What are the problems of marketing boards?

Download full-text PDFRead full-textMarketing boards (state-controlled or state-sanctioned entities legally granted control over the purchase or sale of agricultural commodities)

What are the problems of marketing boards?

Download full-text PDFRead full-textMarketing boards (state-controlled or state-sanctioned entities legally granted control over the purchase or sale of agricultural commodities) flourished in the 20th century in both developed and developing economies. Since the mid-1980s they have declined in number under pressure from domestic liberalization and from international trade rules that increasingly cover agriculture. Where reforms have been widespread and successful, marketing boards have vanished or retreated to providing public goods, such as strategic grain reserves or insurance against extraordinary price fluctuations. Where reforms have been less successful, the weaknesses of private agricultural marketing channels have been revealed by the rollback of marketing boards, often leading to calls for reinstatement of powerful marketing boards.Content uploaded by Christopher B. BarrettAuthor contentAll content in this area was uploaded by Christopher B. BarrettContent may be subject to copyright.                                                      1        Marketing Boards   Christopher B. Barrett and Emelly Mutambatsere Cornell University   Final version, June 2005    Entry in Lawrence E. Blume and Steven N. Durlauf, editors, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition (London: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming).                                                                                                                                                                                          2ID: M000078  Abstract Marketing boards (state-controlled or state-sanctioned entities legally granted control over the purchase or sale of agricultural commodities) flourished in the 20th century in both developed and developing economies. Since the mid-1980s they have declined in number under pressure from domestic liberalization and from international trade rules that increasingly cover agriculture.  Where reforms have been widespread and successful, marketing boards have vanished or retreated to providing public goods, such as strategic grain reserves or insurance against extraordinary price fluctuations.   Where reforms have been less successful, the weaknesses of private agricultural marketing channels have been revealed by the rollback of marketing boards, often leading to calls for reinstatement of powerful marketing boards.  Marketing boards Marketing boards are state-controlled or state-sanctioned entities legally granted control over the purchase or sale of agricultural commodities.  They can be divided into two broad categories.  Monopolistic marketing boards that create a single-commodity seller are found mainly in developed countries.  Monopsonistic marketing boards concentrating buyer-side market power in one institution were commonplace for many years in developing countries. Monopolistic marketing boards were typically established with the main objective of maintaining or raising and stabilizing farm prices and incomes in an administratively practical and politically acceptable manner. By contrast, monopsonistic marketing boards were typically established to give the state control over commodity prices  normally for the benefit of foreign and urban buyers  and capacity to tax agriculture so as to subsidize industrialization.   Marketing boards in developed countries  Marketing boards are state-sponsored trading enterprises legally invested with monopoly powers to organize the marketing of agricultural commodities.  These statutory entities                                                                                                                                                                                                  3typically operate under direct or indirect producer control.  Among the earliest boards were the New Zealand Meat Producers Board and the New Zealand Dairy Board, each established in 1922, the Australia Queensland Sugar Board of 1923, and the Australia Wheat Board, formed in 1939. In Australia, marketing boards used import protection and home consumption price schemes to stabilize producer prices.  They initially received financial support from the state, although such support later declined as the focus of the boards changed.  A number of state and commonwealth-level marketing boards were later established, with varying degrees of authority and responsibilities in the marketing of agricultural products such as wool, dairy, meat, wine and brandy, honey and horticultural products.  The marketing boards in New Zealand evolved in a similar manner, with regulatory authority in export marketing and licensing but no direct financial support from the state.  These boards, involved in the marketing of dairy, apple and pear, kiwi fruit, horticulture, meat and wool products, all used activities such as single-desk selling, price pooling, revenue pooling and preferential financing to seek higher producer prices.  The earliest major marketing schemes in Britain were the milk, potatoes and bacon marketing boards formed under the British Marketing Acts of 1931 and1933.  These acts enabled producers to set up marketing schemes that had the legislative power to ensure conformity by all producers.  The core purpose of the marketing boards was to maintain or raise producer prices of basic agricultural commodities through acreage restrictions, direct or indirect limits on saleable quantities, and price discrimination, with higher prices in sheltered markets and lower prices in exposed ones.  In addition, monopolies of processed products were legalized, leading to the organization of processor and distributor schemes.  The marketing boards thus held the monopoly power to control supply, the terms of sale, and the channels and conditions of sale (Bauer, 1948). By 1948 marketing boards had spread to include all major agricultural commodities.  In Canada, marketing boards were also formed in response to the price fluctuations of the Great Depression.  The Dominion Marketing Board, a federal agency established under the National Farm Products Act of 1934, exercised extensive market power over the sale of regulated products, transferable to provincial-level producer-organized boards.  The Agricultural Marketing Acts of 1940 and 1956 delineated the                                                                                                                                                                                                  4powers of regulation and market control activities for the established and new federal and provincial marketing boards.  The result was marketing boards with diverse market powers and scope of operations across provinces, and across boards within the same province.  Some marketing boards act only in a supervisory capacity, whereas others wield more extensive powers in market regulation and control.  Activities generally range from negotiating minimum prices, regulating quantity and quality of marketed products, collecting and distributing payments, as well as grading and quality control.  Several common features distinguish marketing boards in developed countries from those found in developing nations.  First, marketing boards in developed countries tend to be specialized in both scale and scope of operations.  For example, New Zealand currently runs strictly export monopolies, such as the Dairy Board, that have control over the countrys agricultural exports but negligible influence over domestic production, sales, imports or tariff rates.  Second, marketing boards in developed countries tend to subsidize farmers at the expense of consumers, as evidenced by their mandate to maintain high producer prices for farmers through limited supply.  One result is that marketing boards in developed countries have tended to generate windfall profits for the owners of farm land and other sector-specific assets in agriculture. Third, and following directly from their role in subsidizing farmers, state trading enterprises tend to encourage and support cartels at producer, processor and distributor levels.  Developed country agricultural marketing boards have been a major issue in international trade because historically they dominated certain markets.  For example, McCalla and Schmitz (1982) estimated that 95 per cent of world wheat trade in 19737 involved a state marketing board on at least one side of the transaction.  Because marketing boards enjoy greater flexibility than private traders in pricing  for example, they can commonly delay payments to producers, pool payments so as to reduce producer price risk, and can practise discriminatory pricing among export or import markets  their operations are closely scrutinized by the World Trade Organization for prospectively anti-competitive practices.   Marketing boards in developing countries                                                                                                                                                                                                   5Marketing boards in developing countries were typically begun during colonial times for purposes distinct from those of their counterpart marketing boards in developed economies.  And they have followed a somewhat different trajectory from those of marketing boards in developed countries.  