IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pid/journl/v39y2000i1p51-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Price-support Programme on Farm Tenancy Patterns and Farm Profitability: Some Evidence from Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Naziruddin Abdullah

    (International Islamic University, Gombak, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.)

Abstract

Translog normalised restricted profit function model is specified and estimated for the four rice granary areas, each administered by a local government body, namely, the MIP, the KIP, the NWSP, and the KEIP, in which the price-support programme has some noticeable effects on farm tenancy and farms profitability. So far, there have been no empirical studies that have used this methodological framework to analyse such economic phenomenon in Malaysia. This, in fact, is the main contribution of the present paper. From the estimated function, the shadow values of land and labour are computed, which in turn are used to elucidate the behaviour of rice farmers in Malaysia. Together, the estimated and computed results, to a large extent, are successful in explaining the observed changes in farm tenancy patterns and the way the farmers (comprised of owneroperator, owner-tenant, and tenant-farmer) are “economically” responding to the sum of profits generated from rice farming and, subsequently, from the programme. Further, given the price-support programme, the results also point to the fact that rice farming in Malaysia is as lucrative a job as any other sub-sector outside this, in particular unskilled urban workers and electronics workers, and thus this programme could be pursued further.

Suggested Citation

  • Naziruddin Abdullah, 2000. "The Effects of Price-support Programme on Farm Tenancy Patterns and Farm Profitability: Some Evidence from Malaysia," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 39(1), pages 51-72.
    • Handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:39:y:2000:i:1:p:51-72
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/PDR/2000/Volume1/51-72.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert W. Herdt & Willard W. Cochrane, 1966. "Farm Land Prices and Farm Technological Advance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 48(2), pages 243-263.
    2. Bardhan, P K & Srinivasan, T N, 1971. "Cropsharing Tenancy in Agriculture: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 48-64, March.
    3. Haughton, Jonathan, 1986. "Farm price responsiveness and the choice of functional form : An application to rice cultivation in West Malaysia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 203-223, December.
    4. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input, and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(365), pages 73-86, March.
    5. B. Delworth Gardner & Rulon D. Pope, 1978. "How is Scale and Structure Determined in Agriculture?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 60(2), pages 295-302.
    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. Muhammad Irfan, 2010. "A Review of the Labour Market Research at PIDE 1957-2009," PIDE Books, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, number 2010:1 edited by Rashid Amjad & Aurangzeb A. Hashmi.

    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. Barnett, William A. & Erwin Diewert, W. & Zellner, Arnold, 2011. "Introduction to measurement with theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 161(1), pages 1-5, March.
    2. Jan Kluge & Sarah Lappöhn & Kerstin Plank, 2023. "Predictors of TFP growth in European countries," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 50(1), pages 109-140, February.
    3. Zaim, Osman & Uygurtürk Gazel, Tuğçe & Akkemik, K. Ali, 2017. "Measuring energy intensity in Japan: A new method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 778-789.
    4. Zanella, Andreia & Camanho, Ana S. & Dias, Teresa G., 2015. "Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 517-530.
    5. Shuhua Zhang & Bingjun Li & Yingjie Yang, 2021. "Efficiency Analysis of Scientific and Technological Innovation in Grain Production Based on Improved Grey Incidence Analysis," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2001. "To Be Or Not To Be Innovative: An Exercise In Measurement," Research Memorandum 038, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Wolfgang Keller, 2002. "Geographic Localization of International Technology Diffusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 120-142, March.
    8. Aghayi, Nazila & Maleki, Bentolhoda, 2016. "Efficiency measurement of DMUs with undesirable outputs under uncertainty based on the directional distance function: Application on bank industry," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 376-387.
    9. Henry van der Wiel & Harold Creusen & George van Leeuwen & Eugene Van der Pijll, 2012. "The Dutch Productivity Performance: Cross Your Border and Look Around," Chapters, in: Matilde Mas & Robert Stehrer (ed.), Industrial Productivity in Europe, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Sourafel Girma & Holger Görg, 2022. "Productivity effects of processing and ordinary export market entry: A time‐varying treatments approach," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 836-853, August.
    11. Krasachat, W., 2000. "Production Structure and Technical Change in Thai Agriculture, 1972-1994," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123688, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Ito, Keiko, 2004. "Foreign ownership and plant productivity in the Thai automobile industry in 1996 and 1998: a conditional quantile analysis," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 321-353, April.
    13. Matthias Arnold, Jens & Javorcik, Beata S., 2009. "Gifted kids or pushy parents? Foreign direct investment and plant productivity in Indonesia," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 42-53, September.
    14. Xu He & Qin-Lei Jing, 2022. "The Impact of Environmental Tax Reform on Total Factor Productivity of Heavy-Polluting Firms Based on a Dual Perspective of Technological Innovation and Capital Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-17, November.
    15. Martin Berka & Michael B. Devereux & Charles Engel, 2018. "Real Exchange Rates and Sectoral Productivity in the Eurozone," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1543-1581, June.
    16. Aparicio, Juan & Santin, Daniel, 2018. "A note on measuring group performance over time with pseudo-panels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 227-235.
    17. Sergey Lychagin & Joris Pinkse & Margaret E. Slade & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Spillovers in Space: Does Geography Matter?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 295-335, June.
    18. Denis Lawrence & Anya Richards, 2004. "Distributing the Gains from Waterfront Productivity Improvements," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 80(s1), pages 43-52, September.
    19. Helen Simpson, 2009. "Productivity In Public Services," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 250-276, April.
    20. Nadiri, M. Ishaq & Prucha, Ingmar R., 1990. "Dynamic factor demand models, productivity measurement, and rates of return: Theory and an empirical application to the US Bell System," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 263-289, December.

    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:pid:journl:v:39:y:2000:i:1:p:51-72. 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: Khurram Iqbal (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pideipk.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.