IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/ecdecc/doi10.1086-697415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risky Income or Lumpy Investments? Evidence on Two Theories of Underspecialization

Author

Listed:
  • Ajay Shenoy

Abstract

Why do the poor have so many economic activities? According to one theory, the poor do not specialize because relying on one income source is risky. I test the theory by measuring the response of Thai rice farmers to conditional volatility in the international rice price. Households expecting a harvest take on one extra activity when the volatility rises by 21%. I confirm that the decrease in specialization costs households foregone revenue. I find no evidence to back a second theory in which households underspecialize because they cannot afford lumpy business investments.

Suggested Citation

  • Ajay Shenoy, 2018. "Risky Income or Lumpy Investments? Evidence on Two Theories of Underspecialization," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(4), pages 629-671.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:ecdecc:doi:10.1086/697415
    DOI: 10.1086/697415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/697415
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/697415
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/697415?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chuang, Yating, 2019. "Climate variability, rainfall shocks, and farmers’ income diversification in India," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 55-61.

    More about this item

    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:ucp:ecdecc:doi:10.1086/697415. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/EDCC .

    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.