عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
This study aimed to investigate the economic and social effects of consumption subsidy using quantitative approach in the population of rural people in Zanjan County of Iran. For this purpose, it used a cluster sampling method and the sample size of 270 was calculated using the Cochran formula. The research tool was a questionnaire, the validity of which was assessed using a panel of experts, and its reliability was evaluated in a pilot study. The results of factor analysis showed that the significant dimensions contributing to economic effects of the targeted subsidies with respect to their importance included growing the incomes and the purchasing power, developing agricultural activities, and rising costs. The results regarding the social effects of the targeted subsidies showed that five dimensions with priority of psychological and social sense of security had significant and constructive contribution. Based on the results, it was suggested that consumption subsidy payments needed to be targeted toward vulnerable households. Likewise, in order to guide the consumption and establish its true culture, holding the training courses in person or through media was suggested.
1. Babaee, M.A. and Hashemi, D.F. (2013). Criminalogical consequences of targeted subsidies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 4(1): 27-50. (Persian)
2. Azkia, M. and Hosseini Roudbaraki, S. (2014). The rural people's life experience of receiving cash subsidies and its consequences (phenomenological study: Ahangar Mahalleh village and Garanabad of Gorgan city). Rural Development, 2: 167-192. (Persian)
3. Maghsoudi, N. and Tohidy Ardahaei, F. (2012). Targeting subsidies considering the applied models in Iran. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7): 162-166.
4. Ansari, V., Salami, H. and Veeman, T. (2014). Distributional consequences of subsidy removal from agricultural and food industry sectors in Iran: a price-based SAM analysis. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 16(1): 1-19.
5. Statistical Center of Iran (2017). Available at: https://www.amar.org.ir (Retrieved at: 25 December 2017). (Persian)
6. Momeni, F. (2010). Economic policy, social justice and agriculture. Social Welfare, 10(38): 329-366. (Persian)
7. Naghavi, S.M.A. and Babaee, A. (2013). Evaluation of rural economic development policies from the regional perspective with an eye toward government policies in Iran. Rural Researches, 4(3): 451-479. (Persian)
8. Jalalian, H., Hashemi, S. and Yaghoubi, J. (2013). Short-term effects of the targeting subsidies on the agricultural situation of rural people in Neyriz (Case study: Subdistrict of Abade Tashk). Regional Planning, 3(10): 45-59. (Persian)
9. Farahani, H., Asdaqy, S.Z. and Toolabinejad, M. (2013). Analyzing the effects of targeted subsidies on the economic empowerment of rural households: Jaydar subdistrict in Poldokhtar County. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Space and Rural Development, 3: 23-38. (Persian)
10. Sadeghi, H., Taghdisi, A. and Kavoosi, E. (2014). The effects of targeted subsidies in rural social welfare improvement (Case study: Dehdez Ize County). Urban Regional Studies and Research, 21: 127-148. (Persian)
11. Zirak, M. (2013). Analysis of the situation of the subsidies payment in Iran with emphasis on the government policy in line with reform of subsidies payment system. Fiscal and Economic Policy Quarterly, 1: 97-120. (Persian)
12. Attanasio, O. and Mesnard, A. (2006). The impact of a conditional cash transfer programme on consumption in Colombia. Fiscal Studies, 27(4): 421-442.
13. Sahraee, M., Maleki, T. and Zarafshani, K. (2014). An analysis of the effect of targeted subsidies law on rural families in Dorood Faraman subdistrict of Kermanshah County. Journal of Rural Economy Research, 1(2): 11-27. (Persian)
14. Simanjuntak, M., Puspitawati, H. and Djamaludin, M. (2010). Charactristics of demographic, social, and economic of cash conditional transfer (PKH) recipients. Journal of llm. Kel. & Kons, 3(2): 101-113.
15. Spicka, J., Boudny, J. and Janotova, B. (2009). The role of subsidies in managing the operating risk of agricultural enterprises. Agricultural Economics–Czech, 50(4): 169-179.
16. Pieraee, Kh. and Seif, S.B. (2010). The impact of targeted subsidies on social welfare in Iran. Tax Bulletin, 18(9): 61-82. (Persian)
17. Shahnazi, R., Shahsavar, M.R. and Mobasheri, M.H. (2014). Distribution of income and household welfare situation before and after the subsidy. Social Welfare, 14(54): 167-199. (Persian)
18. Abdollahi, M., Mohammadi Nasrabadi, F., Hushyarrad, A., Hajifaraji, M. and Esfarjani, F. (2011). Iranian families' shares of energy and nutrient intakes from food items of subsidy in socio-economic groups. Food Science and Food Industry of Iran, 1: 43-56. (Persian)
19. Toolabinejad, M., Farahani, H. and Pirayesh, R. (2015). To evaluate the role of cash subsidies in economic and social welfare of rural households (Case study: Jaydar subdistrict of Poldokhtar County). Geographical Space, 15(50): 19-37. (Persian)
20. Mirlotfi, M.R. and Alavizadeh, S.A.A. (2015). The effect of targeted subsidy polices on household food pattern. Development Strategy, 42: 118-137. (Persian)
21. Qasemi, Gh., Abdolahi, S. and Khakshour, A.H. (2014). Analyzing the effects of the first phase of targeted subsidies on rural households (Case study: Binaloud County). Research and Rural Planning, 3(6): 117-120. (Persian)
22. Tatarko, A. and Schmidt, P. (2012). Social capital and attitudes towards money. Basic Research Program Working Papers, Series: Sociology, WP BRP 07/SOC/2012: 1-22.
23. Ziaee, M. (2002). The distribution of subsidies and the urbanization of Iran (1971-1991). Geographic Studies, 42: 65-74. (Persian)
24. Neuman, W.L. (2009). Understanding research. USA: Pearson Education Inc.
25. Lohr, L.S. (2010). Sampling: design and analysis (Second Edition). USA: Brooks/cole, Cengage Learning.
26. Gangadharappa, H., Pramod, K. and Shiva, K. (2007). Gastric floating drug delivery systems: a review. Indian J. Pharm. Ed. Res., 41: 295-305.