EFFETS DES FACTEURS DE PRODUCTION ET EFFETS RÉGIONAUX SUR LE REVENU AGRICOLE
Authors: Wampach Jean‐Pierre 
Published: November 2008

Plusieurs explications du has niveau des revenus agricoles par tête mettent sur le même plan des variables appartenant à des corps théoriques distincts et dont I'effct s'exerce dans des temps opératoires différents. Le concept d'une function agrégée de production à niveau variable selon les régions permet de synthétiser un certain nombre de variables affectant la productivité du travail agricole et donc la partie du revenu agricole qui est d'origine agricole. Les mouvements le long de la fonction agrégée de production expliquent les différences inter‐régionales de productivité imputables aux facteurs de production et aux économies d'échelle tandis que les déplacements de la fonction mesurent les effets régionaux des conditions naturelles et/ou du développement urbain et industriel. Appliquée aux agricultures du Québec et de I'Ontario, I'analyse économétrique dégage le rôle croissant des effets régionaux par rapport à celui des facteurs de production tandis qu'une analyse graphique illustre la relation entre scolarité et revenu.

RESOURCE AND AREA EFFECTS ON AGRICULTURAL INCOME:

This paper is an attempt to measure, describe and analyze interregional differences in value productivity of labor in Quebec and Ontario agricultures, in 1951 and 1961. Measurement reveals important and persistent differences in the average value productivity of labor between regions. The list of economic and non‐economic variables which influence labor productivity and thus agricultural per capita income is a growing one and it Is not always stressed to what theoretical body they belong and within what period of time they operate. In his paper some of the economic variables which have a bearing on agricultural per capita income at a given point of time at the regional level have been synthetized through the concept of an aggregate production function whose level is allowed to shift from region to region. It is then possible to analyze the regional differences in labor productivity in terms of capital and intermediate inputs associated with labor on farms, of scale economies and regional effects. This approach pertains only to the agricultural source of the per capita income of farmers, it does neither explain their decisions with respect to the capital and intermediate inputs used nor the nature of the regional effects; it calls for a second stage of explanation where the adjustment of agriculture to economic growth would enter the picture. Results of fitting Cobb‐Douglas functions to county averages per farm observations show that capital and intermediate inputs and scale economies explain most of the regional differences in labour productivity in 1951; in 1961 scale economies and regional effects are more important than capital and intermediate inputs. Regions at the periphery of the group of regions between Quebec and Ottawa are shifting away from the aggregate production function for the two provinces. This movement means that in 1961 comparative (dis)advantages have become more pronounced than in 1951. At the level of personal characteristics of farmers, a graphical analysis shows a relationship between average value productivity of labor at the regional level and the proportion of farmers in each region having more than elementary schooling. Implications for the income and poverty problems are that the capital/labor ratio, the intermediate inputs/labor ratio, scale economies and location are important determinants of agricultural per capita income.