systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...
systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...
systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
system models. This indicated that <strong>the</strong> higher yield of fish in FS 1 (cultivated three<br />
times a year) increasecl mor~thly per capita fish consumption (Table 11).<br />
Asset accumulation<br />
Asset accumulation is <strong>the</strong> value of all goods owned by farmers. Assets are<br />
categorized as agricultural equipment (e.g., tractors, hoes, and motcicycles),<br />
livestock, nonproductive assets (radios, televisions, and furniture), and savings<br />
(jewelry and cash).<br />
Table 12 shows <strong>the</strong> value of <strong>the</strong> assets owned by farmers belonging to <strong>the</strong><br />
three farmin models. The total value of all assets owned by <strong>the</strong> farmers In FS I11<br />
during 1989- 8 0 and 1990-91 is hi her than <strong>the</strong> value of assets owned by farmers in<br />
FS I and FS 11. .Therefore, rice - f ish farming had little impact on <strong>the</strong> accumulation<br />
of assets, except in <strong>the</strong> case of FS 111. Accumulation of assets, total income of <strong>the</strong><br />
farm family, and farm size are closely interrelated. The average farm size in FS I11 is<br />
higher than in <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two models. In general, farmers belonging to FS I11 are<br />
better off than farmer: in FS 1 and FS 11; <strong>the</strong>refore, it is logical that <strong>the</strong>se FS 111<br />
farmers have more accumulated assets. However, farmers in FS I have more assets<br />
than FS I1 farmers. This indicated that rice - fish farming <strong>systems</strong> had made a<br />
positive impact on <strong>the</strong> accumulation of assets.<br />
BUDGETING STAGES<br />
The proposed model assumes that consumers follow a multistage budgeting process.<br />
Consumers are assumed to first allocate <strong>the</strong>ir income between savings and current<br />
expenditures (consumption). This stage is not rnodeled in this study. In <strong>the</strong> second<br />
stage, consumers are assumed to allocate <strong>the</strong>ir total current expenditure to two<br />
categories: food and nonfood commodities. The third stage involvzs <strong>the</strong> allocation<br />
of <strong>the</strong> total food expenditure to nine subgroups. The fourth stage involves <strong>the</strong><br />
allocation of nonfood expenditure to nine subgroups.<br />
Functional form<br />
The Linear Approximate Almost Ideal Demand System (LA/AIDS) was used to<br />
model budget allocation. Following Deaton (1988), <strong>the</strong> Marshallian demand<br />
equations, in share form, fcr <strong>the</strong> LA/AIDS demand system are<br />
Wi = ai + aij In (Pj) + Bi In (Y/P) for i, j = 1, 2 ,..., r [l]<br />
where Wi is <strong>the</strong> budget share of <strong>the</strong> ith commodity, Pj is <strong>the</strong> unit price of <strong>the</strong><br />
jth commodity, Y is <strong>the</strong> total expenditure, and P is Stone's price index, i.e.,<br />
In (P) = dk wli In (Pk) PI