Impacts of Land Ownership on the Economic Performance and Viability of Rice Farming in Thailand

Abstract

This article evaluates the impacts of land ownership on the economic performance and viability of rice farming in Thailand, and explores whether they are heterogeneous across different types of farming while using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique. This study categorizes land ownership into two types: full land ownership and weak land ownership. We reveal that full land ownership enhances the rice yield of small and midsize farms, with values of 115.789–127.414 kg/hectare and 51.926–70.707 kg/hectare, respectively. On the other hand, weak land ownership only enhances the rice yield of small farms, with an increased yield of 65.590–72.574 kg/hectare. Full land ownership also helps to reduce the informal debt of small and midsize farms by $16.972–$24.877 per farm and $31.393–$37.819 per farm, respectively. On the other hand, weak land ownership helps to reduce the informal debt of midsize farms, ranging from $36.909 to $44.681 per farm. Therefore, policy makers should encourage small and midsize farm households to adopt full land ownership instead of weak land ownership, as this will provide the greatest benefits to farm households and efficient land use.

Factors influencing participation in collective marketing through organic rice farmer groups in northeast Thailand

“…As rice cultivation area increased by one ha, the percentage of collective marketing increased by 7.6% points on average. This may be because larger farms can harvest more, thereby increasing marketable surplus ( Mukundi et al., 2013 ; Pochanasomboon et al., 2020 ; Vu et al., 2020 ; Kumse et al., 2021 ). Limitation in landholding typically impedes economic performance of a farm due to limited marketable surplus and insufficient ability to meet the standards of agricultural businesses ( Khanal and Maharjan, 2013 ; Pochanasomboon et al., 2020 ; Vu et al., 2020 ).…”

“…(2015) , Panpluem et al. (2019) X 6 Rice cultivation area Hectare (ha) + Pochanasomboon et al. (2020) , Vu et al.…”

“…(2019) , Yanakittkul and Aungvaravong (2020) X 12 Amount of agricultural loan balance Million THB – Petcho et al. (2019) , Pochanasomboon et al. (2020) , Yanakittkul and Aungvaravong (2020) X 13 Group membership duration Years + Ullah et al.…”

Enhancing Farmer’s Well Being Through the Agriculture Land Provisions in West Nusa Tenggara

“…It is only around 1 ha, whilst in other cases in the Global North could reach 4-5 ha. In India, for instance, many farmers only have an average 0.8 ha land area, this situation applies for both crop and livestock farming (Pochanasomboon et al, 2020). In Thailand, despite the average of land owned by farmer, measured by the proportion of farming land per farmer household by the FAO, the average can reach 4 ha, but the actual facts have shown that many farmers are actually possessing only less than 1 ha (Susilowati & Maulana, 2012).…”

Kebutuhan Lahan Pertanian Minimum untuk Kesejahteraan Petani di Pulau Sumatera

“…Di India, banyak petani hanya memiliki rata-rata luas lahan 0,8 ha, situasi ini berlaku untuk tanaman dan peternakan [7]. Di Thailand, meski rata-rata lahan yang dimiliki petani, diukur dari proporsi lahan pertanian per rumah tangga petani menurut FAO, rata-rata bisa mencapai 4 ha, namun faktanya menunjukkan bahwa banyak petani sebenarnya hanya memiliki kurang dari 1 ha [8]. Lebih buruk lagi di Indonesia, rata-rata kepemilikan petani kurang dari 0,5 ha, terdiri dari sekitar 16% petani dengan kurang dari 0,1 ha dan 40% petani dengan kepemilikan lahan antara 0,1-0,5 menurut sensus pertanian tahun 2013 [9].…”