IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jloagb/90641.html

What Did They Do with the Money? An Analysis of Tobacco Buyout Recipients’ Expenditure Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Marshall, Maria I.
  • Pushkarskaya, Helen N.

Abstract

There are many expenditure options available to farmers who received a tobacco buyout check. A multinomial probit model is used to analyze how farmer, business, and household characteristics influence the choice of expenditure option. Results of the study show that farmers tend to use the tobacco buyout payments as a special income account which they spend in a focused manner, and their expenditure choices vary by gender and by age groups. Findings also reveal that farmers who plan to stay in tobacco production are more likely to invest in new or existing on-farm activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Marshall, Maria I. & Pushkarskaya, Helen N., 2008. "What Did They Do with the Money? An Analysis of Tobacco Buyout Recipients’ Expenditure Choices," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 26(2), pages 1-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jloagb:90641
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.90641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/90641/files/JAB_Fall08__07_pp175-198.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.90641?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. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    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. Helen Pushkarskaya & Maria Marshall, 2010. "Family Structure, Policy Shocks, and Family Business Adjustment Choices," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 414-426, December.

    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. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    2. Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel & Pauline Laille, 2022. "Alternative adaptation scenarios towards pesticide-free urban green spaces: Welfare implication for French citizens," Post-Print hal-03694169, HAL.
    3. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    4. Linda Court Salisbury & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 1-17, 01-02.
    5. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    6. Martin Hanselmann & Carmen Tanner, 2008. "Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 51-63, January.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4267 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Kristen E. Duke & On Amir, 2023. "The Importance of Selling Formats: When Integrating Purchase and Quantity Decisions Increases Sales," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 87-109, January.
    9. Prigge, Jana-Kristin & Dietz, Beatrix & Homburg, Christian & Hoyer, Wayne D. & Burton, Jennifer L., 2015. "Patient empowerment: A cross-disease exploration of antecedents and consequences," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 375-386.
    10. Heribert Gierl & Christina Eleftheriadou, 2005. "Asymmetrisch überlegene Stockouts als Phantomprodukte," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 475-502, September.
    11. Li, Eric A.L., 2014. "Test for the real option in consumer behavior," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 70-83.
    12. S³awomir Czech, 2016. "Choice Overload Paradox And Public Policy Design. The Case Of Swedish Pension System," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(3), pages 559-584, September.
    13. Gregor Dorfleitner & Lars Hornuf & Martina Weber, 2018. "Paralyzed by Shock: The Portfolio Formation Behavior of Peer-to-Business Lending Investors," CESifo Working Paper Series 7092, CESifo.
    14. Horan, Sean, 2019. "Random consideration and choice: A case study of “default” options," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 73-84.
    15. Callander, Steven & Wilson, Catherine H., 2008. "Context-dependent voting and political ambiguity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3-4), pages 565-581, April.
    16. Ofir, Chezy & Simonson, Itamar & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2007. "Customer Compliance with Presumed Market Research Goals: Motivational Drivers of Negative Service Evaluations," Research Papers 1962, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    17. Ailawadi, Kusum L. & Gedenk, Karen & Langer, Tobias & Ma, Yu & Neslin, Scott A., 2014. "Consumer response to uncertain promotions: An empirical analysis of conditional rebates," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 94-106.
    18. van Putten, Marloes & Lijesen, Mark & Özel, Tanju & Vink, Nancy & Wevers, Harm, 2014. "Valuing the preferences for micro-generation of renewables by househoulds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 596-604.
    19. Angela Maria D’Uggento & Luca Petruzzellis & Luigi Piper & Antonia Rosa Gurrieri, 2023. "In the name of the University: the choice to promote as a tool to influence decision-making," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3151-3164, August.
    20. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    21. Nils Reisen & Ulrich Hoffrage & Fred W. Mast, 2008. "Identifying decision strategies in a consumer choice situation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(8), pages 641-658, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ags:jloagb:90641. 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/aeaggea.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.