Family Structure, Policy Shocks, and Family Business Adjustment Choices
- 198 Downloads
This research used survey data collected between 2005 and 2006 in rural Kentucky to empirically investigate how different types of rural households in Kentucky cope with the changes in economic environment during the post-tobacco buyout by employing two different family business models, the Agricultural Household Model and the Sustainable Family Business Model. Data were analyzed using a multinomial probit model. The results indicate that multi-generational households were more likely to invest in low risk investments and less likely to employ a family member off-farm than couples with young children. Therefore, family structure plays an important part in the types of adjustment strategies chosen by farm families. The results also indicate that the Sustainable Family Business Model is a better predictor of the observed correlation between family structure and family farms’ choices of adaptation strategies.
KeywordsAdaptation strategies Family-business Family farms Tobacco buyout
- Beach, R. H., Jones, A. S., & Tooze, J. A. (2008). Tobacco farmer interest and success in income diversification. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 40(1), 53–71.Google Scholar
- Beach, R. H., Richmond, D. W., Austin, W. D., & Jones, A. S. (2006). How will tobacco farmers respond to the quota buyout? Findings from a survey of North Carolina tobacco farmers. Orlando, FL: Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
- Economic Research Service. (2010). Data set. State fact sheets: Kentucky. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/KY.htm.
- Foreman, L. (2005). Production costs and returns for tobacco in 2003. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Electronic outlook report TBS-258-01. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/TBS//2000s/2005/TBS-05-13-2005_Special_Report.pdf.
- Foreman, L. (2006). Production costs and returns for tobacco in 2004. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Electronic outlook report TBS-260-01. Retrieved May 17, 2009 from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/TBS//2000s/2006/TBS-08-04-2006_Special_Report.pdf.
- Gale, H. F., Jr., Foreman, L., & Capehart, T. (2000). Tobacco and the economy: farms, jobs, and communities. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic report no. 789.Google Scholar
- Marshall, M. I., & Pushkarskaya, H. (2008). What did they so with the money? An analysis of tobacco buyout recipients’ expenditure choices. Journal of Agribusiness, 26(2), 175–198.Google Scholar
- Pew Research Center Report. (2010). The return of the multi-generational family household. Retrieved March, 4, 2010, from http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/752/the-return-of-the-multi-generational-family-household.
- Scorsone, E. (2003). Encouraging entrepreneurship in rural communities: The University of Kentucky entrepreneurship initiative program. Journal of Extension, 41(6). Article 6IAW5 (on-line). Retrieved December, 7, 2008, from: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/iw5.shtml.
- Singh, I., Squire, L., & Strauss, J. (1986). A survey of agricultural household models: Recent findings and policy implications. The World Bank Economic Review, 1(1), 149–179.Google Scholar
- Snell, W. (2005). The buyout: Short-run observations and implications for Kentucky’s tobacco industry. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Google Scholar
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2008). Online database. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.bls.gov/.