[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea03/21991.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Off-Farm Work Among Farm Women: Motivations, Earnings, And Benefit Receipt

Author

Listed:
  • Bharadwaj, Latika
  • Findeis, Jill L.
Abstract
One of the most important changes affecting the agricultural sector in the U.S. has been the increase in off-farm employment and multiple job-holding, especially among women on U.S. farms. This paper examines motivations for off-farm work among farm women in different farm production regions in the U.S. Further, the determinants of off-farm earnings of farm women (and their spouses) are analyzed as well as the receipt of employee benefits by either (or both) the farm woman and farm man. The paper goes beyond assessment of the important role of using off-farm work as a means of accessing health insurance and examines other types of benefits as well, including income for retirement. Background Based on a national survey of farm women conducted in 1980, Rosenfeld (1985) concluded that higher average education levels, advances in labor-saving technologies, and smaller family sizes contributed to 37 percent of U.S. farm women working in off-farm jobs at that time. Data from a recent national survey conducted by Pennsylvania State University showed that in the past two decades this percentage has increased to 52 percent of all farm women, and 62 percent of all working-age farm women. A recent study by Mishra, El-Osta, Morehart, Johnson and Hopkins (2002) concludes that around 71 percent of households in the United States have either the principal farm operator or spouse or both employed in off-farm jobs. Fuller and Madge (1976) observe that off-farm employment gives farm families a chance to interact with new people and to stabilize farm incomes. Mishra and Goodwin (1997) and Mishra (1996) found a positive correlation between off-farm employment and farm income variability, showing that off-farm employment helps many farm households to diversify their income risks. Further, one of the most important reasons for farm family members to work off the farm is to provide the family financial protection that is generally not economical for the farm business to purchase. These non-wage compensations include group health insurance, and group life insurance, as examples (Scholl, 1983; Jensen and Salant, 1985). Fringe benefits are important as they are not taxed as income and can be purchased by groups for lower per unit costs. Methodology Data. In 2001, a national survey of U.S. farm women was conducted by Pennsylvania State University in collaboration with researchers at the Economic Research Service (ERS, USDA) and in conjunction with the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS, USDA). The national survey was carried out by telephone. A total of 2,661 farm women responded to the survey that included questions on different motivations or reasons for off-farm work, off-farm wages and days worked, and receipt of employee benefits for both farm men and women. This information was collected in addition to data on characteristics of the farm household, the characteristics of the farm operation, and individual characteristics of both the farm woman and farm man, when present in the household. The data have been disaggregated by the nine production regions used by the USDA, and secondary data to reflect the effects of off-farm labor markets have been appended to the household dataset. Estimation Strategy. To assess those factors that affect the woman's reason for working off the farm, probit models are estimated. Responses range from not important, to somewhat important, to very important. Following this, models of the earnings of the farm man and farm woman in the household are estimated for the U.S. sample, using data on annual off-farm earnings. A Heckman-type approach is used for the earnings functions, since sample selectivity is likely to be a problem. In addition, the participation equations for men and women are jointly estimated, following Huffman (1991 ); Corsi and Findeis (2000 ); and Oluwole (2000). In the first stage, a bivariate probit model of participation in off-farm work is estimated and, if the work decisions between the farm man and women are shown to be jointly determined, the second stage estimation requires simultaneous estimation of the earnings functions of men and women. If sample selectivity is shown to be a problem, the inverse Mill's ratios are included in the second-stage model. Finally, data are available on whether the individual received employee benefits (overall and by type) from their off-farm employment. The following work choices are possible: no work, work in a part-time job with benefits, work in a part-time job without benefits, work in a full-time job with benefits, and work in a full-time job without benefits. A multinomial logit model is used to analyze the alternative work/benefit outcomes. The independent variables in the models include characteristics of the individual, the household, the farm and off-farm labor markets. The method of maximum likelihood is used for estimating the coefficients of the estimators. Preliminary Results Descriptive statistics show that working off the farm for benefits is an important or very important reason for the off-farm employment for many farm women in the United States. About one-third of women note that they work off the farm to help finance the farm operation. Further, preliminary models of earnings from off-farm work show that using a simultaneous equation model with corrections for sample selectivity is an appropriate approach. Earnings of U.S. farm woman are significantly affected by her level of education (as expected) and importantly by the characteristics of the off-farm labor market. The data also reveal that both farm women and men in the U.S. often receive employee benefits from their off-farm jobs, and that receipt of benefits tend to be in 'packages' - i.e., if the individual receives health insurance, they are also very likely to receive other benefits from their employer as well. The survey shows that among women with off-farm work, the following employee benefits from off-farm work were more common: health insurance (59%), life insurance (52%), a pension (54%), paid vacation leave (56%) and paid sick leave (58%). Among men with off-farm work, the following benefits were among the most commonly received: health insurance (67%), life insurance (58%), a retirement pension (59%), paid vacation leave (62%) and paid sick leave (53 %). Preliminary models again show that both education and labor market characteristics strongly affect benefit receipt and full-time job status, and that full-time work without benefits is more common than anticipated.

