Türkiye'de tarımsal reel gelir ve kırsal refah endeksi

Date

1976

Author

Keyder, Nur

Metadata

Show full item record

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Item Usage Stats

3
views

0
downloads

Cite This

The purpose of the article is to bring the results of an earlier article (Keyder, 1970: 33-58) up to date and to compare the results reached here with the results of a similar study made by the State Planning Organization (DPT, 1975a). The purchasing power of rural population is assumed to be affected by the internal terms of trade (defined as the ratio of "general .agricultural price index" to the "rural cost of living index") and the real per capita agricultural income. The findings can be summarized as follows : Between 1968 and 1972 the general agricultural price index and the rural cost of living index have shown a more or less parallel movement. In 1969 and 1970, the agricultural price index has increased faster than the rural cost of living index and consequently the internal terms of trade have moved in favor of the rural sector in this period compared to 1968. In 1971 and 1972, on the other hand, the internal terms of trade have moved against the agricultural sector. These adverse movements in the internal terms of trade correspond to relatively good harvest years. Also, the fact that in 1972 floor prices set by the government for selected agricultural products was kept nearly constant, may partly be responsible for this adverse movement in the internal terms of trade. 1973 and 1974 can ve said to be relatively poor harvest years, and during these years, the internal terms of trade have moved in favor of agricultural sector (in great part as a result of the very high rates of increase introduced in agricultural support prices), preventing the rural purchasing power from falling. There appears to be an inverse relationship between the internal terms of trade and the real per capita agricultural income.

URI

https://hdl.handle.net/11511/110043

Collections

Department of Economics, Article