现金和实物支付的受益人观点:来自埃塞俄比亚生产安全的证据

Kalle Hirvonen, J. Hoddinott
{"title":"现金和实物支付的受益人观点:来自埃塞俄比亚生产安全的证据","authors":"Kalle Hirvonen, J. Hoddinott","doi":"10.1596/1813-9450-9125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Economists often default to the assumption that cash is always preferable to an in-kind transfer. Do beneficiaries feel the same way? This paper addresses this issue using longitudinal household data from Ethiopia where a large-scale social safety net intervention (PSNP) operates. Even though most payments are made in cash, and even though the (temporal) transaction costs associated with food payments are higher than payments received as cash, most beneficiaries stated that they prefer their payments only or partly in food. Higher food prices induce shifts in stated preferences towards in-kind transfers. More food secure households, those closer to food markets and to financial services are more likely to prefer cash. Though shifts occur, the stated preference for food is dominant: In no year do more than 17 percent of households prefer only cash. There is suggestive evidence that stated preferences for food are also driven by self-control concerns.","PeriodicalId":7501,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beneficiary Views on Cash and In-Kind Payments: Evidence from Ethiopia's Productive Safety\",\"authors\":\"Kalle Hirvonen, J. Hoddinott\",\"doi\":\"10.1596/1813-9450-9125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Economists often default to the assumption that cash is always preferable to an in-kind transfer. Do beneficiaries feel the same way? This paper addresses this issue using longitudinal household data from Ethiopia where a large-scale social safety net intervention (PSNP) operates. Even though most payments are made in cash, and even though the (temporal) transaction costs associated with food payments are higher than payments received as cash, most beneficiaries stated that they prefer their payments only or partly in food. Higher food prices induce shifts in stated preferences towards in-kind transfers. More food secure households, those closer to food markets and to financial services are more likely to prefer cash. Though shifts occur, the stated preference for food is dominant: In no year do more than 17 percent of households prefer only cash. There is suggestive evidence that stated preferences for food are also driven by self-control concerns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7501,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9125\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

经济学家经常默认现金总是比实物转移更可取的假设。受益人也有同样的感觉吗?本文利用大规模社会安全网干预(PSNP)运作的埃塞俄比亚纵向家庭数据解决了这一问题。尽管大多数付款以现金支付,尽管与食品付款相关的(暂时)交易成本高于以现金收到的付款,但大多数受益人表示,他们更喜欢全部或部分以食品支付。食品价格上涨导致人们对实物转移的偏好发生转变。更多有粮食保障的家庭,那些离粮食市场和金融服务更近的家庭,更有可能喜欢现金。虽然会有变化,但对食物的偏好是主要的:没有一年超过17%的家庭只喜欢现金。有暗示的证据表明,对食物的偏好也受到自我控制的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beneficiary Views on Cash and In-Kind Payments: Evidence from Ethiopia's Productive Safety
Economists often default to the assumption that cash is always preferable to an in-kind transfer. Do beneficiaries feel the same way? This paper addresses this issue using longitudinal household data from Ethiopia where a large-scale social safety net intervention (PSNP) operates. Even though most payments are made in cash, and even though the (temporal) transaction costs associated with food payments are higher than payments received as cash, most beneficiaries stated that they prefer their payments only or partly in food. Higher food prices induce shifts in stated preferences towards in-kind transfers. More food secure households, those closer to food markets and to financial services are more likely to prefer cash. Though shifts occur, the stated preference for food is dominant: In no year do more than 17 percent of households prefer only cash. There is suggestive evidence that stated preferences for food are also driven by self-control concerns.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Climate Change and State-Building in the World’s Most Agricultural Countries The heterogeneous effects of agricultural conservation easements on the loss of farmland to development in New England Displacement Risk in Agricultural Commodity Markets: The Impact of Plant-Based Meat Interest Group Responses to Reform Efforts in the U.S. House of Representatives: The Case of Big Sugar Fishing under the Radar: Illuminating the Compliance Gap of Fishing Bans
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1