عدم تقارن انتقال قیمت در بازارهای گوشت مرغ ایران

محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی

سید مجتبی مجاوریان ¹ , مسعود تقی پور کندسر ² , حمید امیرنژاد ³

1 - گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی- دانشکده مهندسی زراعی- دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری- ساری- ایران
2 - گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی- دانشکده مهندسی زراعی- دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساریٰ- ساری- ایران
3 - گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده مهندسی زراعی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری، ساری، ایران

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/01/08 تاریخ پذیرش : 1402/05/24 تاریخ انتشار : 1402/05/01

کلید واژه: داده‌های ترکیبی, گوشت مرغ, پیوستگی بازار, رگرسیون آستانه ای, بازار فضایی,

چکیده مقاله :

مقدمه: اعتبار الگوی TAR در متغیر سری­زمانی دارای روند، بعلت وجود تورم دائمی در سطح عمومی قیمت­ها با یک آستانه ثابت، خدشه دار می­شود، اغلب مطالعات در ایران به این موضوع توجهی ندارند، هدف تحقیق بررسی انتقال قیمت بین بازارهای فضایی با دو نوآوری است؛ نخست، استفاده از حد آستانه متغیر (اما برون­زا)، دوم، استفاده از داده­های ترکیبی است که امکان آشکار سازی ناهمگنی الگوهای انتقال قیمت بین بازارهای مختلف را نشان می­دهد.
مواد و روشها: داده­ها شامل قیمت ماهانه خرده­فروشی مرغ در تهران، اصفهان، مازندران و گلستان طی سالهای 1382 تا 1397 می­باشد. برای نشان دادن رابطه بین قیمتها در بازارهای مختلف از مدل خود رگرسیونی آستانه­ایی استفاده شد. در این الگو آستانه ثابت نبوده و تابعی از هزینه حمل در هر دوره می­باشد.
یافته ها: نتایج نشان داد انتقال قیمت گوشت مرغ بین چهار بازار نامتقارن و در حالتی که اختلاف قیمت بیش از هزینه حمل است باشد  انتقال قیمت به سرعت اتفاق افتاده  و ناپایدار است. در حالت دیگر هنگامیکه اختلاف قیمت کمتر از هزینه حمل باشد  انتقال قیمت پایدار است  آزمون هاسمن نشان داد که انتقال قیمت دارای جزء تصادفی اما بر پارامترها موثر نیست و تغییر رژیم مبتنی بر هزینه حمل می­باشد.
نتیجه­ گیری: سیاستهای دولت در بازار گوشت مرغ باعث انتقال کندتر قیمت بین آنها شده است. همچنین با استفاده از الگوهای آستانه ایی که نقطه آستانه ثابت نباشد به تبیین بهتر بازار کمک می می کند

چکیده انگلیسی:

Introduction: The validity of the TAR model with a fixed threshold in a time series variable wich has a trend, is misleading due to the existence of permanent inflation in the general level of prices. Most studies in Iran do not pay attention to this issue. in this paper we apply two innovations; First, the use of a variable (but exogenous) threshold point, second, the use of pannel data that shows the possibility of revealing the heterogeneity of price transfer patterns between different markets.
Materials and methods: The data includes the monthly retail price of chicken in Tehran, Isfahan, Mazandaran and Golestan during the years 2003 to 2018. A threshold autoregression model was used to show the relationship between prices in different markets. In this model, the threshold is not fixed and is a function of the transportation cost in each period and each two markets.
Findings: The results showed that the price transmission of chicken meat between the four markets is asymmetric and in the case where the price gap is more than the cost of transportation, the price transmission is fast and unstable. In another case, when the price difference is less than the transportation cost, the price transmission is stable. Hausman test showed that the price transmission has a random component, but it does not affect the parameters and the regime change is based on the transportation cost.
Conclusion: Government policies in the chicken meat market have caused a slower price transfer between them. It also helps to explain the market better by using threshold patterns that do not have a fixed threshold point.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Moghaddasi R, Fazeli F. Study on price transmission in market of horticultural products (Case study of date & pistachio). In: Sixth Conference on Agricultural Economics [Internet]. Mashhad.iran; 2007. Available from: https://civilica.com/doc/46862/


