Investigation of the Lagged Effects of Livestock Supports on the Animal Production Value in Turkey

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 144 - 156, 30.11.2020

Betül Gürer

Abstract

A significant part of the population in Turkey is under the malnutrition risk due to the food insecurity in terms of animal products. It has been implemented a number of policies aimed to increase animal production despite of unsatisfactory results. Thus, the main research question is whether livestock policies really affect animal production value, and if so, to what extent and how long its effect continues. In the study, it was used Koyck and Almon distributed lag models based on annual time-series data from 1986 to 2019. The results confirmed a significant and positive association between livestock supports and animal production value. Moreover, animal production value remained to increase until the sixth years thanks to the supports. Further, necessary time for being felt on animal production value of one unit change in subsidies was determined to be 2.98 years by Koyk model. For this reason, long term and stable structural livestock policies should be implemented to increase the development and competitiveness of the sector.

Keywords

Distributed lag models, Koyck model, Almon model, agriculture

References

• Acquah H.D. 2010. Comparison of Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) in selection of an asymmetric price relationship. J. Dev. Agric. Econ., 2(1):1-6.
• Akbay C. & Boz İ. 2005. Turkey's livestock sector: production, consumption and policies. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 17, Article105.
• Akın F. 2002. Ekonometri, Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa,Turkey.
• Almon S. 1965. The Distributed Lag between Capital Appropriations and Expenditures. Econometrica, 33(1):178 – 196.
• Anonymous. 2000. Council of ministers decision on supporting of livestock no. 2000/467(in Turkish).10.05.2000 date and number 24045 Official Newspaper, Ankara (Turkey).
• Anonymous. 2006. Agricultural Law (number: 5488). (in Turkish). 25.04.2006 date and number 26148, Official Newspaper, Prime Ministry, Ankara (Turkey).
• Aral S. & Cevger Y. 2000. Türkiye’de Cumhuriyetten Bugüne Izlenen Hayvancılık Politikaları. Proceeding Türkiye 2000 Hayvancılık Kongresi, 35:68. Ankara (Turkey).
• Bojnec Š. & Latruffe L. 2013. Farm Size, Agricultural Subsidies and Farm Performance in Slovenia. Land Use Policy, 32: 207-217.
• Brady M., Kellermann K., Sahrbacher C. & Jelinek L. 2009. Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: Some EU Results. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60 (3):563-585.
• Çelik Ş. 2015a. Analysis of Buffalo Milk Production and Price Relationship Using Koyck and Almon Models. Proceeding. 9. National Animal Sci., 83:92.
• Çelik Ş. 2015b. Analysis of Ship Milk Production and Price Relationship by Koyck and Almon Models: A Turkey Case. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 50 (July-Agus.):137-149.
• Erdal H., Erdal G. & Esengun K. 2009. An Analysis of Production and Price Relationship for Potato in Turkey: A Distributed Lag Model Application. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 15 (No 3), 243-250.
• Ertürk Y., Yalçin S. & Yilmaz O. 2015. Livestock support policies in Turkey since 2000. Conference paper: 6th International Scientific Agricultural Symposium "Agrosym 2015", 15-18 Oct. 2015. University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Agriculture, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282860368_Livestock_Support_Policies_In_Turkey_Since_2000 [accessed Jul 02 2018].
• FAO. 2018. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. www.faostat.org.tr (accessed 25 October 2020)
• Gujarati D.N. 2004. Basic Econometrics. Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies. NewYork
• Isyar Y. 1999. Econometrics Models. Publication of Amplification Foundation of Uludag University, 141 pp. Bursa (Turkey).
• Kadilar C. 2000. Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli Zaman Serileri Analizi. Büro Basımevi. Ankara (Turkey).
• Koc A., Uzunlu V. & Bayaner A. 2001. Turkish Agricultural Projection 2000-2010. Agricultural Economic Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Ankara.
• Koyck L.M. 1954. Distributed Lags and Investment Analysis. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 21-50.
• Köse M.A. 2012. Agricultural Policy Reforms and Their Implications on Rural Development: Turkey and the EU. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 11 (2):75-98.
• Kutlar A. 2000. Ekonometrik Zaman Serileri, Gazi Yayınları, Ankara (Turkey). MAF (The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry). 2020. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Records.
• Malan M., Berkhout E. & Bouma J. 2016. The Impacts of Taxes and Subsidies on Crop Yields- Agricultural Price Distortions in Africa. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assesment Agency, PBL publication number: 2388. The Hague.
• Mayrand K., Dionne S., Paquin M. & Pageot-Lebel I. 2003. The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Subsidies: An Assessment of the 2002 US Farm Bill and Doha Raound. Unisfera International Centre, Canada.
• Minviel J.J. & Latruffe L. 2014. Meta-Regression Analysis of the Impact of Agricultural Subsidies on Farm Technical Efficiency. EAAE 2014 Congress ‘Agri-Food and Rural Innovations for Healthier Societies’, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 26-29 August 2014.
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2020. Producer and Consumer Support Estimates database. http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.htm [accessed October 2020].
• Özsayin D. 2017. Investigation of Production and Price Relationship in Cow Milk Production by Koyck Model Approach. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 5 (6):681-686.
• Saçli Y. 2007. Transformation Requirements of Animal Husbandry Sector in The Harmonization Period with the EU. [In Turkish]. DPT Expertise Thesis, Publication No: DPT: 2707, Ankara (Turkey).
• Sacli Y. 2012. A Study on the Relationship Between Red Meat and Milk Production (in Turkish). Proceeding Book, Food, Agriculture and Gastronomy Congress, Antalya.
• Sayin C. 2001. Livestock Policies in Turkey and the Effects of New Reform Arrangements. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (1): 139-150.
• Semerci A. & Çelik A.D. 2017. Reflections of Animal Husbandry Subsidies on Dairy Cattle Enterprises: A Case of Study of Hatay Province-Turkey. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 14 (02).
• Skreli E., Imami D., Jambor A., Zvyagintsev S. & Çera G. 2015. The Impacts of Government Subsidies on The Olive and Vineyard Sectors of Albanian Agriculture. Studies agricultural Economics. 117:119-125.
• Tiffin R. & Dawson P.J. 2000. Structural Breaks, Cointegration and the Farm-Retail Price Spread for Lamb. Applied Economics, 32(10): 1281-1286
• TurkStat (Turkish Statistical Institute). (2020). Livestock Statistics Database. www.turkstat.gov.tr
• Viscecchia R. & Giannoccaro G. 2014. Influence of Common Agricultural Policy on the Livestock Number Reared. Evidence from Selected European Regions. Rivista di Economia Agraria, LXIX (2-3):129-140.
• Vozarova I.K. & Kotulic R. 2015. Quantification of the Effect of Subsidies on the Production Performance of the Slovak Agriculture. Proceida Economics and Finance, 39: 298-304.
• Watson P.K. & Teelucksingh S.S. 2002. A Practical Introduction to Econometric Methods: Classical and Modern. ISBN:976-640-122-5. The University of the West Indies Press, Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago.
• Yurdakul O., Smith D., Koç A., Fuller F., Sengul H., Akdemir Ş., Oren N., Aksoy S., Yavuz F., Saner G., Akbay A.A. & Yalcin I. 1999. Livestock Supply and Feed Demand in Turkey: An Evaluation of the Current Situation and Alternative Policy Scenarios. Agricultural Economic Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Ankara (Turkey).