Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2233-4165(Print)
ISSN : 2233-5382(Online)
Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business Vol.8 No.6 pp.87-95
DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.13106/ijidb.2017.vol8.no6.87.

An Analysis Regarding Trends of Dualism in Korean Agriculture

Jae-Hoon Sung*, ung-Hwi Woo**
*First Author, Research fellow, Korea Rural Economic Institute, Tel: +82-61-820-2348, E-mail: Jsung@krei.re.kr
**Co-Author, Research assistant, Korea Rural Economic Institute.
September 15, 2017. November 9, 2017. November 15, 2017.

Abstract

Purpose – The structural changes of Korean agriculture are complex due to heterogeneous production processes and farms’ features. This study analyzed trends of dualism in Korean agriculture over the period 2000-15 based on farm-level data to clarify the specific trends of dualism in terms of farm income, farm-size, and farm operators’ age. From the results of this study, we would be able to understand the features of structural changes in Korean agriculture more profoundly.
Research design, data, and methodology – We incorporated farm-level data in South Korea: Agricultural census and Farm household economy survey. As measures of inequality, we used size-weighted quantiles, and normalized Gini coefficients as well as mean and conventional quantiles. The size-weighted quantiles are more robust to changes in the number of small farms, but they are more sensitive to changes in the distribution of farm-size. Thus, they would be more useful to identify trends of dualism of Korean agriculture.
Results - The results show that the farmland distribution of crop farms became more skewed and dispersed. However, the herd distribution of livestock farms became more concentrated. To be specific, their mean and 1st quantile increases more rapidly than their size-weighted 2nd quantile and size-weighted 3rd quantile. Gini coefficients of livestock farms regarding their herd distribution decreased by 0.1 on average. In the case of income distribution, the results indicate that the polarization regarding farm household/agricultural/non-agricultural income became more severe. However, we also found that the distribution of transfer income became concentrated continuously. The results imply that transfer income including subsidies would decrease farm income polarization. Lastly, during the study periods, Korean farms were aging over time, and age distribution of them more concentrated.
Conclusions – The structure of Korean agriculture has been changing, even though the absolute size of it decreased over time. Land (herd) distribution became more dispersed (concentrated). Inequality regarding agricultural income became more severe, and it made farm household income more polarized even though transfer income would decrease income gaps among farms. Lastly, farms continue to age regardless of farm types and this might affect the structural changes in Korean agriculture in the future.

JEL Classifications: Q10, Q12, D31.

농업생산 양극화 추이에 대한 연구

성재훈*, 우성휘**

초록


 

Figure

Table

Reference

  1. Berrebi, Z. M., & Silber, J. (1985). The Gini Coefficient and Negative Income: A comment. Oxford Economics Papers, 37(3), 525-526.
  2. Bokusheva, R., & Kimura, S. (2016). Cross-Country Comparison of Farm Size Distribution. OECD Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries Papers 94. OECD Publishing.
  3. Chen, C. N., Tsaur, T. W., & Rhai, T. S. (1982). The Gini coefficient and negative income. Oxford Economic Papers, 34(3), 473-478.
  4. Dong, F., Hennessy, D. A., Jensen, H. H., & Volpe, R. J. (2016). Technical efficiency, herd size, and exit intentions in US dairy farms. Agricultural Economics, 47(5), 533-545.
  5. Go, G. S., & Kim, Y. S. (2016). An Analysis of Inequality of Farm Income by Gini Decomposition. Korean Journal of Agricultural Management and Policy, 43(4), 733-758.
  6. Hansen, H. (2013). Using the hectare-weighted median (mid-point) as a measure for farmland concentration: Evidence for Germany. Presentation at the 12th meeting of the OECD Network for Farm-level Analysis, 12-13 November 2013, Paris.
  7. Hwang, E. S., Kim, M. B., Gouk, S. Y., & Choi, Y. J. (2016). Strategy for Encouraging Investment in Agricultural Sector for Future Growth of Korean Agriculture (Year 1 of 2). Research Paper R796, Korea Rural Economic Institute.
  8. Jeon, J. S., & Kim, J. H. (2008). Analysis on Regional Phenomena of Bi-polarization in Farm Income. Korean Journal of Agricultural Management and Policy, 35, 91-120.
  9. Jung, J. H., & Cho, H. J. (2012). Income Polarization of Korean Households: A Comparison by Age of Farm Manager and Income Source. Korean Journal of Agricultural Management and Policy, 39, 420-450.
  10. Kang, H. J., & Kwon, O. S. (2008). Analysis of Farm Income Bi-polarization. Korean Journal of Agriculture Economics, 49, 39-60.
  11. Key, N. D., & Roberts, M. J. (2007). Commodity payments, farm business survival, and farm size growth. Economic Research Report 51, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  12. Kim, K. D., Kim, J. H., & Kim, J. S. (2012). Retrospect and Prospect of Structural Change in Korean Agriculture: An Analysis of Agricultural Census (2000, 2005, 2010). Research Paper R686, Korea Rural Economic Institute.
  13. Lund, P., & Price, R. (1998). The measurement of average farm size. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(1), 100-110.
  14. MacDonald, J. M., Korb, P., & Hoppe, R. A. (2013). Farm size and the organization of US crop farming, Economic Research Report 152, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  15. Melhim, A., O’Donoghue, E. J., & Shumway, C. R. (2009). Do the largest firms grow and diversify the fastest? The case of US dairies. Review of agricultural economics, 31(2), 284-302.
  16. Raffinetti, E., Siletti, E., & Vernizzi, A. (2015). On the Gini coefficient normalization when incomes with negative values are considered. Statistical Methods & Applications, 24(3), 507-521.
  17. Sumner, D. A. (2014). American farms keep growing: Size, productivity, and policy. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 147-166.
  18. Sumner, D. A., & Leiby, J. D. (1987). An econometric analysis of the effects of human capital on size and growth among dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(2), 465-470.
  19. Summer, D. A., & Wolf, C. A. (2002). Diversification, vertical integration, and the regional pattern of dairy farm size. Review of Agricultural Economics, 24(2), 442-457.
  20. Wolf, C. A., & Sumner, D. A. (2001). Are farm size distributions bimodal? Evidence from kernel density estimates of dairy farm size distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(1), 77-88.
  21. Yee, J., & Ahearn, M. C. (2005). Government policies and farm size: Does the size concept matter?. Applied Economics, 37(19), 2231-2238.