Getting institutions "right" for whom credit constraints and the impact of property rights on the quantity and composition of investment

被引:210
作者
Carter, MR [1 ]
Olinto, P
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Agr & Appl Econ, Madison, WI 53706 USA
[2] Int Food Policy Res Inst, Washington, DC 20036 USA
关键词
agricultural investment; capital constraints; property rights;
D O I
10.1111/1467-8276.00111
中图分类号
F3 [农业经济];
学科分类号
0202 ; 020205 ; 1203 ;
摘要
Property rights reform is typically hypothesized to boost investment through investment demand and credit supply effects. Yet when the credit supply effect is muted, property rights reform would be expected to induce liquidity-constrained farms to reduce investment in movable capital even as they increase investment in attached capital. This expectation is corroborated by econometric analysis of panel data from Paraguay. While all farmers experience a positive investment demand effect, liquidity-constrained producers correspondingly reduce their demand for movable capital. Given an estimated pattern of wealth-biased liquidity constraints, property rights reform will get institutions "right" for only wealthier producers.
引用
收藏
页码:173 / 186
页数:14
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1994, SEARCHING LAND TENUR
[2]  
BARHAM B, 1996, WORLD DEV, V24, P792
[3]   Rationing, spillover, and interlinking in credit markets: The case of rural Punjab [J].
Bell, C ;
Srinivasan, TN ;
Udry, C .
OXFORD ECONOMIC PAPERS-NEW SERIES, 1997, 49 (04) :557-585
[5]  
BOUCHER S, 2001, 445 U WISC DEP AGR A
[6]   Land tenure security and investment incentives: puzzling evidence from Burkina Faso [J].
Brasselle, AS ;
Gaspart, F ;
Platteau, JP .
JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, 2002, 67 (02) :373-418
[7]  
CARTER M, 2001, LAND ACCESS RURAL PO
[8]  
CARTER M, 1995, CAMPESINO TIERRA MER
[9]  
CARTER MR, 2002, UNPUB SPECIALIZATION
[10]   THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CREDIT AND PRODUCTIVITY IN CHINESE AGRICULTURE - A MICROECONOMIC MODEL OF DISEQUILIBRIUM [J].
FEDER, G ;
LAU, LJ ;
LIN, JY ;
LUO, XP .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1990, 72 (05) :1151-1157