European colonial powers formed marketing boards in large measure to facilitate the export of agricultural commodities to Europe and to stabilize prices faced by colonial elites (for food crops) and metropolitan buyers (for export crops).  Post-independence governments generally maintained marketing boards because these were considered simpler to manage and more efficient in conducting organized trade than the traditional, decentralized private sector.  More compellingly, marketing boards provided a convenient way for the governments to maintain control over the marketing of strategic commodities, such as the food staples and important export crops (Lele and Christiansen, 1989).  The marketing boards system was most prevalent in the anglophone African and South Asian countries, but widespread as well in francophone and lusophone African countries and in Asia and Latin America.  Marketing boards were both state-owned and state-funded, based on centralized decision making systems.  They possessed the sole legal authority to purchase commodities from farmers and to engage in trade.  Through the boards, governments typically fixed official producer prices for all controlled commodities, often in a pan-seasonal and pan-territorial manner whereby a single price was set for the whole marketing season and for all regions of the country.  Marketing boards provided a guaranteed market for the farmers, absorbing all marketed surplus at the official producer prices, and maintaining extensive buying networks and storage facilities throughout the production regions.  Pan-seasonal and pan-territorial pricing practices eliminated any opportunities for arbitrage, discouraging private investment in commodity storage or transport capacity, and reinforcing the governments control over the marketing channel.  Unlike marketing boards in developed countries, producer sales into the network were rarely rationed, because the marketing boards objective was normally to increase supply and lower prices for consumers, as opposed to controlling supply for the benefit of producers.                                                                                                                                                                                                    6Two features of the export crop marketing boards  as distinct from those handling staple food commodities  are worth noting.  First, the marketing boards held the sole legal rights in commodity export, and had a mandate to generate income for the state.  Therefore, storage costs were maintained at low levels through selling policies such as rapid evacuation and forward selling.  In addition, local producer prices were typically set at levels lower than the international free-on-board prices, through price fixing or overvalued exchange rates. Essentially, export crop marketing boards were used as a means to tax agriculture in order to develop the industrial sector in these agrarian economies.  The taxes were often quite severe.  In Tanzania, for example, local producer prices for coffee and tobacco fell to 23 per cent and 15 per cent of international prices, respectively, by the mid-1980s.  Second, because export crop marketing boards served foreign demand, no price controls existed on the selling end.  Marketing boards could trade on an open market for the highest possible selling prices.  However, because most of the former European colonies enjoyed preferential access to European markets under the Lomé Convention, most commodities were sold to Europe.  In addition, some export crops enjoyed commodity price stabilization through international commodity agreements such as the International Coffee Agreement or the International Rubber Agreement.  In those cases where a country enjoys world market power, a state marketing board can, at least in theory, increase prices and thereby extract consumer surplus from foreign buyers to benefit the exporting country, including its producers.  This is one of the concerns surrounding state trading enterprises within global trade policy fora.  Even though the export crop marketing boards were generally established first, in most developing countries staple food commodity marketing boards became at least as significant a part of the parastatal system.  For food commodities, government control extended to every stage of the market chain, to include farm gate, wholesale and retail price controls.  In-country commodity movement was restricted, especially the movement of strategic food commodities, and private trade was either illegal or legal only by licence.  To achieve food security objectives, food subsidies were generally offered, mostly implicitly, in the form of fixed consumer prices set at levels lower than the market price.  Although farm prices were generally set at a below-market level as well, the                                                                                                                                                                                                  7government often offered implicit subsidies to farmers, through price stabilization operations, and input and credit subsidies administered through the marketing boards (Lele and Christiansen, 1989).   Moreover, pan-territorial pricing typically implied subsidies for farmers in more remote smallholder regions.  In some countries and for some crops, these arrangements likely stimulated greater crop production than would have occurred under open market arrangements.   Grain marketing boards commonly also handled the strategic food reserves for emergency situations, and had the responsibility to import food in shortage seasons.   These parastatals therefore held most of their nations inter-seasonal and inter-annual grain storage capacity, a legacy that would affect inter-seasonal commodity price movements after the liberalization of commodity marketing systems in the 1980s and 1990s.   Although processing was not their core business, marketing boards, in some cases, were also involved in preliminary processing, such as milling rice or maize, or in licensing and monitoring the processing industry activities.   This underscores an important difference from developed country marketing boards: the breadth of commodity marketing boards mandate in most developing countries. Over time, the fiscal sustainability of marketing boards in developing countries became questionable.  The broad range of marketing operations handled by marketing boards and the politically charged manner in which these operations were typically handled led to massive inefficiencies and deficits that cash-strapped central governments had an increasingly difficult time covering.  The subsidies embedded in grains pricing systems, coupled with heavy overhead costs associated with high administrative, transportation and storage costs, soon created huge tax burdens.  In an attempt to ensure food security, the state would generally increase producer prices with less than proportional increases in consumer prices, taking on responsibility for a significant share of the marketing costs associated with moving food from farm to table.  The pan-territorial pricing system meant higher transportation and handling costs in moving commodities from some remote areas, and the management of large volumes of commodities in storage was costly.  In addition, the monitoring of private trade was not only costly but generally ineffective, especially for food commodities in shortage seasons, when parallel markets flourished to meet local demand.  In Mali, for example,                                                                                                                                                                                                  8even though private cereals trade was illegal before 1981, only 3040 per cent of total grain trade was actually handled by the state trading agency, OPAM (Dembélé and Staatz , 2002).  On the international market, marketing boards faced decreasing real commodity prices for export crops, further undermining their sustainability.  By the end of the 1970s budget deficits resulting from the management and mismanagement of parastatals had reached astronomical levels in most countries.  In Mali, OPAMs annual deficit reached US$80 million by 1980, three times the boards annual grain sales.  In Tanzania, the National Marketing Corporations overdrafts were about $250 million in 1993, against total state expenditures on agriculture of $12million.  The National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) of Kenya accumulated an estimated loss of about $300 million by 1993, in contrast with central government expenditure on agriculture of $33 million (Staaz et al., 2002; Lele and Christiansen, 1989). These patterns were by no means exclusive to Africa.  Indonesias price stabilization scheme for rice, managed by the National Logistics Supply Organization (BULOG), also proved a high price to pay for self-sufficiency, as did the Food Corporation of India.  In addition to budgetary complications, marketing boards also faced organizational challenges.  Their susceptibility to bureaucracy and corruption increased both the inefficiency in their operations and the transactions costs for farmers and consumers. For example, Arhin, Hesp and van der Laan (1985) argue that by the mid-1970s the Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board had become little more than an instrument of the government for the purpose of mobilizing political support for the incumbent government.  