As mentioned in previous chapters, products manufactured in the agricul-tural sector are directed to many different sectors of the economy. Their destiny can be varied, but the predominant role is of course food destiny. It is also main-ly responsible for three key directions of flows, flows to the agriculture, food industry and final consumption in farms. The flows addressed to agriculture, the food industry and consumers are responsible for nearly 80% of the total distribu-tion of the supply of the agricultural sector. In none of the analyzed countries, they were lower than 70% in 2014 (the smallest share in China – 73.79%).
Among the other groups of branches, the following groups of branches: “Cloth-ing, paper”, “Hotels” and “Fertilizers, chemicals” still remain a significant recip-ient of goods produced in agriculture. The importance of flows directed to other branches of the economy is definitely lower.
Chart 4.12. Branch structure of agricultural output allocation in Poland, Belgium, China and India in 2014
Source: own elaboration based on WIOD.
As in the case of material supply, there is a significant diversification of the distribution structure of supply between individual countries. To illustrate this statement, Chart 4.12 indicates the structure for agriculture in Poland and in three countries, each of which is characterized by a separate specificity. In the case of India, there is a high, over 50% share of flows from agriculture to final consumers. It is associated with a smaller share of flows directed to the Food Industry. On the other hand, China has a low share of flows to consumers, but a high share of the allocation of agriculture to non-food purposes, in particular to the group “Clothing, paper” (10.35%). On the other hand, in the case of Belgian agriculture, a significant difference in the structure of distribution of the supply of agriculture is the over 50% share of flows directed towards the food industry.
In comparison to the three countries mentioned above, Poland is characterized by a structure of distributing the supply closest to that observed on a global scale, nevertheless, here we have clear derogations. One of them is a high, near-ly 2% share of flows directed for consumption by government institutions. This means that on significantly larger scale than in other countries, agricultural products are transferred to aid programs.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
India China Belgium Poland
Agriculture Mining Food industry Clothing, paper
Energy resources Fertilizers, chemicals Metals, electrics Machines, cars
Energy, water Architecture Trade and car repair Wholesale
Detail Transport Hotels Finances
Services Veterinary Rent Other
Final Demand Gross fixed capital formation
Chart 4.13. Branch structure of agricultural output allocation on a global scale in 2014
Source: own elaboration based on WIOD.
The distribution of agriculture supply in global terms is presented in Chart 4.13. On average, in 2014, the most important, in terms of value, direction of agricultural flows was the food industry. Nearly 30% of the supply of agricul-ture was directed directly to consumption in households. Less than 13% consti-tuted self-supply of agriculture. Over 5% of the total distribution of the supply of agriculture went to the group of branches “Clothing, paper”, which includes production of clothing, paper or straw products. Over 2.5% of supply goes to gastronomy (“Hotels” group), and a similar share is directed to the group “Ferti-lizers, chemicals”. All of the above six directions for the allocation of supply, including gross fixed capital formation and the increase in tangible fixed assets, determine over 90% of the share of total flows from the agricultural sector. It was among these directions of allocation of the supply of agriculture that the relationship between the change in the share in the structure and measures of economic development was sought.
The first significant result of the research should be the lack of capturing the relationship between the share of flows related to the self-supply of this sec-tor in the distribution of agriculture supply and the analyzed measures of eco-nomic growth. The same applies to flows to groups of branches “Clothing,
pa-12,90% Nakáady brutto na Ğrodki trwaáe Przyrost rzeczowych Ğrodków trwaáych
per”, “Fertilizers, chemicals” and “Hotels”. Apparently, the influence of separate factors outside the analyzed ones is in these cases, significant enough that it does not allow to distinguish the impact of economic growth on the structure of the supply of the agriculture sector, on the basis of both static and panel analysis.
The dependence between the analyzed measures of economic develop-ment and the component of distribution of the supply of the agricultural sector was found for flows from agriculture to the food industry. As shown in Chart 4.14, there is a positive relation between the level of GDP per capita in a given country and the share of the supply flows of agriculture to the food industry. It seems quite clear both for the data for 2000 and 2014.
Chart 4.14. Relations between the share of flows from Agriculture to Food Industry in total agricultural output allocation [in % – y axis] and the value
of GDP per capita [in thousand USD % – x axis] in 2000 and 2014
Source: own elaboration based on WIOD.
To confirm the assumptions about the existence of such a dependence, an analysis was carried out using a panel model. Based on the model with the de-termined effects a model was constructed for which the ratio referring to the ex-planatory variable is statistically significant and positive, as shown in Table 4.11. This means that we are indeed dealing with a strong positive dependency, on the basis of which forecasts can be made to increase the share of flows ĺ Agriculture ĺ Food Industry in the allocation of agricultural supply, assuming GDP growth in a given country.
Table 4.11. Analysis results for relation between the share of flows from Agriculture to Food Industry in total agricultural output allocation
and the value of GDP per capita
Specification Test F (p-value)
Test B-P (p-value)
Test H (p-value)
Value of the coefficient of the explanatory variable in the panel model Relation with:
GDP per capita 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,005 ***
Source: own elaboration based on WIOD.
y=0,0079x+0,2747
On the basis of data for the years 2000 and 2014, it was also possible to identify the relationship that occurs between the share of flows to final consum-ers and the level of GDP in a given country. Despite the considerable divconsum-ersity of data for individual countries, there is a negative relationship between the ana-lyzed indicators. As can be seen in chart 4.15, this relationship is definitely stronger for the year 2014 data.
Chart 4.15. Relations between the share of flows to final consumers in total agricultural output allocation [in % – y axis] and the value of GDP per capita
[in thousand USD % – x axis] in 2000 and 2014
Source: own elaboration based on WIOD.
The negative relationship between economic growth and the share of flows directed to direct consumers was confirmed by panel analysis. Using the model with established effects, it was determined that the coefficient with varia-ble GDP per capita explaining changes in the share of flows from agriculture to consumers is negative, as shown in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12. Analysis results for relation between the share of flows to final consumers in total agricultural output allocation and the value of GDP per capita
Specification Test F (p-value)
Test B-P (p-value)
Test H (p-value)
Value of the coefficient of the explanatory variable in the panel model Relation with:
GDP per capita 0,000 0,000 0,004 -0,001 ***
Source: own elaboration based on WIOD.
In the case of the supply of agriculture, only two clear dependencies relat-ing to the change in the structure of flows transferred from agriculture were cap-tured, which are presented in table 4.13.
Table 4.13. The relationship between economic growth and the structure of agriculture output allocation
Used indicator The share of the total output allocation Relation with economic growth GDP per capita Flows to the food industry Positive
GDP per capita Flows to the final consumer Negative Source: own elaboration based on WIOD.
y=Ͳ0,0069x+0,4434
First of all, it was observed that with the growth of GDP per capita, the share of flows directed from the Food Industry increases, with the decrease in the share of flows to which final consumers are subject. One of the possible ex-planations for this process is the continuously observed increase in demand for processed food produced by Food Industry (Djupegot, Nenseth 2016).