Proceeding of 2013 International Seminar on Climate Change and Food Security ISCCFS 2013
Palembang, South Sumatra -Indonesia, 24-25 October,2013
101 Sumatera 1.46 tonsha. The total family income are Rp 61.45 millions per year, the highest contribution
62.21 from rubber income Rp38.22 millions per year or Rp 3.19 millions per month. The rubber farm househod allocate the family income for their need almost equally, that is food
consumption 33.89, non food consumption 33.81 and for investment or saving 32.30. This finding is supported by
the Engels Law
, where the part of income used for food spending tends to decline when income increases. In other words, the higher income households will spend a smaller part of their
income for food consumption [7]. The household working time behavior is affected by rubber farm area, non-rubber farm area, rubber
farm income and off farm income. The rubber and non rubber production are influenced by the number of family working time and rubber production cost. The farm household consumption behaviors are affected by
total income and the number of family member. This result indicates that the farm household economic behavior will influence each other through their endogenous variables
non-recursive behavior
. Therefore every decision in their productive activities has to consider other activities, in term of making income to
fulfill their family‘s need and increase their welfare. The Estimation of economic behavior model of rubber farm household in this area is presented in Appendix A.
4. Conclusion
Based on the study, there are some sources of family income rubber farm, non rubber farm and off farm. The highest portion of working time for rubber farm, therefore it gives the highest contribution to total
income around 62. Mostly,
the family
income are higher than their
expenditure
, so they
can fulfill
their
family
needs or expenditure for food, non food consumptions and investment in almost equal share
.
Estimation of simultaneous equation has proved that the behavior of family labor supply working time on productive activities, production and consumptionexpenditure are interact each other, so that one decision
will influence the others. The rubber farm household in this area have made accurate decision, where they do not rely merely on rubber farm income due to the unpredicted rubber price and low bargaining position in
determining the product price. In order to develop their rubber farm as a competitive commodity, any government intervention policy should consider the rubber farm household as a complex economic
behavior like the result of this study.
5. Acknowledgements
The writer is indebted to the staff of Department of Agribusiness for their support, and would not be possible without financial support from the President of Sriwijaya University, South Sumatra, Indonesia.
Thank you very much for all their supports.
6. References
[1] Anggraini, R. 2011. Analysis of Rubber Farm Household Economic Behavior Prabumulih. Thesis . Post Graduate Program, Sriwijaya University, Palembang. not published
[2] Becker, G.S. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. [3] Agriculture Agency of South Sumatera Province. 2011. Rubber Smallholder Area and Production Data.
Palembang. [4] Husin, L. 2007. Performance of Oil palm Nucleus Estate Smallholder in South Sumatera: Analysis of Partnership
and Farm Household Economic. Dissertation. Post Graduate School, Bogor Agriculture University. Bogor not published.
[5] Husin,L and D.,Wulansari. 2012. Economic Behavior of Rubber Farm Household in Prabumulih in Allocation of Labor, Production and Consumption. The research funded by Program Indonesia Managing Higher Education For
Relevance and Efficiency I-MHERE, in 2011 budget year. Sriwijaya University, Palembang. [6] Koutsoyiannis, A. 1977. Theory of Econometrics. Second Edition. The Macmillan Press Ltd. London.
[7] Nakajima, C. 1986. Subjective Equilibrium Theory of The Farm Household. Elsevier Science Publisher. Amsterdam.
[8] Nicholson, W. 2000. Intermediate Microeconomics and Application. Erlangga Press. Jakarta.
Proceeding of 2013 International Seminar on Climate Change and Food Security ISCCFS 2013
Palembang, South Sumatra -Indonesia, 24-25 October,2013
102
APPENDIX A A 1. Equation Estimation of Working Time on Rubber Farm
Variable Coefficients
t-test Probability
Elastisity Men
Intercept Man Labor for Non Rubber
Man Labor for Off-Farm Total Income
Rubber Farm Area 1,565
-0.610 -0,500
-0,000003 112,497
7,107 -2,232
-2,186 -0,542
1,381 0,0001
0,0286 0,0320
0,5896 0,1715
- 0.193
-0.097 0.089
0.237 F-test = 5,170
R
2
= 0,22
Women Intercept
Woman Labor for Non Rubber Woman Labor for Off-farm
Total Income Rubber Farm Area
The number of Small Children 1.249,932
-0,274 -0,6
-0,000006 156,3510
-88,975 9,847
-1,333 -4,462
-1,397 2,605
-1,324 0,0001
0,187 0,0001
0,167 0,0111
0,186 -
-0,08 -0,14
-0,20 0,38
-0,00 F-test = 8,786
R² = 0.372