Mounting deficits, poor management and the perverse incentives created by anti-competitive behaviour brought marketing boards and price stabilization systems under attack, based in part on seminal research into the welfare effects of government interventions to stabilize commodity prices (Newbery and Stiglitz, 1981). These deficit problems, coupled with the new economic insights, triggered widespread agricultural market reforms in the 1980s and 1990s throughout the developing world, implemented mainly but not exclusively, in the context of structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.                                                                                                                                                                                                   9 Agricultural marketing reforms generally aimed to reduce the role of the public sector in marketing and to encourage private sector participation so as to let markets allocate scarce goods more efficiently. Marketing boards experienced major reforms under these programmes, comprising the elimination of price controls, termination of farm input and consumer food subsidies, removal of marketing boards monopsony power and deregulation of private trade.  In many cases, marketing boards were privatized or at least commercialized, the latter referring to cases where marketing boards remained government owned, but with autonomous decision-making power and an explicit objective to maximize profits. The logic was that, by removing political interference in the marketing process, market forces would lead to efficient resource allocation and price discovery.  Market deregulation was thus expected to improve marketing efficiency by reducing transactions costs, increasing producer prices, thus inducing increased production and potentially also lowering consumer prices.   The response of the market was immediate and quite dramatic in many cases. Entry into formerly controlled agricultural markets was massive in most countries, although with continued bottlenecks in functions requiring significant capital outlays, such as bulk inter-seasonal storage and long-haul motorized transport, entry was typically restricted to niches with low entry barriers (Barrett, 1997).  Nonetheless, formal and informal private traders became a significant part of the marketing channel, performing most of the trade activities that the marketing boards previously performed.  In spite of widespread liberalization, marketing operations for most strategic food and export crops changed little. Newly privatized or commercialized marketing boards were often replaced with new marketing boards that were initially intended to provide public goods, but eventually and predictably became involved in crop marketing.  In Zambia, for example, the government-owned Food Reserve Agency (FRA) that replaced the National Agricultural Marketing Board (NAMBOARD) in 1995, charged with maintaining the strategic grain reserve and acting as a buyer of last resort for smallholder farmers, in time took up prior NAMBOARD responsibilities such as fertilizer distribution.  Moreover, some of the commercialized marketing boards did not significantly change their pricing systems and continued to use the power of the state to remain dominant players in the current market system.  In Indonesia for example, even though the market was opened to                                                                                                                                                                                                  10private traders, BULOG remained a price leader by operating a major buffer stock, purchasing rice when rice prices fell below a stated floor price and releasing stocks when prices rose above a price ceiling.  Similarly, in the Kenyan maize sector the NCPB continued to intervene directly in markets to support maize prices; and in Malawi ADMARC remains the dominant maize buyer and distributor of inputs.  Zimbabwe went so far as to reinstate the monopsony power of the Grain Marketing Board and its pre-reform operations.  Not surprisingly, the budget deficit of these marketing boards actually increased after reforms.  These trends reflect governments reluctance to relinquish control over marketing board operations, particularly the setting of prices for key food and export crops, given political sensitivity to these issues.  As it turned out, such concerns were not completely unwarranted. In many developing countries the legacy of private underinvestment in storage and transport capacity, inadequate commercial trading skills in the nascent private sector, combined with limited access to finance, restricted entry into key niches of the marketing channel.  These market conditions facilitated the emergence of new monopolies, often substituting private for public market power.  Problems of weak contract enforcement, unreliable physical security and underdeveloped communications and transport infrastructure often impeded business expansion, market integration and price transmission. Despite increased private investment in transportation and storage infrastructure after reforms, the weaknesses of the existing systems implied considerable business risk.  Consequently, private traders did not fully or quickly fill the voids left by the withdrawal of the marketing boards from core commodity market intermediation functions.  Price volatility increased sharply in many countries.  Moreover, farmers access to seasonal credit dropped significantly as market liberalization ended formerly monopsonistic marketing boards willingness to extend seasonal credit to growers that were collateralized by future sales.  Reduced credit often led to fewer purchased inputs and lower crop output.  In an attempt to restore market stability and production volumes, states often suspended or reversed reforms, reinstating price controls and trade restrictions, thereby further exacerbating instability and undermining investor confidence.  The result has been incomplete reforms in most developing countries, where private sector involvement remains pervasive but small-scale and weak, while unprofitable                                                                                                                                                                                                  11commercialized marketing boards remain prominent and prone to government interference.  The current state of play  Far fewer marketing boards exist than previously. Because they reduce or eliminate competition, marketing boards are widely believed to induce inefficiency in marketing and sluggishness in price discovery.  Therefore, government involvement in agricultural marketing has been weakening in both developed and developing countries since the mid-1980s, a result of the adoption of more liberal domestic economic policies, coupled with global pressure to conform to international trade rules steadily expanding their coverage of agriculture.  The monopoly or monopsony powers of all but a few marketing boards have been lifted, and the marketing and processing activities of the boards have been streamlined. Where reforms have been widespread and successful, marketing boards have vanished or retreated to providing public goods, such as strategic grain reserves or insurance against extraordinary price fluctuations.   Where reforms have been halting or unsuccessful, the weaknesses of private agricultural marketing channels have been laid bare by the rollback of marketing boards.  Christopher B. Barrett and Emelly Mutambatsere  See also Agricultural Markets in Developing Countries; Agriculture and Economic Development; International Trade; Lomé Convention;  Bibliography Arhin, K., Hesp, P. and van der Laan, L., 1985. Marketing Boards in Tropical Africa. Nairobi: KIP Limited. Barrett, C.B. 1997. Food marketing liberalization and trader entry: evidence from Madagascar. World Development 25, 76377. Bauer, P.T. 1948. A review of the agricultural marketing schemes. Economica 15, 13250.                                                                                                                                                                                                   12Dembele, N. N and Staatz, J.M., 2002. The impact of market reform on agricultural transformation in Mali. In Perspectives on Agricultural Transformation: A view from Africa, ed. T. S. Jayne, I. J. Minde and G. Argwings-Kodhek. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc.    Lele, U. and Christiansen, R. E. 1989, Markets, Marketing Boards and Cooperatives in Africa, Issues in Adjustment Policy. MADIA Discussion Paper 11. Washington, DC: World Bank.  McCalla, A.F. and Schmitz, A. 1982. State trading in grain.  In State Trading in International Markets, ed. M.M. Kostecki. New York: St Martins Press.  Newbery, D.M. and Stiglitz, J .E. 1981, The Theory of Commodity Price Stabilization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.                                                                                                  Content uploaded by Christopher B. BarrettAuthor contentAll content in this area was uploaded by Christopher B. BarrettContent may be subject to copyright.... Pan-seasonal and pan-territorial pricing were introduced to guarantee a single price across seasons and regions, respectively. However, such a measure discouraged private investment in storage and transportation (Barrett and Mutambatsere 2008). Government intervention became more pronounced in post-independence Africa, as newly independent governments maintained marketing boards because they provided a means of controlling the marketing of strategic food and export cash crops, as well as subsidizing food prices for urban consumers and producers.  ...The theory and practice of agriculture, growth, and development in AfricaBook

