Effects of Agricultural Subsidy Applications on Productivity and Product Costs in Dairy Cattle Enterprises: A Case Study of Hatay Province-Turkey

Year 2017, Volume: 14 Issue: 2, 0 - 0, 16.05.2017

Arif Semerci Ahmet Duran Çelik

Abstract

Agricultural subsidy is one of the important and substantial issues at this time. Countries are continuing to subsidise agricultural production at varying rates depending on the world’s changing trade rules. Turkey reserved 3,9 billion $ to subsidise agricultural production in 2014. In the same year, the amount of agricultural subsidy in Hatay was around 75 million $. The share of the Hatay province in Turkey’s total agricultural subsidy is around 2%. While the amount of subsidy per farmer is 1.779,924$ in Turkey, it is 3.490,01$ in the Hatay province. Livestock is one of the important agricultural production sectors, and the share of agricultural subsidy for livestock is gradually increasing in Turkey. In this study, the utilisation level of subsidies in dairy cattle enterprises were examined in Hatay. It was found that 52,17% of the enterprises were growing feed crop, and 25,53% of them were utilising the feed crop subsidy. Milk production of the enterprises which were utilising the subsidy was 5.728,9 lt, the milk cost was 0,38$/lt, and the absolute profit was found as 0,03$/lt. In terms of enterprises which weren’t utilising the subsidy, these values were found respectively as; 5.334,4 lt, 0,44$/lt, and 0,09$/lt. According to the research results, it’s been concluded that livestock subsidies are decreasing production costs and increasing farmers’ income significantly.