A 2. Equation Estimation of Working Time on Non Rubber Farm
Variable Coefficients
t-test Probability
Elastisity Men
Intercept Man Labor for Rubber
Man Labor for Non Rubber Non Rubber Income
Rubber Farm Area Non Rubber Farm Area
286,185 0,063
-0,311 -0,00001
-22,540 205,385
1,371 0,485
-2,967 -3,273
-1,383 5,052
0,175 0,629
0,004 0,002
0,171
0,0001 -
0,198 -0,191
-0,278 -0,151
0,763 F-test =24,044
R² = 0,619
Women Intercept
Woman Labor for Rubber Woman Labor for Off-farm
Non Rubber Income Rubber Farm Area
Non Rubber Farm Area The
number of
small children
1.211,06 -0,739
-0,438 -0,00002
33,045 232,289
-42,161 1,817
-1,348 -1,965
-1,996 0,602
2,423 -0,358
0,073 0,182
0,053 0,050
0,549 0,018
0,721 -
-2,466 -0,615
-0,630 0,269
1,053 -0,015
F-test = 2,020 R² = 0.142
A 3. Equation Estimation of Working Time on Off- Farm
Variable Coefficients
t-test Probability
Elastisity Men
Intercept Man Labor for Rubber
Man Labor for non rubber Off Farm Income
Farm Area 701,473
-0,095 -0,65
0,00001 -31,26
1,709 -0,341
-2,693 2,119
-0,820 0,096
0,734 0,009
0,037 0,415
- -0,49
-1,06 0,26
-0,34 F-test = 7,005
R² = 0.27
Women Intercept
Woman Labor for Rubber Woman labor for non rubber
Off farm Income Rubber Farm Area
The number of small children 1.959,78
-1,40 -0,60
0,000015 109,09
-15,02 2,354
-2,054 -1,386
1,418 1,685
-0,100 0,021
0,044 0,17
0,16 0,10
0,92 -7.261
-1.452 8.792
0.384 0.442
F-test= 11,32 R² = 0. 43
Proceeding of 2013 International Seminar on Climate Change and Food Security ISCCFS 2013
Palembang, South Sumatra -Indonesia, 24-25 October,2013
103 A 4. Equation Estimation of Production of Rubber and Non Rubber Farm
Type of Farm
Variable Coefficients
t-test Probability
Elastisity Rubber
Intercept Family Labor for Rubber
Cost for Rubber Rubber Farm Area
Family labor for non rubber Non rubber income
558,125 -0,257
0,00001 1.858
-0,23 0,035
1,806 -1,148
1,284 18,605
-0,837 0,496
0,28 0,25
0,20 0,00
0,40 0,62
- -0,12
0,046 0,99
-0,03 0,01
F-test =329,92 R2 = 0.95
Non Rubber
Intercept Family labor for non rubber
Cost for non Rubber Non Rubber Farm Area
Rubber production 93,12
-0,14 0,00003
1059,50 -0,020
0,63 -0,80
1,50 15,99
-1,19 0,53
0,43 0,14
0,00 0,24
- -0,07
0,06 1,02
-0,06 F-test =316,08
R² = 0,94
A 5. Equation Estimation of Productivity of Rubber Farm
Variable Coefficients
t-test Probability
Elastisity Intercept
Rubber Production Rubber Farm Area
Family Labor for Rubber Family Labor for Rubber
1.857,23 0,42
-803,010 0,03
-0,06 23,438
8,649 -8,384
0,938 -2,023
0,0001 0,0001
0,0001 0,3511
0,0467 -
1,23 -1,25
0,05 -0,02
F-test =26,059 R² = 0.58
A 6. Equation Estimation of Expendiutre for Consumption and Saving
Variable Coefficients
t-test Probability
Elastisity for Food
Intercept Family Income
Non food consumption Family Labor for Rubber
Number of family member 7575748
0,09 0,10
238,57 1153181
2,700 2,915
1,040 0,228
3,335 0,01
0,03 0,30
0,82 0,00
- 0,25
0,10 0,03
0,25 F-test =15,904
R² = 0,46
for Non Food
Intercept Family Income
Food Consumption Family Member
Cost for Rubber Cost for Non Rubber
Family Saving 397186
0,7699 -0,6082
-503963 0,1134
0,4703 -0,8378
0,109 6,772
-1,505 -0,894
2,249 2,655
-4,504 0,91
0,00 0,14
0,37 0,03
0,01 0,00
- 2,07
-0,06 -0,11
0,11 0,01
-0,26 F-test = 51,29
R² = 0,81
Saving Intercept
Family Income Food Consumption
Family Member Rubber area
Non Rubber Area 6257799
0,51 -0,78
-974369 786550
-1801990 1,231
6,821 -1,537
-1,143 0,927
-2,650 0,22
0,00 0,13
0,26 0,36
0,01 -
2,09 -1,18
-0,32 0,17
-0,21 F-test = 31,52
R² = 0,68
Proceeding of 2013 International Seminar on Climate Change and Food Security ISCCFS 2013
Palembang, South Sumatra -Indonesia, 24-25 October,2013
104
The Comparative Analysis of Production and Consumption Behavior of Rice Farmer Households Based on Land Typology
and Capital Resources
Andy Mulyana
1+
, Yunita
1
, Riswani
1
, and Maryati Mustofa Hakim
1
1
Program Study of Agribusiness Faculty of Agriculture, Sriwijaya University
Abstract.
The purpose of this research was to analyze differences in rice production and consumption behavior of rice farmers households with different capital sources on irrigated land and rainfed areas in South
Sumatra province. A total of 80 respondents selected randomly. Data collected and processed with descriptive statistics and described in tabulation. The results showed that the average of irrigated rice
production is higher than the rainfed rice production. The average production of rice farmers with its own capital is higher than farmers with loans and shared equity capital. The consumption of rice farmers
household in irrigated rice with their own capital is lower than households with loans and shared equity capital. Similarly, when compared with the average consumption of rice farmers household with their own
capital in rainfed land. Rice farmers household‘s food expenditure in rainfed land is higher than farmers household in irrigated land.
Keywords:
irrigated land, rainfed land, rice production, rice consumption behavior
1. Background