  • Jan 2014
  • Ousmane Badiane
  • Tsitsi  MakombeView... They flourished in the 20th century both in developed and developing countries. Beginning in the mid-1980s, their numbers have fallen under the pressure of internal liberalization and internation- al trade rules that increasingly concern agriculture (Barrett & Mutambatsere, 2008). However, accord- ing to Canadian experience of the establishment and operation of non-governmental milk marketing boards, or "self-regulated, hybrid institutions run by producers but requiring government intervention ... that, historically, envision a wider function than sim- ply increasing the rent of producers" (Annie Royer, 2008), in the current situation, they can also help in- crease marketing performance of agricultural com- modity producers.  ...Organization and effectiveness of marketing management of agricultural commodity producers under non-cooperative marketing: The experience of UkraineArticleFull-text available
  • Oct 2018
  • Oksana Penkova
  • Andrii Kharenko
  • V. Lementovska
  • Iryna KyryliukUnder reducing domestic demand for food in Ukraine and increasing dependence on the world food market, a significant part of quasi-price rent from its sale is assigned by intermediary exporters, thus reducing the welfare of domestic commodity producers and consumers. To mitigate this negative effect, it is necessary to have a carefully designed marketing business strategy. The purpose of this article is to summarize the practice of using the main elements of the marketing complex, analyze the effective management of marketing activities of agricultural producers in Ukraine and determine the main directions for increasing its effectiveness by establishing marketing relations for the product supply. Given the large area of Ukraine and the complexity to obtain monographic data that are not subject to monitoring by the State Statistics Service, the study was conducted using agricultural enterprises of the typical agricultural district, namely Khrystynivka district of Cherkasy region (Ukraine) as an example. It is revealed that the use of marketing tools by agricultural enterprises is limited due to the specifics of commodity products and the managers focus on short-term business goals. The analysis of forming and realizing the marketing complex of the district enterprises using the monographic method has shown that enterprises systematically use only elements such as commodity policy and distribution policy, while relying exclusively on retrospective marketing data. Significant increase in the return on marketing costs in the short term can only be achieved if formal or informal associations of commodity producers are formed on a functional-territorial basis. This will create a scale effect and allow each member to reduce transaction costs and get an additional premium. It is proved that while conducting administrative-territorial reform in Ukraine, it is most appropriate to form such associations within the boundaries of the united territorial communities.ViewShow abstractBook Review of The Theory of Commodity Price Stabilization: A Study in the Economics of Risk.ArticleFull-text available
  • Mar 1983
Jack Dowie

