Žemės ūkio subsidijų ir socialinių pašalpų poveikis žemdirbių namų ūkių pajamoms Lietuvoje

LTStraipsnyje vertinamas žemės ūkio subsidijų ir socialinių pašalpų poveikis žemdirbių namų ūkių pajamoms, atskleidžiami šio poveikio skirtumai, priklausomai nuo naudojamos žemės ploto dydžio ir pajamų iš žemės ūkio veiklos reikšmingumo. Tyrimo aktualumą suponuoja tai, kad ankstesnių tyrimų išvados dėl žemės ūkio subsidijų poveikio žemdirbių pajamoms nėra vienareikšmiškos. Vieni tyrėjai nustatė, jog žemės ūkio subsidijos mažina ūkių ir namų ūkių pajamų skirtumus ar nelygybę, kiti nurodė atvirkštinį jų efektą. Be to, nustatyta, kad Lietuvoje žemdirbių namų ūkių biudžetams būdinga atvirkštinė sąsaja tarp žemės ūkio subsidijų ir socialinių pašalpų, o jų indėlis į pajamų nelygybę irgi yra atvirkštinis. Tyrimui naudotos namų ūkių biudžetų bei pajamų ir gyvenimo sąlygų tyrimų statistinio stebėjimo vienetų duomenų rinkmenos. Tyrimas aprėpia žemdirbių namų ūkius pagal jų siaurąją ir plačiąją sampratas. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Pajamos; Socialinės pašalpos; Tiesioginės išmokos; Žemdirbių namų ūkiai; Agricultural households; Direct payments; Income; Social benefit; Social benefits.

EN[...] The research shows that in Lithuania, as well as in other countries, there is a relatively large household income in equality between households in an agricultural community. One of the aims of agricultural policy (in both national and European levels) is to increase earnings of persons engaged in agriculture and to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community. However, as indicated by earlier re search, agricultural subsidies effects on income distribution of agricultural community are not unambiguous. In some cas es, researchers found that various types of agricultural poli cy transfers reduce the income gap between farms or reduce income inequality between agricultural households; while in other cases, the opposite effect of agricultural subsidies in redistributing income was found. The majority of research is focused on agricultural policy effects on farm income, and only a few studies consider the effects at agricultural households' level. One study has revealed that Lithuanian agricultural household budgets typically have an inverse link between agricultural subsidies and means-tested benefits. It has also determined that the contribution of these transfers to farmers' household income inequality is inversed. These findings shaped the aim of this study - to mea sure the impact of agricultural subsidies and social benefits on agricultural household income and to identify the differ ences of this impact depending on the size of household's exploited land and on "narrow" and "broader" coverage of agricultural household units. The analysis was performed using raw data of the Household Budget Survey (HBS) and the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC). The "broad" and "narrow" ways of defining agricultural house holds have been adopted.For that reason, the study in cludes farmers' households (where the "narrow" definition of agricultural household suffices) and households of other persons that are engaged in agricultural activity (where the "broad" definition applies). The two indices (Percentage transfer Estimate (%PTE) and Nominal transfer Coefficient (NTC)) and income decomposition analysis technique have been used to measure and to compare the effects of agri cultural subsidies and social benefit on income in various agricultural households groups. The research shows that the difference of household in come in litas per capita per month depends on the size of the cultivated land in both the "narrow" and the "broad" ag ricultural households' coverage. In other words, the bigger the cultivated land area, the higher the average household income. The same relationship applies to the distribution of agricultural subsidies. Social benefits are received only by households that cultivate a very small area of land. The analysis of the differences in household dispos able income in terms of "pre" and "post" public trans fers under CAP measures showed that in 2005, compared with 2004, the income gap between the first and fourth groups of households decreased in both agricultural households coverage: in the "narrow" coverage - from 5.4 to 4.6 times, and in the "broad" coverage - from 3 to 2.7 times. [...]. [From the publication]