IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/sbrfsr/113186.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Riscos E Benefícios Na Utilização De Recursos Do Pronaf De 1998 A 2005: Uma Proposta De Um Programa De Garantia De Renda

Author

Listed:
  • Alves, Luiz Batista

Abstract

O objetivo geral deste trabalho foi determinar os riscos inerentes à utilização de recursos do PRONAF, com a proposta da associação de um Programa de Garantia de Renda, na oferta, nos preços e na renda auferida pelos produtores de arroz e feijão entre os anos 1998 a 2005. A metodologia utilizada foi a de Newbery & Stiglitz, que considera o caráter de aversão ao risco e apresenta as vantagens de ser adaptada à análise que envolve contratações de operações financeiras de crédito e fornece o prêmio de risco. Os resultados indicam que os agricultores familiares obteriam ganhos de renda, em média, 40,58% e 146,29%, aumento médio nos preços recebidos de 24,66% e 71,78%e aumento médio na produção de 9,79% e 27,28%, enquanto os consumidores seriam beneficiados pela redução média nos preços de 36,26% e 80,22%, com relação aos produtos arroz e feijão, respectivamente. Quanto aos custos da PGR,verificou-se que, no último período analisado (2005), o custo total era de R$ 4.608 milhões, enquanto o custo social era de R$ 517,349 milhões, representando, em termos percentuais, 11,2% do custo total da política de garantia de renda.-------------------------------------------In this study we evaluate potential impacts of an income guaranty program that could be established as alternative use for funds from Brazil’s National Family Agriculture Strengthening Program (PRONAF). Using Newbery and Stiglitz methodology, we analyze the effect of PGR upon the incomes of rice and bean producers between of 1998 to 2005 and on the supplies and prices of these commodities. This methodology is well adapted to our study, as we include an analysis of risk-aversion and credit financed capital investment. Our results show that family farmers producing rice and beans would obtain income gains on average of 40% and 146%, for their respective crops. The income gains arise from an increase in the average prices received of 24% and 71%, and an increase in the average production of 9% and 27%. The results also show that consumers would be benefited by a resultant reduction in these commodities average prices: 36% less for rice and 80% less for beans. It is found that over the last analyzed year, 2005, the total cost of PGR would have been R$ 4,608 million while the social cost would have been R$ 517.349 million, or 11.2% of the total Income Guaranty Program’s total cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Alves, Luiz Batista, 2006. "Riscos E Benefícios Na Utilização De Recursos Do Pronaf De 1998 A 2005: Uma Proposta De Um Programa De Garantia De Renda," 46th Congress, July 20-23, 2008, Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil 113186, Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:sbrfsr:113186
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.113186
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/113186/files/276.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.113186?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural Finance;

    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:sbrfsr:113186. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/soberea.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.