Jack Dowie

David M. Newbery

David M. Newbery

  • Joseph E. StiglitzViewThe Theory of Commodity Price Stabilization: A Study in the Economics of RiskArticleFull-text available
  • Jan 1981
David M. Newbery

David M. Newbery

  • Joseph E. StiglitzViewTHE IMPACT OF MARKET REFORM ON AGRICULTURAL TRANSFORMATION IN MALIArticleFull-text available
  • Feb 1999
Niama Nango Dembélé

Niama Nango Dembélé

John Staatz

John StaatzThe purpose of this paper is to review the Malian experience with cereals market reforms over the past 18 years and evaluate its contribution to agricultural transformation in Mali. We especially emphasize the importance of the interaction between sectoral reforms, macroeconomic reforms, and technological change in influencing farmers' and traders' incentives to make the investments necessary for agricultural and food system transformation. The paper draws heavily on a large body of research carried out by Malian, North American and European researchers since 1985 (see, for example, Dioné forthcoming; Dembélé and Staatz forthcoming; Diarra et al. forthcoming) and on a recent evaluation of the PRMC in which the authors participated (Dembélé, Traoré, and Staatz 1999; Shields, Staatz, and Dembélé 1999; Egg, 1999).ViewShow abstractState Trading in GrainChapter

  • Jan 1982
Alex Mccalla

Alex Mccalla

Andrew Schmitz

Andrew SchmitzThis chapter explores the role state trading plays in the international grain trade. Principal attention is paid to trade in temperate zone grains, namely wheat and coarse grains.1 The only significantly traded grain excluded is rice.2 The volume of grain trade has grown steadily over the post-war years. During the same period the proportion of trade in which state traders are involved as exporters, importers or both has increased. For example, in the four-year period 19737, more than 95 per cent of world wheat trade involved a state trader as an exporter, importer or both. Thus it is useful to examine in more detail the role that state traders play.ViewShow abstract1989. Markets, Marketing Boards, and Cooperatives in Africa. Issues in Adjustment PolicyArticle

  • Jan 1992
  • Jean-Claude Dufour
Uma Lele

Uma Lele

  • Robert E. ChristiansenViewMarketing Boards in Tropical AfricaArticle
  • Jan 1986
  • Int J Afr Hist Stud
Robert Bates

Robert Bates

  • Kwame Arhin
Paul Hesp

Paul Hesp

  • Laurens Van Der LaanViewFood Marketing Liberalization and Trader Entry: Evidence from MadagascarArticle
  • Nov 1996
  • WORLD DEV
Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. BarrettFood marketing liberalization was expected to induce massive trader entry and competitive markets in Africa. Despite evidence of trader entry, enterprise expansion remains difficult and many claim market power persists, though perhaps in different hands. This paper confronts this puzzle of substantial market entry that might not foster competition. Data from Madagascar reveal distinct groups within rural food marketing channels, separated by intraindustry mobility barriers that limit entry to a few niches. Moreover, individuals' place within the rural marketing network is defined largely by a priori social identity, so the experience of food marketing liberalization varies across socially distinct subpopulations.ViewShow abstractA review of the agricultural marketing schemes

  • Jan 1948
  • 132-50
  • P T BauerBauer, P.T. 1948. A review of the agricultural marketing schemes. Economica 15, 132 50.Barrett and Emelly Mutambatsere See also Agricultural Markets in Developing Countries; Agriculture and Economic Development; International Trade
  • B ChristopherChristopher B. Barrett and Emelly Mutambatsere See also Agricultural Markets in Developing Countries; Agriculture and Economic Development; International Trade; Lomé Convention;

... Pan-seasonal and pan-territorial pricing were introduced to guarantee a single price across seasons and regions, respectively. However, such a measure discouraged private investment in storage and transportation (Barrett and Mutambatsere 2008). Government intervention became more pronounced in post-independence Africa, as newly independent governments maintained marketing boards because they provided a means of controlling the marketing of strategic food and export cash crops, as well as subsidizing food prices for urban consumers and producers.  ...The theory and practice of agriculture, growth, and development in AfricaBook

  • Jan 2014
  • Ousmane Badiane
  • Tsitsi  MakombeView... They flourished in the 20th century both in developed and developing countries. Beginning in the mid-1980s, their numbers have fallen under the pressure of internal liberalization and internation- al trade rules that increasingly concern agriculture (Barrett & Mutambatsere, 2008). However, accord- ing to Canadian experience of the establishment and operation of non-governmental milk marketing boards, or "self-regulated, hybrid institutions run by producers but requiring government intervention ... that, historically, envision a wider function than sim- ply increasing the rent of producers" (Annie Royer, 2008), in the current situation, they can also help in- crease marketing performance of agricultural com- modity producers.  ...Organization and effectiveness of marketing management of agricultural commodity producers under non-cooperative marketing: The experience of UkraineArticleFull-text available
  • Oct 2018
  • Oksana Penkova
  • Andrii Kharenko
  • V. Lementovska
  • Iryna KyryliukUnder reducing domestic demand for food in Ukraine and increasing dependence on the world food market, a significant part of quasi-price rent from its sale is assigned by intermediary exporters, thus reducing the welfare of domestic commodity producers and consumers. To mitigate this negative effect, it is necessary to have a carefully designed marketing business strategy. The purpose of this article is to summarize the practice of using the main elements of the marketing complex, analyze the effective management of marketing activities of agricultural producers in Ukraine and determine the main directions for increasing its effectiveness by establishing marketing relations for the product supply. Given the large area of Ukraine and the complexity to obtain monographic data that are not subject to monitoring by the State Statistics Service, the study was conducted using agricultural enterprises of the typical agricultural district, namely Khrystynivka district of Cherkasy region (Ukraine) as an example. It is revealed that the use of marketing tools by agricultural enterprises is limited due to the specifics of commodity products and the managers focus on short-term business goals. The analysis of forming and realizing the marketing complex of the district enterprises using the monographic method has shown that enterprises systematically use only elements such as commodity policy and distribution policy, while relying exclusively on retrospective marketing data. Significant increase in the return on marketing costs in the short term can only be achieved if formal or informal associations of commodity producers are formed on a functional-territorial basis. This will create a scale effect and allow each member to reduce transaction costs and get an additional premium. It is proved that while conducting administrative-territorial reform in Ukraine, it is most appropriate to form such associations within the boundaries of the united territorial communities.ViewShow abstract

Book Review of The Theory of Commodity Price Stabilization: A Study in the Economics of Risk.ArticleFull-text available

  • Mar 1983
Jack Dowie

Jack Dowie

David M. Newbery

David M. Newbery

  • Joseph E. StiglitzViewThe Theory of Commodity Price Stabilization: A Study in the Economics of RiskArticleFull-text available
  • Jan 1981
David M. Newbery

David M. Newbery

  • Joseph E. StiglitzViewTHE IMPACT OF MARKET REFORM ON AGRICULTURAL TRANSFORMATION IN MALIArticleFull-text available
  • Feb 1999
Niama Nango Dembélé

Niama Nango Dembélé

John Staatz

John StaatzThe purpose of this paper is to review the Malian experience with cereals market reforms over the past 18 years and evaluate its contribution to agricultural transformation in Mali. We especially emphasize the importance of the interaction between sectoral reforms, macroeconomic reforms, and technological change in influencing farmers' and traders' incentives to make the investments necessary for agricultural and food system transformation. The paper draws heavily on a large body of research carried out by Malian, North American and European researchers since 1985 (see, for example, Dioné forthcoming; Dembélé and Staatz forthcoming; Diarra et al. forthcoming) and on a recent evaluation of the PRMC in which the authors participated (Dembélé, Traoré, and Staatz 1999; Shields, Staatz, and Dembélé 1999; Egg, 1999).ViewShow abstractState Trading in GrainChapter

  • Jan 1982
Alex Mccalla

Alex Mccalla

Andrew Schmitz

Andrew SchmitzThis chapter explores the role state trading plays in the international grain trade. Principal attention is paid to trade in temperate zone grains, namely wheat and coarse grains.1 The only significantly traded grain excluded is rice.2 The volume of grain trade has grown steadily over the post-war years. During the same period the proportion of trade in which state traders are involved as exporters, importers or both has increased. For example, in the four-year period 19737, more than 95 per cent of world wheat trade involved a state trader as an exporter, importer or both. Thus it is useful to examine in more detail the role that state traders play.ViewShow abstract1989. Markets, Marketing Boards, and Cooperatives in Africa. Issues in Adjustment PolicyArticle

  • Jan 1992
  • Jean-Claude Dufour
Uma Lele

Uma Lele

  • Robert E. ChristiansenViewMarketing Boards in Tropical AfricaArticle
  • Jan 1986
  • Int J Afr Hist Stud
Robert Bates

Robert Bates

  • Kwame Arhin
Paul Hesp

Paul Hesp

  • Laurens Van Der LaanViewFood Marketing Liberalization and Trader Entry: Evidence from MadagascarArticle
  • Nov 1996
  • WORLD DEV
Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. BarrettFood marketing liberalization was expected to induce massive trader entry and competitive markets in Africa. Despite evidence of trader entry, enterprise expansion remains difficult and many claim market power persists, though perhaps in different hands. This paper confronts this puzzle of substantial market entry that might not foster competition. Data from Madagascar reveal distinct groups within rural food marketing channels, separated by intraindustry mobility barriers that limit entry to a few niches. Moreover, individuals' place within the rural marketing network is defined largely by a priori social identity, so the experience of food marketing liberalization varies across socially distinct subpopulations.ViewShow abstractA review of the agricultural marketing schemes

  • Jan 1948
  • 132-50
  • P T BauerBauer, P.T. 1948. A review of the agricultural marketing schemes. Economica 15, 132 50.Barrett and Emelly Mutambatsere See also Agricultural Markets in Developing Countries; Agriculture and Economic Development; International Trade
  • B ChristopherChristopher B. Barrett and Emelly Mutambatsere See also Agricultural Markets in Developing Countries; Agriculture and Economic Development; International Trade; Lomé Convention;

Project

Global Forest Biodiversity Initiative

Jingjing Liang

Jingjing Liang

Sergio de Miguel

Sergio de Miguel

Mo Zhou 周沫

Mo Zhou 周沫

  • [...]
Hua-Feng Wang

Hua-Feng WangThe Global Forest Biodiversity Initiative (GFB) is a multi-stakeholder research collaborative that seeks to provide a platform for data sharing, support services, and cutting-edge research. The GFB  was developed to better understand broad-scale patterns and processes associated with the planet's forty million square kilometers of forested ecosystems. The GFB seeks to consolidate field-based inventory data, including large-scale inventory data as well as records from long-term observational plots, from around the world in support of biodiversity, ecological, socio-economic, and policy-driven research in forest and resource management, and environmental political consulting (e.g. IPCC, ministries, political initiatives etc.). ... [more]View projectProject

Structural Transformation In African Agriculture

Bekele Shiferaw

Bekele Shiferaw

Mulubrhan Amare

Mulubrhan Amare

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. BarrettView projectProject

Akwapim Project

Robert Darko Osei

Robert Darko Osei

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

Felix Naschold

Felix NascholdView projectChapter

Marketing BoardsJanuary 2008

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

  • Emelly MutambatsereMarketing boards (state-controlled or state-sanctioned entities legally granted control over the purchase or sale of agricultural commodities) flourished in the 20th century. Since the mid-1980s they have declined in number under pressure from domestic liberalization and from international trade rules that increasingly cover agriculture. Where reforms have been widespread and successful, ... [Show full abstract] marketing boards have vanished or retreated to providing public goods, such as strategic grain reserves or insurance against extraordinary price fluctuations. Elsewhere, the weaknesses of private agricultural marketing channels have been revealed by the rollback of marketing boards, often leading to calls for reinstatement of powerful marketing boards.Read moreChapter

Agricultural Markets in Developing CountriesJanuary 2018

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

Emelly Mutambatsere

Emelly MutambatsereRead moreArticleFull-text available

Agricultural Markets in Developing CountriesJune 2008

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

Emelly Mutambatsere

Emelly MutambatsereThe history of agricultural markets in developing countries reflects attempts to establish the appropriate government responses to the inefficiencies created by incomplete institutional and physical infrastructure and imperfect competition. Government intervention in the 1960s and 1970s to resolve market failures gave way in the 1980s to market-oriented liberalization to "get prices right" and, ... [Show full abstract] more recently, to "get institutions right". But markets openness may accentuate the latent dualism of a modern, efficient marketing sector, accessible only to those with adequate scale and capital, alongside a traditional, inefficient marketing channel to which the poor are effectively restricted.View full-textArticle

Urban Bias in Price Risk: The Geography of Food Price Distributions in Low-Income EconomiesAugust 1996 · Journal of Development Studies

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. BarrettThe geography of agricultural marketing has important implications for the stochastic distribution of agricultural commodity prices. This article proposes that objective food price risk differs between rural and urban areas of infrastructure-poor economies characterised by spatially concentrated patterns of foodgrains storage. This difference implies an urban bias having adverse welfare effects ... [Show full abstract] for peasants who seasonally switch between net food seller and net food buyer positions. Empirical analysis of rice price data from Madagascar suggests that price variability and skewness indeed differ between rural and urban areas in ways that adversely influence the relative welfare of rural peasants.Read moreArticle