2. Brown Brown SP a, Yücel MK. Gasoline and Crude Oil Prices : Why the Asymmetry ? Econ Financ Rev. 2000;23–9. https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/efr/2000/efr0003b.pdf


3. Ganji A. Investigating price transfer and analyzing the efficiency of the crop market in Kurdistan province [Internet]. Kordestan University; 2015. Available from: https://research.uok.ac.ir/_Pages/Research.aspx?ID=40083


4. Rahimi R, Moghaddasi R. A study on price transmission in milk market. J Financ Econ. 2013;7(22):9–26. [DOI: 10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2019.03.052]


5. Hosseini S, Nikoukar A, Dourandish A. Price Transmission Model for Iranian Egg Market. Iran J Agric Econ [Internet]. 2010;4(3):135–52. Available from: https://profdoc.um.ac.ir/articles/a/1021181.pdf (In Persian)


6. Brorsen B, Chavas J, Grant W, Schanke L. Marketing margins and price uncertainty: The Case of the U.S. Wheat Market. Am J Agric Econmics. 1985;67(3):521–8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1241071.


7. Frigon M, Maurice D, Romain R. Asymmetry in Farm-Retail Price Transmission in the Northeastern Fluid Milk Market. 1999. [DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.25220]


8. Hossini s, Ghahraman M. Asymmetric adjustment in the market price and the meat of Iran. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development. 2003; 14: 22-1. [DOI: 10.30490/AEAD.2006.58961].


9. Nikoukar A, Hosseini P, Dourandish A. Price Transmission Model for Iranian Beef Industry. . Journal of Economics and Agricultural Development. 2010; 24: 23-32. (In Persian)


10. Meyer J, Cramon Taubadel S. Asymmetric Price Transmission: A Survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2005; 55: 581-611. [DOI:10.1111/j.1477 9552.2004.tb00116.x]


11. Karbasi A, Akbarzadeh J. Estimation of export supply and demand function for Iran saffron by simultaneous equations system. EQTESAD-E KESHAVARZI VA TOWSE'E. 2008; 16: 33-52. [DOI: 10.30490/AEAD.2008.58869].


12. Mahmoudi H, Afrasiabi S. Analysis the price transmission on saffron market case study: Razavi, North and South Khorasan Provinces. Journal of Saffron Agronomy and Technology. 2015; 2: 164-155. (In Persian) [DOI:10.22048/jsat.2014.7273].


13. Ghahremanzadeh M, Yavari F, Dashti G. Vertical price transmission and non-linear price adjustments in the beef market of East Azarbaijan province. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2015; (46): 13-20. (In Persian) [DOI:10.22059/IJAEDR.2015.54475]


14. Ghadimikohestani M, Nikoukar A, Dourandish A. Threshold Price transmission model in chicken market. Journal of Economics and Agricultural Development. 2010; 24: 392-384.(In Persian) [DOI: 10.22067/JEAD2.V1389I3.7736].


15. Farajzadeh, Z., and A. Esmaeli. "Analyzing price transmission in pistachio world market." (2010): 69-98. (In Persian) Available at: https://sid.ir/paper/24127/en


16. Ghahremanzade M, Falsafi A. Price volatility spillover effects in beef market of tehrn province. Jurnal of Econimics and Agriculture development. 2012; 26: 31-40. (In Persian). [DOI:10.22067/JEAD2.V1391I1.1410]


17. Baily D, Brorsen B. Price Asymmetry in Spatial Fed Cattle Markets. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1989; 14: 256- 252.


18. Nikoukar A. A survay of IRAN'S pistachio market intergration, an application of threshold spatial price transmission models. Iranian journal of Agricultural Economics. 2015; 9: 1-29. https://www.iranianjae.ir/article_14420.html?lang=en


19. Moradi E, Afsharmanesh M. Inputs Price Shock of Corn Production and its Impact on Corn Prices: Panel Vector Auto Regression Approach.2017; (31): 170-178. [DOI: 10.22067/JEAD2.V31I2.59164] 20. Bor O, Smihan M, Bayaner A. Asymmetry in farm-retail price transmission in the Turkish fluid milk market. New Medit. 2014;13(2).


20. Rajendran S. Price Transmission Process in Vertical Markets: an Empirical Analysis of Onion Markets in Tamil Nadu State. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2015; 4: 9-22. [DOI: 10.14207/ejsd.2015.v4n1p9]


21. Baghestani A, Rahimi R. Determination of the Price Transmission Mechanism in Shrimp Market of Iran (Application of Bivariate GARCH Mode). Journal of Economic Modeling. 2019; 45: 137-157. [DOI 10.22067/JEAD2.V30I1.48798]


22. Rezitis A, Tsionas M. Modeling asymmetric price transmission in the European food market. Economic Modeling. 2019; 76: 216-230. [DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.08.004]


23. Santeramo F. Price Transmission in the European Tomatoes and Cauliflowers Sectors. Agribusiness. 2015; 31: 399-413. [DOI: 10.1002/agr.21421]


24. Jeder H, Naimi A, Oueslati A. Transmission between retail and producer prices for main vegetable crops in Tunisia. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economic. 2017; 5: 19-28. [DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.266477]


25. Mohammadrezazade Nazanin, Daneshvar Kakhki Mahmoud, Shahnoushi Naser, Durandish Arash, Nikoukar Afsaneh. A Spatial Price Transmission of Saffron in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research. 2013; 5: 187-205. (In Persian)


26. Schulte H, Musshoff O. Market Structure of the Feed Industry in Germany: Causing Asymmetric Spatial Price Transmission? Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization. 2018; 17:1542-0485. [DOI: 10.1515/jafio-2018-0007]


27. Liu X. Horizontal price transmission of the Finnish meat sector with major EU Players, Paper prepared for presentation at the EAAE 2011 Congress Change and Uncertainty, August 30 to September 2, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. [DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.100215]


28. Dong X, Waldron S, Zhang S. Price Transmission in Regional Beef Markets: Australia, China and Southeast Asia. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture. 2018; 30: 99-06. [DOI 10.9755/ejfa.2018.v30.i2.1601]


29. Polanco J, Lorente L. Price transmission and market integration: Vertical and horizontal price linkages for gilthead seabream (Sparusaurata) in the Spanish market. Aquaculture. 2019; 506: 470-474.


30. Asche F, Jaffry S, Hartmann J. Price transmission and market integration: vertical and horizontal price linkages for salmon. Journal of Applied Economics. 20007; 39: 2535-2545. [DOI.10.1080/00036840500486524]


31. Iransla. Country Livestock Affairs Support Company - Official website of the Country Livestock Affairs Support Company, Jihad Agriculture of Iran. 2019. Available at: https://iranslal.com/


32. Houck J. An approach to specifying and estimating non-reversible function. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1977; 9: 570-572. [DOI: 10.2307/1239663]


33. Enders W, Granger C. Unit Root Tests and Asymmetric Adjustment with an Example Using the Term Structure of Interest Rates. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 1998; 16: 304–311.


34. Engle R, Granger C. Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrical. 1987; 55: 251–276.


35. Dwyer G, Wallace M. Cointegration and market efficiency. Journal of International Money and Finance. 1992; 11: 318–327. [DOI:10.1016/0261-5606(92)90027-U]


36. Alexander C, Wyeth J. Cointegration and market integration: An application to the Indonesian rice market. Journal of Development Studies. 1994; 30: 303-334. [DOI:10.1080/00220389408422317]


37. Johansen S. Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of economic dynamics and control. 1988; 12: 231-254. [DOI: 10.1016/0165-1889(88)90041-3]


38. Hansen B. Threshold Effects in Non-Dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing and Inference. Journal of Econometrics. 1999; 93: 345-368. [DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00025]