IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v32y2010i2p338-354..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taxpayer Beliefs about Farm Income and Preferences for Farm Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Brenna D. Ellison
  • Jayson L. Lusk
  • Brian C. Briggeman

Abstract

One voice that is commonly overlooked in debates about farm policy and payment limitations is that of the average tax payer. Surprisingly little research has been done on what taxpayers believe about farms and what they prefer regarding farm policy. Our sample of taxpayers believes that farmers are doing well financially, and most people actually overestimate farmers' incomes. In addition, we found strong preferences for subsidizing small family farms over very large family farms, even though most of the people in our sample believe small family farms earn a higher level of income than their own household. A large majority of our sample supports government subsidies for farmers, primarily because people believe it ensures a secure food supply.

Suggested Citation

  • Brenna D. Ellison & Jayson L. Lusk & Brian C. Briggeman, 2010. "Taxpayer Beliefs about Farm Income and Preferences for Farm Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 338-354.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:32:y:2010:i:2:p:338-354.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppp014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    2. Tatyana Deryugina & Barrett Kirwan, 2018. "Does The Samaritan'S Dilemma Matter? Evidence From U.S. Agriculture," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(2), pages 983-1006, April.
    3. Klaus Mittenzwei & Stefan Mann & Karen Refsgaard & Valborg Kvakkestad, 2016. "Hot cognition in agricultural policy preferences in Norway?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(1), pages 61-71, March.
    4. Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "The political ideology of food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 530-542.
    5. Williams, John & McSweeney, Peter & Salmon, Robert, 2014. "Australian Farm Investment: Domestic and Overseas Issues," Papers 234408, University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Land and Environment.
    6. Eriksson, Clas, 2011. "Home bias in preferences and the political economics of agricultural protection," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 92(1).
    7. Moritz Bosbach & Ornella Wanda Maietta & Hannah Marquardt, 2015. "Domestic Food Purchase Bias: A Cross-Country Case Study of Germany, Italy and Serbia," CSEF Working Papers 409, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    8. Peter Slade, 2021. "The impact of price hedging on subsidized insurance: Evidence from Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 69(4), pages 447-464, December.
    9. Busch, Gesa & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Farmer share and fair distribution in food chains from a consumer’s perspective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 149-158.
    10. Christian Bredemeier, 2014. "Imperfect information and the Meltzer-Richard hypothesis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 561-576, June.
    11. Russell, Levi A., 2018. "Ideology, Electoral Incentives, PAC Contributions, and the Agricultural Act of 2014," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(2), May.
    12. Ellison Brenna & Lusk Jayson L & Briggeman Brian, 2010. "Other-Regarding Behavior and Taxpayer Preferences for Farm Policy," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, October.
    13. Mark, Tyler B. & Detre, Joshua & D'Antoni, Jeremy & Mishra, Ashok, 2012. "Factors Influencing Farm Operator Expectations on Future Levels of Government Support," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2012, pages 1-17.
    14. Clas Eriksson, 2011. "Home bias in preferences and the political economics of agricultural protection," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(1), pages 5-23.
    15. Collart, Alba J. & Ishee, Shea G. & Coble, Keith H., 2021. "Divvying Up the Pie: U.S. Adults’ Preferences for USDA Expenditures in 2018," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(3), September.
    16. Moon, Wanki & Saldias, Gabriel Pino, 2013. "Public Preferences about Agricultural Protectionism in the US," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150718, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:apecpp:v:32:y:2010:i:2:p:338-354.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.