Journal of Family and Economic Issues

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 414–426 | Cite as

Family Structure, Policy Shocks, and Family Business Adjustment Choices

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Adaptation strategies Family-business Family farms Tobacco buyout 

References

  1. Alderman, H., Chiappori, P.-A., Haddad, L., & Hoddinott, J. (1995). Unitary versus collective models of the household: Is it time to shift the burden of proof? World Bank Research Observer, 10(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amarapurkar, S. S., & Danes, S. M. (2005). Farm business-owning couples: Interrelationships among business tensions, relationship conflict quality, and spousal satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26(3), 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Chaulk, B., Johnson, P. J., & Bulcroft, R. (2003). Effects of marriage and children on financial risk tolerance: A synthesis of family development and prospect theory. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 24(3), 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Janvry, A., Fafchamps, M., & Sadoulet, E. (1991). Peasant household behavior with missing markets: Some paradoxes explained. The Economic Journal, 101(409), 1400–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Economic Research Service. (2010). Data set. State fact sheets: Kentucky. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/KY.htm.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. Jianakoplos, N. A., & Bernasek, A. (2008). Family financial risk taking when the wife earns more. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(2), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joo, S.-H., & Grable, J. E. (2004). An exploratory framework of the determinants of financial satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kumbhakar, S. C., & Bokusheva, R. (2009). Modeling farm production decisions under an expenditure constraint. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36, 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacDonald, M., & Koh, S. K. (2003). Consistent motives for inter-family transfers: Simple altruism. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 24(1), 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Moen, P., & Wethington, E. (1992). The concept of family adaptive strategies. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.
  18. Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behavior in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 605–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sanders, C. K., & Porterfield, S. L. (2010). The ownership society and women: Exploring female householders’ ability to accumulate assets. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(1), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. Snell, W. (2005). The buyout: Short-run observations and implications for Kentucky’s tobacco industry. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Google Scholar
  23. Stafford, K., Duncan, K. A., Dane, S., & Winter, M. (1999). A research model of sustainable family businesses. Family Business Review, 12(3), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taylor, J. E., & Adelman, I. (2003). Agricultural household models: Genesis, evolution, and extensions. Review of Economics of the Household, 1, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2008). Online database. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.bls.gov/.
  26. Weigel, R. R. (1988). Coping with economic stress: Implications for helping professionals. Lifestyles: Family and Economic Issues, 9, 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yusof, S. A., & Duasa, J. (2010). Household decision-making and expenditure patterns of married men and women in Malaysia. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(3), 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EconomicsPurdue UniversityLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations