Farmer organization, collective action and market access in Meso-America:

By J. Hellin, M. Lundy, M. Meijer. 2009

476 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Farmer organization and collective action are often seen as key factors in enhancing farmers' access to markets. Often, too little attention is directed at (a) the most appropriate types of organization; (b) whether organization makes less or more sense in the case of producers of an undifferentiated commodity or a higher value product; (c) whether the public or private sector is best placed to support farmer organizations; and (d) the conditions necessary for ensuring their economic viability. Research in Mexico and Central America explored these issues for commodity maize and high value vegetables, respectively. The benefits of farmer organization are more evident in the vegetable sector, characterized by high transaction costs associated with market access. However, horticultural farmer organizations in Honduras and El Salvador include less than 5% of total horticultural producers. This is possibly due to farmer organizations' limited business skills and non-replicable organizational models. There is less incentive for maize farmers to organize to access output markets as the transaction costs are relatively low. The benefits of maize farmer organization are clearer when it comes to accessing inputs such as credit, seed and fertilizer. Farmer organization is a critical factor in making markets work for the poor, but the role and timing of public and private investment in these organizations is poorly understood.

Subfields: Business and International Management, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f849724fe4565a857f8a0306d6ce46d7e7f2f3f8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Business and International Management

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Heterogeneous impact of cooperative membership on farmers’ welfare in Rwanda (2015, background): “In general, participation in agricultural cooperatives is found to be closely linked to human and social capital (Hellin et al., 2009).”
Smallholder Farmers and Collective Action: What Determines the Intensity of Participation? (2014, background): “There is, however, a need to better understand under what conditions and in what form collective action is useful and viable (Hellin et al. 2008, Markelova et al. 2010).”
Agricultural Cooperatives and Investment in Organic Soil Amendments and Chemical Fertilizer in China (2018, background): “…highlighted the positive and significant impacts of cooperative membership on outcomes such as farm income and profits, producer prices and output market participation (e.g., Hellin et al. 2009; Ito et al. 2012; Vandeplas et al. 2013; Chagwiza et al. 2016; Mojo et al. 2017; Wossen et al. 2017).”
Improving market access and agricultural productivity growth in Africa: what role for producer organizations and collective action institutions? (2011, background): “The producer organization should limit the range of services that it directly provides to their members and improve the quality, competitiveness and scope of private companies’ services to members (Hellin et al. 2009).”
Functions and limitations of farmer cooperatives as innovation intermediaries: Findings from China (2014, background): “Farmer cooperatives (FC) are a more formalized way of organizing collective action of farmers (Hellin et al., 2009), and exist at village, regional, national and even international level (Bijman and Ton, 2008).”
Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from a panel data analysis of smallholder dairy farmers in Bihar, India (2018, background): “…competitive prices for both inputs and outputs, reduce transaction costs, improve information symmetry, and improve agrofood safety and quality standards (Trebbin, 2014; Jia et al., 2012; Moustier et al., 2010; Hellin et al., 2009; Markelova et al., 2009; Valentinov, 2007; Holloway et al., 2000).”
Agricultural Extension, Collective Action and Innovation Systems: Lessons on Network Brokering from Peru and Mexico (2012, methodology): “The subsidy declines from 70% of the cost in the first year to 20% in the fourth year (Hellin et al., 2009).”
Farmers' Producer Companies in India: A New Concept for Collective Action? (2012, background): “However, as Hellin et al (2009) emphasize, there is still a need to clarify: (1) the most appropriate type of farmer organization; (2) the type of cropöundifferentiated or high-value cropöfor which organization makes more or less sense; (3) whether the public or the private sector is best-placed to…”
The impact of agricultural cooperatives membership on the wellbeing of smallholder farmers: empirical evidence from eastern Ethiopia (2017, background): “In addition to this, cooperatives can also reduce transaction costs and information asymmetry by strengthening farmers’ negotiation ability (Hellin et al. 2009; Trebbin 2014).”