IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma05/24296.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sustainable Farm Development in the Republic of Korea in a Global Economy

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, John Moo

Abstract

The Republic of Korea will need to alter many of its national economic and agricultural policies to meet the requirements of new global trading agreements. One farm structure that is being encouraged is sustainable farms that use less inorganic fertilizer and pesticide. The main reasons for reducing pesticide and chemical fertilizers on rice, vegetable, and fruit farms are environmental and nutritional: to improve the quality of agricultural products and to protect drinking water supplies for large cities, including Seoul. Other reasons are economic. Korea has to import more than 80% of its food and agricultural products, and the present shortage of foreign currency contributes to a rapidly increasing trend in farm debt on all types of farms: only 20.4% of Korean farms were debt-free in 1997 (MAF 1998). The present goal of Korea`s agricultural policy is to reduce pesticide and chemical fertilizer use on farms by 50%. Koreans consume about $120 million worth of organic food products annually, and this figure is growing by between 30% and 40% per year (UNCTAD). The number of organic farms is increasing, and the government has promised to compensate farms which convert to organic methods for lower yields of production, one of several government strategies which envisage even greater numbers of organic farms in the future. These structural adjustments to farms and businesses will have a significant impact on the agriculture industry. This study estimates the economic effects on farm household production of altering input levels and adopting sustainable farming techniques. A Cobb-Douglas production function was applied to derive production elasticities for farm input materials. The data come from a Ministry of Agriculture farm household economy survey of 3,085 farms conducted between 1980 and 1997. The value of farm income was adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index, and the value of input materials was adjusted according to the Farm Input Materials Index. The results suggest that converting to sustainable organic farming methods would economically benefit most farms. The coefficient estimate for pesticides was -0.9691, and the marginal value of production was 0.57 at the mean. The average farm management unit gains no advantage by applying more pesticide; in fact, it would benefit from reducing pesticide use. A 1% increase in pesticide cost would decrease farm income by 0.57%. The coefficient for chemical fertilizers was 0.28, but was not significant at the 5% level. A 1% increase in the cost of chemical fertilizer would increase the level of farm income by 0.17%. The coefficient for farm machinery was 1.14. A 1% increase in the cost of machinery use would increase farm income by 0.74%. By reducing levels of chemical fertilizer and pesticide application and by adopting sustainable farming techniques, managers of Korean peasant farms could not only contribute to a healthier environment, but could also improve their management systems, reduce farm debt levels, and increase profits.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, John Moo, 2005. "Sustainable Farm Development in the Republic of Korea in a Global Economy," 15th Congress, Campinas SP, Brazil, August 14-19, 2005 24296, International Farm Management Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma05:24296
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.24296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/24296/files/cp05ki01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.24296?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kim, Duk-ki, 2005. "A Korean perspective," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 157-161, March.
    2. Gary D. Thompson & Julia Kidwell, 1998. "Explaining the Choice of Organic Produce: Cosmetic Defects, Prices, and Consumer Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 277-287.
    3. Timothy A. Park & Luanne Lohr, 1996. "Supply and Demand Factors for Organic Produce," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 647-655.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Steven C. Blank & Gary D. Thompson, 2004. "Can/Should/Will A Niche Become the Norm? Organic Agriculture's Short Past and Long Future," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(4), pages 483-503, October.
    2. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Gentile, Natacha & Lupín, Beatriz & Garrido, Laura, 2006. "El mercado interno de productos orgánicos: actitudes de los consumidores argentinos," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1064, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    3. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    4. Gentile, Natacha & Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M., 2006. "El consumo de alimentos orgánicos: aplicación de un modelo logit multinomial a la elección del canal de compra," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1065, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    5. Connolly, Cristina & Klaiber, H. Allen, 2012. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay for Organic When the Food is Already Local?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124364, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Volpe, Richard J., III, 2006. "Exploring the Potential Effects of Organic Production on Contracting in American Agribusiness," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21086, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    8. Dettmann, Rachael L., 2008. "Organic Produce: Who's Eating it? A Demographic Profile of Organic Produce Consumers," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6446, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Vehapi Semir, 2015. "A Study of the Consumer Motives which Influence the Purchase of Organic Food in Serbia," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 53(1), pages 102-118, March.
    10. Essi Eerola & Anni Huhtala, 2008. "Voting for Environmental Policy Under Income and Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(1), pages 256-266.
    11. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    12. Chen, Bo & Saghaian, Sayed, 2017. "Does Consumers’ Preference for Organic Foods Affect Their Store Format Choices?," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252827, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. repec:zib:zbseps:v:2:y:2022:2:1:p:44-52 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran & Hubert Stahn, 2012. "Emergence of Organic Farming under Imperfect Competition: Economic Conditions and Incentives," Working Papers hal-02805961, HAL.
    15. Kuhar, Ales & Juvancic, L., 2012. "Determinants of purchasing behaviour for organic and integrated fruits and vegetables in Slovenia," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14.
    16. Starr, Martha A., 2009. "The social economics of ethical consumption: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 916-925, December.
    17. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2009. "Managing environmental risk in agriculture: a systematic perspective on the potential of quantitative policy-oriented risk valuation," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1/2/3), pages 27-46.
    18. Thompson, Gary D. & Wilson, Paul N., 1999. "Market Demands For Bagged, Refrigerated Salads," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-19, December.
    19. Giovanni Anania & Rosanna Nisticò, 2004. "Public Regulation as a Substitute for Trust in Quality Food Markets: What if the Trust Substitute cannot be Fully Trusted?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 681-701, December.
    20. Grolleau, Gilles & Caswell, Julie A., 2006. "Interaction Between Food Attributes in Markets: The Case of Environmental Labeling," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-14, December.
    21. Loureiro, Maria L. & Hine, Susan E., 2002. "Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison Of Consumer Willingness To Pay For Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, And Gmo-Free Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 1-11, December.

    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:ags:ifma05:24296. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifmaaea.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.