SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2019 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 41

An Empirical Study on Alcohol Participation and Consumption Decision in Turkey

Türkiye’de Alkol Katılım ve Tüketim Kararları Üzerine Ampirik Bir Çalışma

Egemen İPEK
Pages
57–70
Publication Date
2019-07-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Furthermore, household income level has a positive effect on both alcohol participation and consumption decision.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, households’ alcohol participation and consumption decision structures and the effect of socioeconomic factors influencing on these decisions are analyzed by using Tobit and double-hurdle models with Household Budget Survey data in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study shows that alcohol participation and consumption decision are taken as independently from each other and sequentially based on the goodness of fit tests of the model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, household income level has a positive effect on both alcohol participation and consumption decision.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Alkol Tüketimi · Katılım Kararı · Hanehalkı

Abstract

In this study, households’ alcohol participation and consumption decision structures and the effect of socioeconomic factors influencing on these decisions are analyzed by using Tobit and double-hurdle models with Household Budget Survey data in Turkey. This study shows that alcohol participation and consumption decision are taken as independently from each other and sequentially based on the goodness of fit tests of the model. When the effects of household demographic variables on alcohol consumption decisions are examined, it is obtained that having a child has a negative effect on alcohol participation decision and consumption of cigarette has a positive effect on alcohol participation decision. Furthermore, household income level has a positive effect on both alcohol participation and consumption decision.

Özet

Bu çalışmada hanelerin alkol katılım ve tüketim karar yapıları ile bu kararları etkileyen sosyoekonomik faktörlerin kararlar üzerindeki etkileri Tobit ve çift eşik yöntemleri yardımıyla Hanehalkı Bütçe Anketi verileri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan model uyum iyiliği testleri sonucunda katılım ve tüketim kararlarının birbirinden bağımsız ve sıralı olarak alındığı görülmüştür. Hanehalkına ait demografik değişkenlerin alkol tüketim kararları üzerindeki etkilerine bakıldığında çocuk sahipliğinin katılım kararı üzerinde negatif, sigara tüketiminin ise alkolkatılım kararı üzerinde pozitif etkiye sahip olduğu tahmin edilmiştir. Ayrıca hanehalkı gelir seviyesi hem alkol katılım hem de tüketim kararları üzerinde pozitif etkiye sahiptir.

🔖

Cite This Article

İPEK, E. (2019). An Empirical Study on Alcohol Participation and Consumption Decision in Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 41, 57–70. https://ajindex.com/articles/139563

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Abdel‐Ghany, M. & J. L. Silver (1998), “Economic and Demographic Determinants of Canadian Households' Use of and Spending on Alcoholˮ Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 27(1), 62-90.
  2. Adrian, M., & F. S. Brian (1987), “Demand for Domestic and Imported Alcohol in Canadaˮ Applied Economics, 19(4), 531-540.
  3. Ahtola, Juha & A. Ekholm & A. Somervuori (1986), “Bayes Estimates for the Price and Income Elasticities of Alcoholic Beverages in Finland from 1955 to 1980ˮ, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 4(2), 199-208.
  4. Angulo, A. M. & J.M. Gil &A. Gracia (2001), “The Demand for Alcoholic Beverages in Spainˮ, Agricultural Economics, 26(1), 71-83.
  5. Aristei, D. & L. Pieroni (2008), “A Double-Hurdle Approach to Modelling Tobacco Consumption in Italyˮ, Applied Economics, 40(19), 2463-2476.
  6. Aristei, D. & P. Federico & L. Pieroni (2008), “Cohort, age and Time Effects in Alcohol Consumption by Italian Households: a Double-Hurdle Approachˮ, Empirical Economics, 35(1), 29-61.
  7. Aydın, K. (2011), “Türkiye'de Alkollü İçki Kültürü ve Hanehalkı Alkol Harcamalarıˮ, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(38), 335-347.
  8. Bhubaneswor, D. & H. Bigsby & R. Cullen (2008), “Determinants of Forestry Investment and Extent of Forestry Expansion by Smallholders in New Zealandˮ, Review of Applied Economics, 4(1-2), 65-76.
  9. Blaylock, J. & W. N. Blisard (1993), “Women and the Demand for Alcohol: Estimating Participation and Consumption”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 27(2), 319-334.
  10. Blundell, R. W. & C. Meghir (1987), “Bivariate Alternative to the Univariate Tobit Model”, Journal of Econometrics, 33, 59-80.
  11. Carroll, J. & S. McCarthy & C. Newman (2005), “An Econometric Analysis of Charitable Donations”, The Economic and Social Review, 36 (3), 229-249.
  12. Cragg, J. G. (1971), “Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Applications to the Demand for Durable Goods,” Econometrica, 39, 829-844.
  13. Duffy, M. (1983), “The Demand for Alcoholic Drink in the United Kingdom, 1963–78”, Applied Economics, 15(1), 125-140.
  14. Emeç, H. & E. Gülay (2008), “Alkol Tüketimi ve Sosyo-Demografik Değişkenlerin Alkol Tüketimi Üzerine Etkisi”, Ekonomik Yaklaşım Dergisi, 19(68), 115-134.
  15. Fry, V. & P. Pashardes (1994), “Abstention and Aggregation in Consumer Demand: Zero Tobacco Expenditures”, Oxford Economic Papers, 46(3), 502-518. Gao X.M. & E.J. Wailes & G.L. Cramer (1995), “Double Hurdle Model with Bivariate Normal Errors: an Application to US Rice Demand”, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Econo