Abstract
This paper uses panel data from a sample of farm households in the northeastern China to examine the non-fungibility of different income sources. The results show the private transfer income has a high and significant impact on household consumption while agricultural subsidy and disaster relief have insignificant impacts. Empirical findings prove that the Behavioral Life Cycle Hypothesis is more practical than the Life Cycle Hypothesis. Moreover, they provide important macro policy implications as for how to stimulate farm consumption and expand domestic demand and encourage economic growth.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1153-1166 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | International Food and Agribusiness Management Review |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
Keywords
- Agricultural subsidy
- Behavioral life cycle hypothesis
- Disaster relief
- Farm household consumption
- Marginal propensity to consume
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Are different income sources fungible? The effects of agricultural subsidy and disaster relief on household consumption in China'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver