IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jloagb/90641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Did They Do with the Money? An Analysis of Tobacco Buyout Recipients’ Expenditure Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Marshall, Maria I.
  • Pushkarskaya, Helen N.

Abstract

There are many expenditure options available to farmers who received a tobacco buyout check. A multinomial probit model is used to analyze how farmer, business, and household characteristics influence the choice of expenditure option. Results of the study show that farmers tend to use the tobacco buyout payments as a special income account which they spend in a focused manner, and their expenditure choices vary by gender and by age groups. Findings also reveal that farmers who plan to stay in tobacco production are more likely to invest in new or existing on-farm activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Marshall, Maria I. & Pushkarskaya, Helen N., 2008. "What Did They Do with the Money? An Analysis of Tobacco Buyout Recipients’ Expenditure Choices," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 26(2), pages 1-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jloagb:90641
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.90641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/90641/files/JAB_Fall08__07_pp175-198.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.90641?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Helen Pushkarskaya & Maria Marshall, 2010. "Family Structure, Policy Shocks, and Family Business Adjustment Choices," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 414-426, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    2. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    3. Heribert Gierl & Christina Eleftheriadou, 2005. "Asymmetrisch überlegene Stockouts als Phantomprodukte," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 475-502, September.
    4. Li, Eric A.L., 2014. "Test for the real option in consumer behavior," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 70-83.
    5. S³awomir Czech, 2016. "Choice Overload Paradox And Public Policy Design. The Case Of Swedish Pension System," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(3), pages 559-584, September.
    6. Ofir, Chezy & Simonson, Itamar & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2007. "Customer Compliance with Presumed Market Research Goals: Motivational Drivers of Negative Service Evaluations," Research Papers 1962, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:51-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. van Putten, Marloes & Lijesen, Mark & Özel, Tanju & Vink, Nancy & Wevers, Harm, 2014. "Valuing the preferences for micro-generation of renewables by househoulds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 596-604.
    9. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    10. Rajagopal, 2008. "Consumer response to seasonal clearance sales: experimental analysis of consumer personality traits in self-service stores," Global Business and Economics Review, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 68-92.
    11. Buturak, Gökhan & Evren, Özgür, 2017. "Choice overload and asymmetric regret," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), September.
    12. Peschel, Anne O. & Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele, 2015. "A Behavioral Approach to Understanding Green Consumerism Using Latent Class Choice Analysis," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202727, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Thomas Dohmen & Georgios Gerasimou, 2024. "Learning to Maximize (Expected) Utility," Papers 2402.16538, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    14. GOOS, Peter & VERMEULEN, Bart & VANDEBROEK, Martina, 2008. "D-optimal conjoint choice designs with no-choice options for a nested logit model," Working Papers 2008020, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    15. Mohammad Rashed Hasan Polas & Ratul Kumar Saha & Mosab I. Tabash, 2022. "How does tourist perception lead to tourist hesitation? Empirical evidence from Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 3659-3686, March.
    16. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    17. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Nobuo Koida, 2017. "A multiattribute decision time theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 407-430, October.
    19. Hristina Nikolova & Cait Lamberton, 2016. "Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 355-371.
    20. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Die Zufriedenheit mit dem Entscheidungsprozess als Determinante der Kundenbindung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 530-566, August.
    21. Johannes D. Hattula & Walter Herzog & Ravi Dhar, 2023. "The impact of touchscreen devices on consumers’ choice confidence and purchase likelihood," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 35-53, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jloagb:90641. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaggea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.