 and existence of causality relationship between amount of support and production growth of the products was investigated by using Hsiao's granger causality method. The results indicate that have not had an effect on the production and yield, althouqh the causality relationship between supports enhance and acreage growth was observed. Therefore, a review into the support policies and transmission of subsidies from early stages production to other levels such as marketing, distributing and etc, is suggested. To achieve more efficiency, support policies should aim to increase the yield applaying. A higher guaranteed purchase price, for high yielding varieties rather than the market price for traditional varieties and a set of support policies aimed at improving the production technology are suggested.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Support policies, AMS, causality relationship, Hsiao's method, error correction model

مراجع

1. Azari, A. 2008. Computing Aggregate Measure of Support and

it's Causal Relation with thw Growth of Agricultural Products.

M.Sc. Thesis of Agricultural Economics. Department of

Agricultural Economics. Faculity of Economic and Agricultural

Development. University Collage of Agriculture and Natural

Resource. University of Tehran. (In Persian)

2. Bastaki, M and Sadeghi, H. 2001. Masear ing the Effect s of

Government Intervention in Pricing Livestock Products: A Case

Study of Chicken Meat in Iran. Journal of Agricultural

Economics and Devepolment. 37 (10): 53-82. (In Persian)

3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food

and Agricultural Commodities Production Statistics. The

Statistics Division. Different Years.

4. Ganawardana, P.J and Oczkowski, E.A. 1992. Government

Policies and Agricultural Supply Response: Paddy in Seri Lanka.

Journal of Agricultural Economics. 43 (2): 231-242.

5. Granger, C.W.J. 1986. Development in the Study of Cointegrated

Economic Variables. Oxford Bulltin of Economics and Statistics.

48 (7): 213-228

6. Granger, C.W.J. 1988. Some Recent Development in a Concept

of Causality. Journal of Econometrics. 39 (2): 199-211.

7. Hosseini, S.S. 1998. Iranian Wheat Policy: Implications for

Trade. Orld Trade Organization. Westview Press. (In Persian)

8. Hosseini, S.S and Torshizi, M. 2009. An Evaluation of Wheat

Support Policy in Iran. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics

and Development Research. 40 (2): 1-11. (In Persian)

9. Houck, J.P and Ryan, M.E. 1972. The Impact of Changing

Government Program. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics. 54 (2): 184-191.

10. Hsiao, C. 1981. Autoregressive Modeling and Money-Income

Causality Detection. Journal of Monetary Economics. 7 (1): 85-

106

11. Islamic Republic of Iran Customs Administration. Foreign Trade

Statistics Yearbook of Iran. Various Years. (In Persian)

12. Ministry of Agriculture. The Cost of Agricultural Production

Systems. Department of Planning and Support. Administration of

Statistics. Various Years. (In Persian)

13. Myles, A.E and Carter, R. 2011. Economic Impact of the 32nd

Annual Peter Anderson Arts and Crafts Festival. Ocean Springs,

Mississippi. Southern Agricultural Economics Association. 2012

Annual Meeting. February 4-7. Birmingham. Alabama.

14. Najafi, B.A. 2000. Government Policies on Rice; Problems and

Recommendations. Journal of Agricultural Economics and

Development. 8 (31): 7-30. (In Persian)

15. Najafi, B.A. 2001. Study of the Government 's Wheat policies;

Chalanges and Remidies. 9 (34): 7-32. (in Persian)

16. Najafi, B.A. 2002. The Government's Protective Price Policy on

Sugarbeet; Problems and Remedies. Journal of Agricultural

Economics and Development. 10 (39): 27-42. (In Persian)

17. Noori Naeini, S.M.S and Pedram, S. 1993. Domestic Supply of

Wheat and Its Determinants. Journal of Agricultural Economics

and Development. 1 (2): 52-74. (In Persian)

18. Rahmati, A. 2000. Effects of Supportive Government Policies on

the Supply of Agricultural Products with Emphasis on Wheat,

Rice, Sugar Beet and Cotton. MS Thesis of Agricultural

Economics. Faculity of Agriculture. University of Shiraz. (In

Persian)

19. Salami, H. 2000. Effects of WTO Mebership on the Agricultural

Sector and the Economy of Iran: A CGE Analysis. Agricultural

Planning and Economic Research Institute. Ministry of

Agriculture. Tehran. Iran. (In Persian)

20. Salami, H and Eshraghi, F. 2002. Effects of Price Suport Policies

on Crops Production Growth in Iran: An Analysis Using

Multiplicative Decomposition Method. Journal of Agricultural

Economics and Devepolment. 36 (9): 7-22. (In Persian)

21. Shemshadi, K. 2006. The Effect of the Subsidy Policy on Wheat

Production. MSc Thesis. Facuity of Agriculture. University of

tarbiat Modarres. (In Persian)

22. Takahashi, D and Honma M. 2009. Evaluation of the Japanese

Rice Policy Reforms under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.

Iternational Association of Agricultural Economists. 2009

Conference. August 16-22. Beijing. China.

23. Yang, S and Ku, W. 1994. Impact of Removing Fertilizer Subsidy

and Procurement Program on the Indonesian Rice Economy. 

Agricultural Economics Reports. No 321. North Dakota State

University. Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.

24. Yoshihisa, G. 2012. Evaluation of Japanese Agricultural Policy

Reforms Under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.

International Association of Agricultural Economists. 2012

Conference. August 18-24. Foz do Iguaçu. Brazil.