Suggested Citation

  • Bharadwaj, Latika & Findeis, Jill L., 2003. "Off-Farm Work Among Farm Women: Motivations, Earnings, And Benefit Receipt," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21991, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:21991
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21991
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21991/files/sp03bh05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21991?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. Huffman, Wallace E., 1991. "Agricultural Household Models: Survey and Critique," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11008, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Ashok K. Mishra & Barry K. Goodwin, 1997. "Farm Income Variability and the Supply of Off-Farm Labor," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 880-887.
    3. Findeis, Jill L., 2002. "Subjective Equilibrium Theory of the Farm Household: Theory Revisited and New Directions," Workshop on the Farm Household-Firm Unit: Its Importance in Agriculture and Implications for Statistics, April 12-13,2002, Wye Campus, Imperial College 15723, International Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment Project (IAPRAP).
    4. M. Rose Olfert, 1993. "Off-farm Labour Supply with Productivity Increases, Peak Period Production and Farm Structure Impacts," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 41(4), pages 491-501, December.
    5. Helen H. Jensen & Priscilla Salant, 1985. "The Role of Fringe Benefits in Operator Off-Farm Labor Supply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(5), pages 1095-1099.
    6. Mishra, Ashok K. & El-Osta, Hisham S. & Morehart, Mitchell J. & Johnson, James D. & Hopkins, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Income, Wealth, And The Economic Well-Being Of Farm Households," Agricultural Economic Reports 33967, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. William Nganje & Robert Hearne & Cole Gustafson & Michael Orth, 2008. "Farmers' Preferences for Alternative Crop and Health Insurance Subsidy," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 333-351.
    2. Nganje, William E. & Hearne, Robert R. & Orth, Michael & Gustafson, Cole R., 2004. "Using Choice Experiments To Elicit Farmers Preferences? For Crop And Health Insurance," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20357, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Miller, Ana Corina & Jack, Claire G. & Anderson, Duncan J., 2014. "An exploration of the factors influencing well-being of farm and non-farm households," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169732, Agricultural Economics Society.

    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. Latika Bharadwaj & Jill Findeis & Sachin Chintawar, 2013. "US Farm households: joint decision making and impact of health insurance on labor market outcomes," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Tocco, Barbara & Davidova, Sophia & Bailey, Alastair Creation-Date: 2012-02, "undated". "Key Issues in Agricultural Labour Markets: A Review of Major Studies and Project Reports on Agriculture and Rural Labour Markets," Factor Markets Working Papers 126, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    3. E. Phimister & D. Roberts, 2006. "The Effect of Off-farm Work on the Intensity of Agricultural Production," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(4), pages 493-515, August.
    4. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Mishra, Ashok K. & Nehring, Richard F. & Hendricks, Chad & Southern, Malaya & Gregory, Alexandra, 2007. "Off-Farm Income, Technology Adoption, And Farm Economic Performance," Economic Research Report 7234, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Chang, Hung-Hao & Mishra, Ashok, 2008. "Impact of off-farm labor supply on food expenditures of the farm household," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 657-664, December.
    6. Woldehanna, Tassew & Lansink, Alfons Oude & Peerlings, Jack, 2000. "Off-farm work decisions on Dutch cash crop farms and the 1992 and Agenda 2000 CAP reforms," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 163-171, March.
    7. Boisvert, Richard N. & Chang, Hung-Hao, 2006. "Does Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program and Off-Farm Work Affect the Level and Distribution of Farm Household Incomes?," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21277, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. D'Antoni, Jeremy M. & Mishra, Ashok K. & Joo, Hyunjeong, 2012. "Welfare Implications of a Reduction in Government Payments: The Role of Fringe Benefits," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124766, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Mishra, Ashok K. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2008. "Policy Reform and Off-farm Labor Supply by Operators in the Delta Region: A," 2008 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2008, Dallas, Texas 6725, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Chul‐Woo Kwon & Peter F. Orazem & Daniel M. Otto, 2006. "Off‐farm labor supply responses to permanent and transitory farm income," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 59-67, January.
    11. Liu, Yue & Yao, Shunbo & Lin, Ying, 2018. "Effect of Key Priority Forestry Programs on off-farm employment: Evidence from Chinese rural households," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 24-37.
    12. Findeis, Jill L. & Swaminathan, Hema & Jayaraman, Anuja, 2003. "Agricultural Household-Firm Units: Adjustments to Change," Policy Reform and Adjustment Workshop, October 23-25, 2003, Imperial College London, Wye Campus 15738, International Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment Project (IAPRAP).
    13. Dewbre, Joe & Mishra, Ashok K., 2002. "Farm Household Incomes And U.S. Government Program Payment," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19780, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Harris, James Michael & Blank, Steven C. & Erickson, Kenneth W. & Hallahan, Charles B., 2010. "Off-farm Income and Investments in Farm Assets: A Double Hurdle Approach," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61531, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Jeffrey Gillespie & Ashok Mishra, 2011. "Off‐farm employment and reasons for entering farming as determinants of production enterprise selection in US agriculture," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 411-428, July.
    16. Chang, Hung-Hao & Boisvert, Richard N., 2009. "Does Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program and/or Off-Farm Work Affect the Level and Distribution of Farm Household Income?," Working Papers 57035, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    17. Hill, Berkeley, 2005. "Institutional Units and Agricultural Statistics," 94th Seminar, April 9-10, 2005, Ashford, UK 24410, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Bharadwaj, Latika & Findeis, Jill L. & Chintawar, Sachin, 2013. "Motivations to work off-farm among U.S. farm women," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 71-77.
    19. Pascual, Unai & Barbier, Edward B., 2005. "On- And Off-Farm Labor Decisions By Slash-And-Burn Farmers In Yucatan (Mexico)," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Discussion Papers 31926, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy.
    20. Ahearn, Mary Clare & Collender, Robert N. & Diao, Xinshen & Harrington, David H. & Hoppe, Robert A. & Korb, Penelope J. & Makki, Shiva S. & Morehart, Mitchell J. & Roberts, Michael J. & Roe, Terry L. , 2004. "Decoupled Payments In A Changing Policy Setting," Agricultural Economic Reports 33981, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Labor and Human Capital;

    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:aaea03:21991. 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/aaeaaea.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.