References

• Acar, M. and S. Aytüre. 2014. Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Tarım ve Tarım Politikalarının Geleceği. Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım. Bursa. Türkiye. p.10,
• Acar, M. and E. Bulut. Türkiye’de ve Dünyada Tarımsal Destekleme Politikalarında Son Gelişmeler. S. Ü. Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Vol. 11 n.1,.p. 1‐19.2009.
• Anderson, K., W. Martin and Valenzuela, E. The relative importance of global agricultural subsidies and market access. World Trade Review, Vol. 5, p. 357-370. 2006
• Babcock, B. A. and C.E. Hart. 2002. Supporting U.S. Agriculture under World Trade Organization Rules. Iowa Ag Review: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 1 (Available at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/iowaagreview/vol8/iss1/1)
• Bugem. 2016. Tarımsal Veriler. Tarımsal Ekonomi ve Politika Geliştirme Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü (TEPGE) .Mart, 2015.Ankara.s.5-23
• Çakıcı, M., A. Oğuzhan and T. Özdil. 2003. Temel İstatistik II (Gözden geçirilmiş ve genişletilmiş dördüncü baskı). Özal Matbaası. İstanbul. s.127
• Dorward, A. and J. Morrison. 2015. Heroes, villains and victims: agricultural subsidies and their impacts on food security and povert reduction(194-213pp). Handbook on the Globalisation of Agriculture. Edited by Guy M. Robinson and Doris A. Carson Edward Elgar Publication. Cheltenham, UK. 483 pp.
• Green, S.B., N.J. Salkind and T.M. Akey. 2000. Using SPSS For Windows. Analyzing and Understanding Data. Second Edition. Prentice-Hall Inc. Upper Saddle River, Nwe Jersey,USA.
• MFAL. 2016a. GTHB 2015 Faaliyet Raporu. (Available at: http://www.tarim.gov.tr/SGB/Belgeler/Bakanl%C4%B1k_Faaliyet_Raporlar%C4%B1/2015%20YILI%20BAKANLIK%20FAAL%C4%B0YET%20RAPORU.pdf, erişim 08.06.2016)
• MFAL. 2015. 2015 Yılı Faaliyet Raporu. (Available at:http://www.tarim.gov.tr/SGB/Belgeler/Bakanl%C4%B1k_Faaliyet_Raporlar%C4%B1/2015%20YILI%20BAKANLIK%20FAAL%C4%B0YET%20RAPORU.pdf
• MFAL. 2016. GTHB Hatay İl müdürlüğü Brifing Raporu. s.10 (Available at: http://hatay.tarim.gov.tr/Belgeler/Sol%20Men%C3%BC/HATAY%20%C4%B0L%20GIDA%20TARIM%20VE%20HAYVANCILIK%20M%C3%9CD%C3%9CRL%C3%9C%C4%9E%C3%9C%202015%20YILI%20BR%C4%B0F%C4%B0NG.pdf, erişim:08.06.2016)
• MFAL. 2016. BÜGEM Faaliyetleri. Şubat-2016. GTHB Bitkisel Üretim Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara.Türkiye. s.3
• İnan, İ.H. 2016. Tarım Ekonomisi ve İşletmeciliği. Güncellenmiş 8. Baskı. İdeal Kültür ve Yayıncılık. İstanbul. 415 pp.
• İTB. 2014. Rakamlarla Dünya Tarımı. İzmir Ticaret Borsası Ar-Ge Müdürlüğü. (Available at: http://itb.org.tr/dosya/rapordosya/rakamlarla-dunya-tarimi.pdf)
• Josling, T. 2015. Rethinking the Rules for Agricultural Subsidies. E15Initiative. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum, 2015. (Available at: www.e15initiative.org/)
• MFA. 2016. AB Bütçesi: Hazırlanması, Gelir Kaynakları, Gider Kalemleri ve Denetimi. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dış İşleri Bakanlığı. (Available at:http://www.mfa.gov.tr/ab-butcesi_-hazirlanmasi_-gelir-kaynaklari_-gider-kalemleri-ve-denetimi.tr.mfa; Erişim Tarihi: 11.04.2016)
• Karaman, C. and F. Yavuz. 2012. Dünyadaki Eğilimler Işığında Türkiye Tarımsal Destekleme Politikalarının Değerlendirilmesi. 10. Ulusal Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Konya. s.171.
• Kıral, T., H. Kasnakoğlu, F.F. Tatlıdil, H. Fidan and E. Gündoğmuş. 1999. Tarımsal Ürünler İçin Maliyet Hesaplama Metodolojisi ve Veri Tabanı Rehberi, TEAE Yayın No: 37.Ankara.
• Kıymaz, T. 2008. Dünya Tarım Piyasalarında Serbestleşmenin Türk Tarımına Fiyat ve Gelir Yönünden Yansıması. DPT Yayınları No:2754. Ankara.
• OECD. 2015. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2015.OECD Publishing, Paris.
• (Available at:: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2015-en)
• OECD. 2015. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2015.Highligts. p.1 (Available at:https://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/monitoring-evaluation-2015-highlights-july-2015.pdf; erişim tarihi 21.04.2016)
• OECD. 2016. Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation 2000: Glossary of Agricultural Policy Terms, OECD. (Available at:https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2150) Erişim tarihi: 11.04.2016)
• Oğuz, C. and S. Kaya. 2013.Factors affecting milk production in Eregli District of Konya in Turkey. Journal of Selcuk University Natural and Applied Science Vol 2 (3) 20-28
• Özüdoğru, T. and F. Tatlıdil. 2012. Economic Analysis of The Farms That Are Members of Amasya Cattle Breeders Association or Not and The Impacts of The Support for The Dairy Cattle Breeding on Farm Incomes. Journal of Selcuk University Natural and Applied Science. Vol 26 (3) 42-49
• Piccinini, A. and M. Loseby. 2001. Agricultural Policies in Europe and the USA: Farmers Between Subsidies and the Market. Published by Palgrave Macmillan. New York, USA. 294 pp.
• Official Gazette. 2006. Tarım Kanunu. Kanun No:5488. Kabul Tarihi:18.04.2006. (Available at:http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2006/04/20060425-1.htm)
• Smith, M.J. 1990. The politics of agricultural support in Britain: the development of the agricultural policy community. Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, Aldershot, Hants, UK, pp ix + 253.
• Tan, S., Ş. Atak, Ü. Şengül and S.S. Tan. 2015. The Evaluation of the Changes in theAgricultural Sector with Common Economic Indicators in Turkey in the Last Decade. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. MCSER Publishing. Rome-Italy. Vol 6 ( 2 ) 588-595.
• Samsun, N. 2005. Doğu Avrupa Ülkelerine Yönelik AB Mali Yardımları ve Türkiye. Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara.
• Saner, G. 2012. Süt Sektöründe Temel Pazarlama Stratejileri. Ege Ün. Ziraat Fak. Tarım Ekonomisi Böl. (erişim: http://www.tkmyo.ege.edu.tr/dosyalar/sutsempozyumu/SutSempozyumu/PazarlamaStrateji.pdf)
• Soyak, A., M.İ. Soysal and E.K. Gürcan. 2007. In Investigation of Structural Properties of Dairy Enterprises and Morphologic Characteristics of Black and White Cattle in Tekirdag Province. Journal of Tekirdağ Agricultural Faculty. 4( 3)297-305
• USK. 2012. Dünya ve Türkiye’de Süt Sektör İstatistikleri. Ulusal Süt Konseyi, Ankara. s.69
• Yamane, T. 2010. Temel Örnekleme Yöntemleri. Literatür Yayınları (çev. A. Esin), Istanbul, s. 528