Incomplete Credit Markets and Commodity Marketing BehaviorMay 2008

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

Emma Stephens

Emma StephensWe develop a simple theoretical model of market participation over multiple seasons in the presence of liquidity constraints and transactions costs to explain the 'sell low, buy high' puzzle wherein certain households forego opportunities for intertemporal price arbitrage through storage and are observed to sell output post-harvest at prices lower than observed prices for purchases in the ... [Show full abstract] subsequent lean season. We test our model with data from western Kenya using maximum likelihood estimation of a multivariate sample selection model of market participation. Access to off-farm income and credit indeed seem to influence crop sales and purchase behaviors in a manner consistent with the hypothesized patterns.Read moreProject

Global Forest Biodiversity Initiative

Jingjing Liang

Jingjing Liang

Sergio de Miguel

Sergio de Miguel

Mo Zhou 周沫

Mo Zhou 周沫

  • [...]
Hua-Feng Wang

Hua-Feng WangThe Global Forest Biodiversity Initiative (GFB) is a multi-stakeholder research collaborative that seeks to provide a platform for data sharing, support services, and cutting-edge research. The GFB  was developed to better understand broad-scale patterns and processes associated with the planet's forty million square kilometers of forested ecosystems. The GFB seeks to consolidate field-based inventory data, including large-scale inventory data as well as records from long-term observational plots, from around the world in support of biodiversity, ecological, socio-economic, and policy-driven research in forest and resource management, and environmental political consulting (e.g. IPCC, ministries, political initiatives etc.). ... [more]View projectProject

Structural Transformation In African Agriculture

Bekele Shiferaw

Bekele Shiferaw

Mulubrhan Amare

Mulubrhan Amare

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. BarrettView projectProject

Akwapim Project

Robert Darko Osei

Robert Darko Osei

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

Felix Naschold

Felix NascholdView projectChapter

Marketing BoardsJanuary 2008

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

  • Emelly MutambatsereMarketing boards (state-controlled or state-sanctioned entities legally granted control over the purchase or sale of agricultural commodities) flourished in the 20th century. Since the mid-1980s they have declined in number under pressure from domestic liberalization and from international trade rules that increasingly cover agriculture. Where reforms have been widespread and successful, ... [Show full abstract] marketing boards have vanished or retreated to providing public goods, such as strategic grain reserves or insurance against extraordinary price fluctuations. Elsewhere, the weaknesses of private agricultural marketing channels have been revealed by the rollback of marketing boards, often leading to calls for reinstatement of powerful marketing boards.Read more

Chapter

Agricultural Markets in Developing CountriesJanuary 2018

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

Emelly Mutambatsere

Emelly MutambatsereRead moreArticleFull-text available

Agricultural Markets in Developing CountriesJune 2008

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

Emelly Mutambatsere

Emelly MutambatsereThe history of agricultural markets in developing countries reflects attempts to establish the appropriate government responses to the inefficiencies created by incomplete institutional and physical infrastructure and imperfect competition. Government intervention in the 1960s and 1970s to resolve market failures gave way in the 1980s to market-oriented liberalization to "get prices right" and, ... [Show full abstract] more recently, to "get institutions right". But markets openness may accentuate the latent dualism of a modern, efficient marketing sector, accessible only to those with adequate scale and capital, alongside a traditional, inefficient marketing channel to which the poor are effectively restricted.View full-textArticle

Urban Bias in Price Risk: The Geography of Food Price Distributions in Low-Income EconomiesAugust 1996 · Journal of Development Studies

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. BarrettThe geography of agricultural marketing has important implications for the stochastic distribution of agricultural commodity prices. This article proposes that objective food price risk differs between rural and urban areas of infrastructure-poor economies characterised by spatially concentrated patterns of foodgrains storage. This difference implies an urban bias having adverse welfare effects ... [Show full abstract] for peasants who seasonally switch between net food seller and net food buyer positions. Empirical analysis of rice price data from Madagascar suggests that price variability and skewness indeed differ between rural and urban areas in ways that adversely influence the relative welfare of rural peasants.Read moreArticle

Incomplete Credit Markets and Commodity Marketing BehaviorMay 2008

Christopher B. Barrett

Christopher B. Barrett

Emma Stephens

Emma StephensWe develop a simple theoretical model of market participation over multiple seasons in the presence of liquidity constraints and transactions costs to explain the 'sell low, buy high' puzzle wherein certain households forego opportunities for intertemporal price arbitrage through storage and are observed to sell output post-harvest at prices lower than observed prices for purchases in the ... [Show full abstract] subsequent lean season. We test our model with data from western Kenya using maximum likelihood estimation of a multivariate sample selection model of market participation. Access to off-farm income and credit indeed seem to influence crop sales and purchase behaviors in a manner consistent with the hypothesized patterns.Read more

RG Logo

ResearchGate iOS AppGet it from the App Store now.InstallKeep up with your stats and moreAccess scientific knowledge from anywhere

Video liên quan